Slashdot Mirror
USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt
crem_d_genes writes "A bill to modify the USA PATRIOT Act that would have blocked part of the legislation's provisions that allow for the investigation of people's reading habits was defeated by a 210-210 vote in the U.S House of Representives. The House leaders kept the roll call open for 23 minutes past the 15 minute deadline to persuade 10 Representatives to change votes. According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'"
but I don't see anyone moving to block them. Seriously, how will this stop terrorists? You can go to walmart.com and get a computer that is quite capable of decent encryption for $200, and maybe an extra $150 or so tops for a monitor. Internet access $20 a month. You can also get a ton of books(in pdf) off of limewire/kazaa/whatever. The terrorists of 9/11 were well financed, I'm sure the billionaire Bin Laden could afford a few thousand worth of computer equipment. All this provision does is help the FBI spy on average people, not terrorists.
*begin rant
Also, what is this BS of people breaking house rules just because they want their law passed. The abuse of procedure here pales in comparison to what happened in the medicare bill. Why do we even have congress anymore? With the rise of political parties(which Washington warned against in his farewell speech), pretty much all the votes are predictable. With a few notable exceptions most congressmen are sheep, toeing the party line..... Maybe if we had some more original thought in congress, stuff like this wouldn't happen end rant
...but somehow I don't *feel* any safer...
How ironic it is that a law which allows the government to keep track of reading habits (let alone our surfing habits), is called a Patriot Act. Not long ago, countries such as Communist Russia were considered un-American because they practiced such invasion of privacy. Now the right wing, who fought so vigorously in the past against such "Communist" practices are their strongest defenders in this country today.
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
- Benjamin Franklin
I'm just curious if these Senators realise how useless this is. We don't need to give our Gov't free reign over everything. They can't control the most mediocre of things, much less access to everyone's personal info.
Example would be CIA agents using gov't credit cards to rack up billions of dollars of debt.
Yea, we need to give them more power to intrude into our lives.
It's silly.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
Well hopefully this thing doesn't pass the Senate. Those who voted for this didn't really look at the potential benefits to this versus the actual infringement on civil freedoms.
But then again, these are Representatives, Lower house for a reason =)
I honestly don't care if the government checks on my reading habits. Who cares? Yes, I read alot of computer books and go to libraries, I don't think they're going to stop me from getting onto a plain because of this. It reminds me of when people were complaining that G-mail was dangerous, because everythings is archived and the government could subpeona(sp?) it. Once again, who cares? I honestly don't believe I'm important enough and/or interesting enough to have anybody read my e-mail. Besides, if your plotting to destroy some building somewhere, why don't you download a good ol' fashioned version of PGP and protect yourself (or if you just really paranoid). So now everybody take off your tinfoil hat and take a deep breath. Your not interesting enough to worry about the government reading your e-mail. If you are doing something that requires you to hide it from the government, your breaking the law, and deserve to be caught.
I cannot say that I feel very comfortable about some of the broad-based stuff that the patriot act allows governmental agencies, but this country does have a history of curtailing civil rights during a wartime footing.
The question still remains, is this really helping? and are we hurting more people than helping?
being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'"
Who wants to get a subpoena or search warrant? That requires talking to a judge and getting him to sign a piece of paper.
Who wants a papertrail when they steal you away in the night to an undisclosed location? Let's just call it a 'Cuban Beachfront Resort'.
What is music when you despise all sound?
who determins what is considered "suspicious"?
"that guy kind of looks middle eastern, he must be doing something wrong! let's arrest him!"
The problem with the PATRIOT act is that it directly urinates on the fourth amendment.
Perhaps you should read it... Basically, anyone doing anything "criminal" can be treated as a "terrorist" -- sounds innocuous until you realize that speeding on the highway on your way to work is considered to be "criminal."
According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.'
When will they understand that computers are simply tools? Would they be up in arms if they found out that terrorists use public transport to meet each other? Would there be draconian restrictions on who can board the subway?
Reminds me of the episode of the simpsons where lisa buys al gore's book, and al gore is immediately alerted by the secret service or FBI or something...then he "celebrates"...good stuff...
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
how has the patriot act directly affected you?
Oh come on. How has any piece of legislation "directly affected" you? Sure, no one's come to my door to arrest me citing the Patriot Act, but then again, they sure could if they wanted to go through my library records and think I'm a national security threat.
It's not about whether the Patriot Act has "directly affected" you, it's about the gradual erosion of your civil liberties this Act affords.
And do you think there would be big front page stories if there were cases of abuse of the Act? Of course not. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't going on.
The US government is like a bloated system. They've done too many 'make && make install'. Except Congress don't do dependency checking, so you have the overloaded Judicial system to resolve dependencies. And we are in serious need of an updated kernel. I think it's time to reformat and move to Canada . . .
What a disappointment. I'm pretty sure terrorists talk over cellphones too. Hell I'm sure they talk person to person, are we going to ban that too? I'm not sure who voted what but since Bush threatened to veto a lot of Republicans must have voted no, not all though, the conservative Republicans were also trying to fix this law, mostly because they feel Bush is too moderate and an idiot on top of it. So find out what your representatives voted and if they are up for relection, vote against them if they voted no, that is to say if you care about your privacy, and civil liberties.
But it sets legal precedent and erodes your right to privacy. Maybe this particular administration, in this particular case, is not going to do anything unethical with the power. But who's to say it won't be abused in the future? The problem with legislation like this is that it is a slippery slope to accepting the government's ability to monitor your activities any time, any where, for any reason.
it looks like exactly 210 members of the House of Representatives need immediate replacement. ...no matter which side of the debate you're on...
-JDF
Please check out "The Little Engine that Could" from your local library. It will have the infidels guessing as to what we are up to, when we could be up to what we already know how to do.
Legislation like this part of the the PATRIOT Act is a waste of paper. Why would a terrorist now check out "Bomb Building For Dummies" from a US library after knowing his reading habits could be watched? Instead, they can browse material inside the library--taking notes & photocopying particularly relevant bits. Or they could buy said books from a bookstore, paying cash. Or they could read it on the net. Or they could just rely on other terrorist communication and training channels.
It effectively wastes the time and effort of librarians and law enforcement officials who have to search for these idiots. It also strips away privacy from all of us. I hope that if your representative voted to keep this sucker, you will write letters & protest with your vote!
-Alex
I suppose this is just an indication of things to come. From my strongly euro-centric point of view the United States of America is about to become either a dictatorship or a police state... that is unless the American people wake up and smell the corruption and blatant abuse of power by their elected(?) leaders.
:)
Best of luck to you. You're going to need it.
And no, at the moment the European Union is just as bad, if not worse. We're doomed
There is no such thing as a 15 minute "deadline" for a roll call vote. 15 minutes were simply initially scheduled for the vote to take place, and extending such a scheduled period for an additional 23 minutes is permitted by the floor rules of the House.
The thing is, that you don't have to be a "paranoid governmental conspiricy theorist" to now get spied upon or worse.
I went to Washington D.C. on some business, and I had shipped my suitcase via UPS to my hotel beforehand. Since I was only traveling with my laptop, a camera, and a single change of clothing in my backpack, I was searched and double searched for over an hour.
After taking one or two pictures of monuments and such, I went to a cafe where I spoke to someone who had been "picked up" by men in black suits off the street after taking pictures of some buildings he thought looked cool. It turns out one of them was a secret government facility of some sort. The FBI raided his apartment, and took EVERYTHING photo related, held him for 48 hours in jail before deciding he was harmless. When letting him go, they warned him to "be careful" because they "can do this anytime they want"
Just exactly how committed can a representative be if he can be persuaded to change his mind in 23 minutes? Was he informed about the issue at all, or has he been asleep for the last three years?
I bet they had pictures of most of the switchers in 'comprimising' situations, curtoesy of the unofficial Committee to Reelect.
May the Maths Be with you!
Wrong, there have been numerous articles detailing abuses and mis-use of the Patriot Act by government and law enforcement agencies.
For example, www.infowars.com is constantly details such abuses
Why doesn't the government just censor all books and media that could be used to aid in terrorist activities? I mean for security let's sacrifice mathematics and the sciences. Let's not forget the history section.
how is it going to help? that should be the question to ask.
go read some eastern europe history(of past ww2 era). do you want that?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Oh come on!
That's just fucked.
I'm leaving this fucking planet for one not composed entirely of arseholes.
As usual, the blurb at the top is biased, in this case by stating the government provided mere "assertions" (the details of which are conveniently left out, preventing the reader from making an independent judgment) while the opponents of the Act are "arguing" their case - the former implying a lack of concrete evidence, while the latter assumes a factual basis for what is merely an opinion.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
No, but it makes my mouth water.
I think the phrase "You've got to be kidding me..." has run through my brain more times in the last 4 years than any other time I can remember. From dumbass Atkins, MPAA, RIAA, decency on television gestapo FCC tactics, and this McCarthy in reverse Patriot Act....the list just keeps on. How can anyone say so what if they know what I'm reading? I don't do anything illegal. What about when they decide that you are now going to be investigated beause of all of the technical txts that you read, now that the administration, sheep that we call Congress (take your pick) etc.. have decided to enact into law your powerful rig and amount of knowledge make you a weapon and therefore a potential terrorist.
The problem here is, who decides what merits investigation?
You say "don't do suspicious things," but who's to say what is and is not suspicious? Maybe some guy on the street is a suspect for reading some potentially subversive book (or maybe just one that's offensive to some conservative fringe represented in Congress). Maybe my friend is a suspect for being a Muslim and speaking out against the war. Maybe I'm a suspect for growing a beard instead of conforming to the clean-shaven All-American male image.
Anything is suspicious when cast in the right light. Even posting on Slashdot.
This really, really sucks. This is not constitutional, and should not be a law. The politicians are very much out of touch.
I don't see why this is not on CNN? Our political system is fucked up, when half of the house of reps vote to violate our "God given" rights.
I'm ashamed.
...the citizenry has more weaponry than most countries armed forces.
That isn't to say that things aren't getting ugly: The US today is more polarized than in any time since the Civil War.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
You've got to be kidding me. Just because you haven't heard of any abuse of the PATRIOT act hardly means that it hasn't happened.
Also, in order to see what the repercusions of a law are, you have to think it through to the extremes. It is easily possible to abuse this rule. When I was younger, I was interested in all sorts of things. Like the Anarchist's Cookbook and others that contained recipes for bombs and other lethal items. Now, I am a good person who doesn't blow people up. But I wouldn't want to be hauled into jail without a trial and without even a search warrant because I had something that Ashcroft doesn't like. And since I was a minor at the time, my parents would have had to face all sorts of legal repercusions as well.
I mean is it really that hard to get a warrant? A phone call to a judge and they can do whatever they want legally. That is part of the checks and balances that this country is founded on. No part of the government can be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. At least that is how I was lead to understand it in civics class.
I don't want to be spied on and I don't do suspicios things. I do attend the local library. That hardly makes me a terrorist, but apparently it is enough to flag the PATRIOT boys into thinking that I am more worthy of attention than my illiterate friends.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
:wq!
"Giving the government police powers is the first step on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. There are many cases throughout history where governments have used police powers to institute and maintain totalitarian rule - this is a very realistic danger. The government thus should not have any police powers." There is a reason why the slippery slope argument is classified as a logical fallacy.
or at least the feds think so.
There's something very disturbing about this -- Democrat or Republican, that the rules of decision making are altered until the desired decision is made is at best browbeating unbecoming a free decision making body and at worst uncomfortably corrupt.
"You may vote for whatever you like as long as we like it to" does not a fair process make.
--Dan
how has the patriot act directly affected you?
By making it impossible for me to answer this question, since it is now illegal for my librarian to tell me if the PATRIOT Act is affecting me.
Democracy, in it's current implementation (And the US is meant to be a democratic republic, before anyone who get's their political knowledge from civilization tries to nitpick), is a placebo that gives the impression that people actually have some say in the matter. In reality, this isn't the case. We simply get to choose our dictators.
Anyone who actually believes ideas like "anyone can become president" has to ask themselves why the last 2 dozen presidents have all been multi-millionaires with strong party affiliations. Congress is made up of cronies of the president and the guy who came second, and the supreme court is appointed by the guy who makes the laws.
The only true democracy is a country with no political freedom. The only way for the people to get the leaders they want is to kill the ones they don't in a bloody revolution.
in the senate, as GW had blatantly professed his undying devotion to the Patriot Act as well as he had decided to Veto this bill if it had cleared the Senate.
So its not enough there are 210 people out there who think this law stinks, we need to get GW out of his chair so as to salvage what little freedom this country still possess.
GW doesnt scare me, he makes me laugh, but he doesnt scare me. Cheney and Ashcroft scares me. The indifference of half the country scares me. People who are willing to send other people's kids in to war, in to a hail of bullets, scare me. People who will stomp all over the rules of the land so as to feel powerful, to win their own private dirty war scares me. The Presidents dependence on the religious right scares me.
I am not an american and neither have I the right to vote. I am helpless in what I can do, despite the immense respect to the people around me as well as the country that I live in. I believe America can be a whole lot better than what it is, its standing among other nations, its perspective. I believe this country and its people are being held back, day by day, kept on check, from being a true leader of the free world. I believe, if we do not turn back this course, come November, the road ahead for America is bleak and fraught with peril.
Rapid Nirvana
Actually, house rules were not broken. As I noted below, 15 minutes was originally scheduled for the vote, but the floor rules of the House permit such a period of time to be extended. What was done was fully within house rules. It's a simple lesson: don't trust slashdot writeups for all your information - look up the house rules yourself, or at least find a more reputable source.
QUOTEhow has the patriot act directly affected you?UNQUOTE
Because of the patriot act I have to show my childrens Social Security cards to the bank and they photo copy them before I am open an account for them. I find that hateful. It is none of their damn business. They want to steal my children's identity.
For all you Bush haters/Kerry lovers out there remember both Kerry and Edwards voted for the Patriot Act.
Political scientists call this one of the most polarized elections in history. The Republican half of the electorate is just as activist as the Democratic half, and the percentage of voters who are truly "indifferent" to the election are at record lows.
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."
--Martin Niemöller
it doesn't matter how it has directly affected me yet, it is the potential contained therein and how it affects everybody.
Terrorists communicated over the internet using free computer access open to anyone! How terrible! What next - terrorists found to use public roads to drive car bombs? Won't somebody think of the children?
Are terrorists really going to leave "www.bomb-making.com" in the browser history? Are they just going to arrest everyone who visits anonymizer.com or uses SSL?
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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.
The owls are not what they seem
Congress, as a whole, just doesn't get it at all. Legislation like this won't stop the "evil doers" of the world, it will only limit the freedoms of your average Joe American. They want to make a difference, which is admirable, but they're going about it in the wrong way. What they should do is get an intelligence gathering system in place that uses people, works, and doesn't bicker and infight with other government agencies. The Department of Homeland Security is, was, and will never be the right way to handle this. They're innefectual, bloated, and led by a man who loves to perpetuate the climate of fear. Yesterday, for instance, they issued a warning that Al Queda may be in the planning phase for an attack against us.
No kiddin'? Ya think? Who gave these guys such a clue?
I could have made just an accurate prediction by reading tea leaves (so maybe the Gov't should just give me 40B a year so I can do that.)
Seriously, we need better and more accurate intelligence coming out of the NSA, CIA, and FBI, not legislation that tramples on the very ideas upon which this nation was founded.
"If you propose changing our laws that fight terrorists, you're no better than the terrorists themselves"
--- John Ashcroft
"Ashcroft? I'd rather vote for a rotting hunk of dead flesh than Ashcroft"
--- The Voters of Missouri
are about 1/10th of my books. Noteable selections:
Against Empire,
The Demon-Haunted World,
A People's History of the United States,
Downsize This,
Stupid White Men,
Target Iraq,
1984,
Culture Jam,
A Brave New World,
Strategy of Deception,
The Persian Gulf War Did Not Take Place,
Frontier Justice
Though none of this means I am a terrorist, it quite obviously betrays my political leanings, which frankly I'd rather not expose to the government because the current administration is not responsible enough to handle that level of disclosure. I am not an extreme example and thus others have even more cause for concern than I
Each year, the Rainforest are responsible for over three thousand deaths from accidents, attacks or illnesses. There are over seven hundred things in the Rainforest that cause cancer. Join the fight now and help stop the Rainforest before it's too late."
And the problem is most people will believe this shit like the Senators who changed their vote did.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me." ........
What the hell, i have karma to burn...
Please explain to me exactly which group of people the patriot act it targeting? which group of people based on race/politics is this patriot act causing to be detained? I didnt see anything in there targeting arabs or communists or social democrats or trade unionists or jews.
Im no fan of the patriot act, but your statement is quite a stretch...
You mean, like, read books at the library.
If its in a public library then I'd assume its already approved for public consumption and ok to read.
If it raises suspicion just to read about something, we have a more serious problem than whatever the current (McCarthy, Commun, Terror)ist is these days.
This appears to be little more than a form of political profiling.
This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. This has to do with IRS regulations and banking regulations.
Several years ago the tax laws were amended so that anyone claiming to have dependent children were required to provide the social security number of those children.
Amazingly the US lost several hundred thousand children (a million?) children.
You are a moron!
Now that its out of the way, let me take this further..
No matter what the Govt, or Fox News tells you, Saddam Hussein was not the gravest threat ever to walk the earth. He was neither the baddest dude alive. Do you have any fucking idea as to whats happening in Africa?? Sudan?? Ethiopia?? Nigeria?? Are you fucking insane or just clueless, like half this country?
Even if you round up the total number of Iraq's citizen this murderous villain had slaughtered, it would still pale in comparison to the number of people who are dying in Africa in the last year. Sudan can easily be compared to Hell, considering the number of men and children who are slaughtered like cattle, women who are raped and killed. Can you even compare the atrocities that happen there every day to what did happen in Iraq?? Ofcourse not.
Then why is it that Bush turns a blind eye to Africa, why is it that Powell after his recent visit to Sudan proudly proclaims that it still hasnt achieved the so called status "Genocide" when we actually care a fuck!! Can you justify their tears, kids with out limbs, with out parents, without shelter and food. Can you justify this travesty in Iraq when a greater threat looms in Sudan threatening to wipe out a country, snuff out a million lives in less than an year??? Where is Bush's God amidst all this? Or does the President listen to his God only when the response meets his needs?? Why proclaim the fact that you are a devoted christian when you turn a blind eye to Africa?
So dont you fucking say that you step in and regulate every now and then..not when it doesnt serve your needs.
Rapid Nirvana
If they want to pass a good bill it should be to stop naming of bills like "The Patriot Act", I mean these people in congress are suppose to be logical thinking adults. All naming bills like this will lead to is more nonsense getting stuffed in them like this.
I would like to know who the genius was who came up with that name to begin with?
I can see how the naming submissions probably went -
Repug's names:
"Patriot Act"
"I am for America Act"
"Good for the Coutnry Act"
Dem's:
"Ashcroft will Screw You with this Act"
"More Power to Spy on Everyone Act"
"Give up your Civil Liberties Act"
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Not to defend the PA, but legislation like this isn't supposed to act as a deterrent.
No kiddin'? Ya think? Who gave these guys such a clue?
If you think you can do better, by all means step up to the plate.
Seriously, we need better and more accurate intelligence coming out of the NSA, CIA, and FBI
Wow. And you accuse the govt of stating the obvious? You got better ideas? You know *everything* that is happening behind the scenes?
not legislation that tramples on the very ideas upon which this nation was founded.
Words.
This is an extremeley dark and dismal day, and I do not mean the weather up here in Winnipeg in Canada. I am a US citizen and I hope and pray to God I never work in the US again. I have found a home here and am doing the paperwork to live here permanently. I lived and workd with the homeless for six years, and lived with numerous veterans, for three years with 12 to fifteen Korean war vets and two to five Vietnam vets. I have been living and working with the mentally challenged since 1991 as that is much easier. Look up Martin Niemoller. Look up Bonhoeffer. Look up The White Rose. In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. I can't speak up anymore, my voice is shot. Kathy Kelly, three times nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize just got out of Pekin FCI for protesting US torture facilities. Sr. Anne Montgomery is due for jail when she comes back from Iraq probably for her work there with Christian Peacemakers Teams spotlighting US torture. (Her Canadian coworkers don't have to worry about that. My friend John is going into jail for six months soon for antinuclear activities. Sr. Dorothy Henessey got out of jail a while back for protesting US torture training facilities in Georgia awhile back, she was 79. Sr. Gwen Henessey also did six months there awhile back, I would not be surprised if she goes back in again soon. No, dark days indeed. I wash my hands of the US war crimes and it's slide to facism.
What with Wamp being so devout to his beliefs on the issues, and Bill Frist co-sponsoring that new bill to outlaw P2P applications... yessiree! I sure am proud to live here in good-ol' progressive Tennessee!
'Life is like a spoonful of Drain-O, it feels good on the way down but leaves you feeling hollow inside'
As examination of the parent should make evident, it was a quote not specifically related to this situation, but still of interest.
I believe that the point was that while it may not be affecting you, it could still be affecting other people - and if you just stand back and let that happen, if/when it does affect you, you will have fewer, if any, defences.
Perhaps what I meant was show their SS cards to the bank. There is a difference between providing them and showing the bank officials the card. Which is stupid as I could have printed out the cards on a printer anyway. They wanted the original cards.
And, no, I do *not* support the Patriot Act or any other attempt at abridgement of freedom, but I would like to hear some *fresh* ideas that date from a time after the biggest threat to ordinary citizens was a musket. It was tricky to smuggle a 6 pound artillery piece through customs, ya know?
If you stop to think for a minute, maybe there's a reason why there are no examples of secret warrants being excercised or library, etc. records being searched. Do you suppose it has anything to do with the unrestrained power the PA grants the executive to do these things SECRETLY?
The question still remains, is this really helping? and are we hurting more people than helping?
Maher Arar, A Canadian citizen detained by the US on a layover and deported to Syria, where he spent a year being tortured before being allowed to come home.
Guantanamo, which everyone knows about already.
Several friends, who no longer use the airlines due to the racial profiling that is happening at the airport near here. (this may just be an isolated incident)
On the other side, I haven't heard any situations where these losses of freedoms have stopped any criminal activity that would not have been stopped otherwise. I'd be very interested in any info that anyone has on this.
Sad to say it, but he is my representative down here in southeastern Tennessee. Here's his Campaign Website and by looking at the issues, you can see he's on the far right of the party, and his voting generally controlled by the Tom Delay contigent. Funny he mentions stomping out drugs, since he was once a rapacious cocaine user. In grand Republican tradition though, he found Jeeezus and now supports the brutalization of drug offenders everywhere. I wish I could say this ridiculous vote and flip flop were a surprise, but we've been living with this garbage since '94.
reminds me of our own legislation during the fallen communist regime :(
SHE does throw dice.
Yep, in Boston, using the subway can mean a random search.
Welcome to America Comrad
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Your representatives' votes are here!
Check out how they voted and let your representative know how you feel about this issue: find yours here (requires knowlege of where you live)
My sentiments exactly. Prove probable cause to a judge and have everyone sign it, which is the way it's been for many years. When my friends investigate my disappearance they can see who was looking for me and what they thought they'd find. When we go to trial the government can show that my civil rights were or were not violated.
Since when are we supposed to not hold the government accountable for their actions?
Developers: We can use your help.
Each small step towards Dictatorship, like continuation of this law, erodes the core concepts of the Constitution (A country run by the people and not an all powerful government entity) is a small step towards the end of the Great Experiment.
The Founding Fathers tried to keep this from happening when they drafted the Constitution but over the years as politicians have repeatedly failed to do their intended jobs (which is to represent their constituents i.e. the People) they have inspired contempt and a lackadaisical attitude toward voting in those same constituents. By not voting and failing to write our representatives constantly we have allowed them to become political puppets of the people with the most money i.e. corporations. This in turn has led to the formation of a government that has no checks and balances and is not pressured to answer to the People. These types of intrusive laws will continue to propel this country towards a government system that is as oppressive as the governments that we work to overthrow every couple of years.
Time has proven that a government with the power to do things like this so-called Patriot Act allows will eventually rot from within and collapse. The people that will bear the burden of that collapse will not be the ones in that government or their supporters but the innocent, common people. History proves over and over that Totalitarian governments never last.
The only way that laws like this will be overturned is if politicians start asking themselves "Is this law something that will benefit ALL the people or just some of the people?" Since that is unlikely to happen we can expect to see more and more of our Civil Liberties eroded with time, especially if we continue to allow the government to be directed by the large corporations as it is now.
"Maybe if we had some more original thought in congress, stuff like this wouldn't happen end rant"
It's not going to happen. The US system is a stable duopoly - even if a third party were to rise up, it would only displace one of the two current parties. Try looking at some basic duopoly theory - location theory with one product (i.e. the current policy) is an exact analogy between economics and politics.
Where would you place yourself? Both dead in the center. One side takes left, one side takes right. Sure, you're trying to differentiate yourself to squabble over the center, but it's all fluff. The US political system is not designed for original thought. If you want to truly change that, you need to change the election process, not either party.
Mind you, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Here we have more original thought, more parties, but also more compromises, more blameshifting, vague and shifting governments and parlamentary support. Everybody is trying to push their politics, even within their own coalition. (for you US guys: several parties working together)
However, it has also allowed you to choose a party closer to your own political view, as they differ in economic policy, social policy, district policy, crime policy, domestic and foreign policy and so on. Whereas in the US, you have the republican policy, and the democratic policy. That's it. Of course, we have the whole EU thing which complicates things a bit too...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And I suppose the space aliens have something to do with it as well? After all, you don't hear about them either, so the government must be keeping them a SECRET.
May as well set it aside if you're going to use arguments like that. No point, you can assert anything you want that way with no requirement of proof. "The government keeps it a secret, so therefore if you don't hear anything about it it must be true!" Whatever.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
I spent 10 years in the military suposedly protecting your freedom. Thats right you have
thousands of men dodging bullets so that you may
enjoy liberty. I don't have a problem with the govt
doing what they have to for intelligence reasons. The patriot act and all bills like it serve only one purpose, to unconstitutionally short circuit the judicial branch of the govt, now that I have a problem with.
Got Code?
Everyone seems to be for complete privacy, but gets all bitchy when CEOs and gov't officials get away with whatever, aided largely by privacy. Screw the terrorists -- we need to keep tabs on the people who actually run the world. But can we have it both ways? (i.e. Privacy for us but not for them.)
'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'
So then, what are they so upset about here?
(Score:-5, Conservative)
Gotcha. Agreed then that it was stupid for the bank to want to see the actual cards rather than take your word about the actual numbers.
/. ID considering how much I've been posting lately)
(I really should get a
You are right. It won't be Siberian :-)
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
any old laptop purchased from E-bay or stollen could be used to scan wireless networks, find an unsecured one and do whatever they want. including that some of the goverment networks have not done proper work to secure themselves from that. Terorrist won't use library, he will use someones internet connection instead. in addition to that probably would use a couple more using google and trow a couple keywords like this "dirty bomb radioactive materials yard waste home made explosives kill many people allah" and this probably would frame an inocent person while they do their evil business.
Government is not some alien creature, it a people like us, so why are they so stupid? and who is that moron who elected them....
I find it interesting that we are all (in the US at least) in this situation of rampant bad laws, paranoia, fear, and so forth because we have been conditioned that the gov't will take care of us. A hand full of people took over a few airliners and got away with it (at least their plans) because people are told the gov't will solve it. You mean to tell me a whole airliner full of people couldn't stop a couple of guys with razor-blades? Razor blades???? My shoes are more dangerous!
Trust the gov't, cuz after that trust fails you, they can build more despicable ways for you to trust them.
The government has to be told when to stop. It is just like a deveopling teenager, you have to give them bouandaries. We cannot have a government that will walk all over the original principles that it was founded on. Now those boundaries have been pushyed and pushed and pushed, there is a certain time when you have to backlash. The elastic of the American Law has been stretched too far, soon it will either break or it will create trouble unseen by the current generations.
~Anonymous Idiot
"i don't see what the problem is. there haven't been any cases of abuse. if you don't want to be spied upon, then don't do suspicious things. how has the patriot act directly affected you?"
well....
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
Pastor Martin Niemöller
Nuff said
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
-1 Doesn't understand how law enforcement works.
I dont know about others, but i also consider my privacy a essential liberty.
The problem is with what others consider 'unreasonable'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
American's who care about their Liberty, or their libraries, should find out how their representatives have voted on these issues.
Share what you find out and make them regret it if its wrong. Even if you're only a drop in the bucket at least you did something.
The enemies of freedom are alive and well. The same disfunctional government agencies (FBI, CIA, State Department) who dropped the ball on 9/11 are now using that tragedy to seize more power than they merit. 9/11 would have been prevented if the movements and activities of visitors on student VISA's, particularly islamists from the middle east, had been given even cursory scutany. The gross harassment of ordinary citizens allowed by the Patriot Act is an absurd overreaction.
an ill wind that blows no good
We keep allowing the government to slowly transform us into what our founding fathers started the country to get away from, and it needs to stop! Those of you who somehow believe that giving up our rights in the name of fighting terrorism, please go find another country to live in that better suits you, but don't ruin this one!
well,, only the right people can vote http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040708_639.h tml I know this is old, but after you serve your sentance, you are still a citizen, why shouldn't you be able to vote ? I can see not being allowed to vote when you are incarcerated but why forever ? BTW only a handfull of states do this.
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
It's official, Democrats are the new "least of two evils" for Libertarians. I mean, it should have been obvious to you guys for quite some time that Republicans really hated your guts, but there's been a few holdouts, and hopefully this vote ends that. The Dems voted to roll it back, the Repubs voted to keep it as it is. Really cut and dry.
except that type of joking is far off from the truth.
ever been through airport security:
they will search the 85 year old woman, the 8 year in a wheel chair, to avoid having to check someone with medium skin tone.
when honestly, remeber which ethnic group was responsible. i really dont believe someone that is 85 or 8 is gonna take over the plane.
narrow it down, 18-30 year old middle eastern men. obviously dont just focus on them and ignore everyone else, but history has shown who has been responsible for terrorism.
In order to stem what the block voting seen in Congress there are several things that could be implemented to help undo what has been done and alluded to here in some of the other comments. First, there has to be away to make it so the members have to be there for 3/4 of the votes. Period. They are their to represent the people (remember the Declaration of Independence: WE THE PEOPLE), not to write books and eat at trendy restaurants in Georgetown. I have not really researched how to do this but there has to be a way. Second, change voting from majority wins (this plays more towards the 2 party system. Having to have 50% plus 1 to win is just quite working out like we though.) to a plurality (most votes wins). This would eventually allow the proliferation of political parties and force the members of Congress get along and actually build a coalition in the governement to actually get things done (novel frickin' idea). Last (begin op-ed portion) find a way to curtail the wildly liberal interpretations of the law. This is also hurting our counrty but in different way and for a different discussion. Just my thoughts.
the USA Patriot act explictly allows the govt. to conduct library searches in Secret.
.explicitly forbids library staff from informing you about the law...
:-))
It also
(which is why you will see little signs informing you of the patriot act provisions in libraries, i love seditious librarians
... hi bingo
As far as I can tell, the major accomplishment of this section of the act is that it forces all would-be terrorists to buy books at bricks-n-mortar bookstores rather than online, and to pay cash. Heck, they can even get a discount using the store's discount card, so long as they're careful to use an phony name when they sign up.
Or, they can simply do all their reading in the library and never check books out.
It would be nice if Congress would at least amend the act to require some degree of transparency. We should be able to learn stuff like how often this particular power is used. We should be able to know whether the FBI is building a huge database of all our book purchases, or if they've only used it on three dozen separate occasions.
Everything that you just wrote, each word applies to the situation in Iraq as well..
It is a civil war in Iraq right now. Fox might call them "tewwowists", but they are Insurgents, nonetheless. And its a civil war because the insurgents are mainly of the Shiite population who oppose being ruled by the Sunni. Also there are Sunni's as well who are opposed to the coalition being there in Iraq.
Every Govt might turn a blind eye to Africa, but then not every govt were so eager to go to war at the drop of a hat. This administration has shown that willingness. About Africa not being of strategic importance, now thats cruel as well as asinine. The trouble in middle east would not have bothered us a bit, if (a) Israel wasnt in the midst of all of it and (b) Oil, billions and billions of gallons of it. You know when Africa will get back on the world map? When a bunch of Sudanese commandeer planes or what not and ram them in to the heart of a few cities. Then, I assure you, they would take notice. The world would take notice.
Also you blame culture and corruption as the core of all evils in Sudan and the rest of Africa, I am surprised these two evils are only found in that subcontinent and nowhere else. Ofcourse, Culture and Corruption had nothing to do with in the Middle East and the quagmire in Iraq
And finally, Iraq is fixable now???? Which newspapers do you read? Where do you get information from? Cause the rest of the world definitely do not subscribe to that view. Even when the US transferred power to the Iraqi Govt, two days in advance, despite how Bush wanted it to be portrayed (as a show of eagerness to transfer power back to the people), it came off as an act of weakness and cowardice, of a super power who once again had its fingers burned 30 years later..
Rapid Nirvana
Its not a big deal because you dont read anything that is ( currently.. ) improper.
Its a big deal because its none of their damned business unless you are being investigated for a specific crime, with the courts permission. Private citizens that are no accused of any crime should NEVER be placed under investigation. Its called privacy.
Once you willingly give up your right to privacy, you dont deserve any rights at all.
Also, keep in mind what you read today may be declared 'improper' by the government tomorrow.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Security checks should be made at random - racial profiling is an abhorrent practise that just reeks of racism.
shown who has been responsible for terrorism
White men like Tim McVeigh and countless white, protestant and catholic men form Northern Ireland?
Allright, so I like "freedom of speech", and I also like "Information wants to be free".
Lets trade: The governement can know everything I do. AS long as -I- may know everything the governement knows. About everything. All.
No more dirty little secrets. No more "we cant tell for state security". Nothing. While we are at it, same goes for businesses.
Also no more privacy in the public space. But be reasonable, you dont have that already.
Remember kids; Information does not kill people. Information that -some people know and others do not- does.
Donny Rumsfelt said best: "There are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.." etc. Well! Lets get rid of it!
"/Dread"
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&hl =zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=hitler+patriot+act
I am glad so many people are aware of the same thing.
So we fought and won two world wars and defeated world communism, yet we can't protect ourselves against a few religious nuts without violating the privacy of every American?
None of this has anything to do with terrorism, it's all about using fear to make a power grab.
So THAT's why they announced yesterday that Al Quida might be planning another round of attacks in the USA but didn't raise the security alert level. Pretty sneaky...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Rep. Zach Wamp was also highly impressed by the sock puppet show put on by two Justice Department personnel that highlighted the dangers posed by those who use public libraries. Their crimes included filing fiction paperbacks in the science section, lingering too long in the Martin Luther King Civil Rights Corner and reading so-called news articles that contained words like "gosh", "darn" and "jumpin'jihaddefats" via computers in the children's section.
Said Rep. Wamp "I'm really looking forward to that hand shadow demonstration of the Iraqi disengagement by the Undersecretary of Defence next week!"
...that the Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Hitler's Germany or any of those other nations thought they were going to be oppressed? "Yep, let's overthrow the current leadership and choose a leader to oppress us, put us to slave labour and deport us." Uh-huh. Their leaders built or took over a power base strong enough, that they could do so.
If you have gotten to the point where they openly "act on the information they gathered to actively suppress any non-state sponsored viewpoints" or "the (Russian) people could not approach their (Soviet) leaders for the same fear of reprisal." you're already neck-deep in a totalitarian state.
The US government is building up its power base so that if it should choose to oppress you, you would not be able to fight back, neither by soap, ballot, jury or ammo box. The government would crush any uprising before it became a threat. You're basing your whole argument on the premise that they won't - when there is plenty of historical evidence to the contrary.
You also assume that such a state must be openly doing so. Let me ask you this - if the top republicans and democrats colluded to form a "ruling party" while still retaining the illusion of democracy - do you think the US people would even notice that they're no longer living in a democracy? I doubt it. Pass leadership back and forth a bit, keep the populace entertained, discredit and ridicule those who have realized the truth - it'd work.
And if not forever, at least long enough until you'd be where you say you aren't now - where you'd have a fear of "being woken up in the middle of the night, thrown into a van, and being shipped off to some Siberian gulag just because I surfed the wrong website last night." At which point you'll look as stupid as Chamberlain proclaiming "Peace in our time", and as powerless to stop history as well.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I wouldn't call it old...six days ago isn't that bad :) I think it is pretty telling that this is happening again, if they don't clear it up by November then there will be a very large sub-population in Florida (and elsewhere to a lesser extent) that will be very angry...much more so than in 2000...
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
How many of you have actually taken the time to write or call your local representative? You would be suprised how approachable and responsive they really are. Thier districts are relatively small, and they have by far the most sensitivity to thier constituents of any branch.
I recently wrote to my local rep. expressing my concerns about the DMCA, the proposed INDUCE act and copyright legislation in general. Within a week I received a nice, substantive letter with his position on the issue, a summary of all related bills currently in progress or under consideration, and his take on them. True, the letter was probably boiler-plate although considering it's substance, it's apparent he is at least informed on the issue, and cares enough about what I think to respond in a timely manner.
When the difference between getting elected or not can come down to hundreds, or sometimes dozens, of votes they tend to pay attention when people don't like what they are doing.
The President can have half the country hate him, and still get elected. A senator can have half of a state hate him (and the bigger the state, the less an individual matters), and still get elected. A rep can lose with a well-placed handful of people hating him, and they know it. And as the closeness of the vote in the article shows, getting one rep to shift closer to your ideal CAN potentially make a substantive difference in U.S. policy.
So if you have something to say about it, take the time to address it to them directly. It isn't much harder than commenting here on /., and is likely to be quite a bit more effective.
Ohhhhh, I'll bet they took all his pictures of the Loch Ness monster too. Bummer.
...Oh geez, I almost forgot I need to go renew my lifetime membership to 2600 . . . .
They probably just had it out for him because they knew he was the 5uP3r HAX0r who cracked into the Pentagon Ph!1ez and stole the Roswell report.
I guess knowing the Man is waiting around every corner to abduct you and search your apartment is just part of being a Rad Hacker!!!
You imply that getting a college degree demands being smart when it's all said and done. If you look at the number of stupid people with degrees, you'll find that just isn't so.
I also take inssue with the contention that all morons are dumb; the word "moron" comes from the Greek for "foolish". Religious fundamentalism is by design moronic.
--
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
I mean is it really that hard to get a warrant?
Ask yourself that question a couple of times.
No, its not that hard providing you have _a valid reason_ to get the warrant. Its getting to the point where there will be another "terrorist" attack in this country. And like the 2nd most serious terrorist attack that has happened in this country, it will be started by a patriotic American possibly trained by the US military who is opposing the powers of the government against its people.
Americans came to this country to avoid persecution fought for it and won. We have the longest standing constitution in the world even though we are a younger county. I personally would go to war against our government before I would go to another country.
Anyone have a good link to show who voted which way? I would like to know whether or not my representatives will be getting my vote again.
bugger, I should have read down a bit before I replied with that.
Dupe!!
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Is it a coincidence that Tom Ridge announced yesterday that terrorist are planning an attack?
Right in the middle of the vote?
I've asked dozens of my friends of family and I only found 3 people out of about 20 who are voting for Bush because he is Bush rather then because he isn't Kerry. What's scary is that out of the 40 people voting Dem this November not a single one would vote for Kerry if Bush wasn't the incumbant.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
This is one of the reasons that I've been seriously considering changing my buying habits for books back to cash. I admit that the lure of plastic is great -- I have about a dozen books in my Amazon cart right now -- but at least if the purchase is in cash and not using a store discount card, I know that the purchase will be a lot harder to link directly to me.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
M-o-t-h-e-r-f-u-c-k-e-r.
As for being a doctor, in his country, any of us would be considered a doctor. No, no trepaning required, and beating your wife to death won't bring you good luck or great wealth. Most afganis and iraqis know what Usama and Saddam will never realize; work is it's own reward. That's what the 72 virgins is about.. and moderate Muslims know that. Arabs are humans too. It's easy to understand your enemy, as long as you don't dehumanize him. Once dehumanized, he can be killed but never understood. Calm them or bomb them... it's all the same except that someone gets dead. You do the math. *fanatic* I say we bomb them, but again, one person one vote.
Quick start protecting the muggers, rapist and murders.
What group does the Patriot Act single out and go against?
I wasn't aware of that. That's fucking stupid too then.
Aside from vote, what else can be done to help repeal this law?
Here we go again. Keep the KY jelly handy, folks, Jack Booted Thugs might have run out by the time they reach your door.
Both Democrats and Republicans claim they are doing it for your own good. Remember that next time you cast a ballot, or hear a knock on your door.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Kerry who is campaign is "I hate/love what Bush loves/hates". Since Bush likes the Patriot act Kerry hates it.
I have a feeling Kerry will have a change of tune after (if) he gets elected.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Can't pin this one on the Dems, only four Democrats voted for this amendment vs 194 against.
Combined with their fiscal irresponsibility it seems pretty obvious the Republican party has abandoned most of the positions usually identified as conservative. It's hard to find a label for what they've turned into. Fascism is really the word that comes closest. Whatever it is it's angry, dogmatic, nationalistic, conformist, intrusive and they're spending this country into the ground.
If this represents half of America then we are truly pathetic. We have elevated greed to a religion and sunk to a mental level one step above a third world country.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It does not prevent any library staff about informing about the law. What it does is prevent them from informing you that a judge has approved that you can be monitored. Same as if they get approval to trace your phone calls, the phone company cannot call you up and tell you they are doing it.
However if libarians were to go around, only after the event has taken place, and told the targeted person that they should read up on the library search provision in the Patriot act then I guess you could say they are being prevented from informing people about the law.
The US has two main sources of power, economic strength and military strength. I don't want to lose one for the sake of the other, do you?
devise. it's still whoreabully infactdead.
it looks like the tables have 'turned' on the felonious corepirate nazi execrable, as they, now, are the ones under constaNT scrutiny by all of the rest of US. lookout bullow?
all is not lost.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators... putting up with almost all of yOUR 'acting' since/until forever. see you there?
Googling around I see it referred to as both and Amazon lists is as "1984." Please provide a link showing Orwell intended it to be the word version and not the number version of the title. kthnxbye.
Kerry and Edwards both voted for the original PA. You are right it's very cut and dry.
Vote Libertarian in 2004!
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
(disclaimer -- I'm from Vermont and think Rep. Sanders does a great job ... usually)
President Bush was going to veto the whole bill if this amendment were attached -- and every house representative, including the amendments supporters, knew that going in.
The bill it was attached to was a finance bill for the Justice, Commerce, and State departments -- hardly the right place for it.
The PATRIOT Act itself has a formal review coming up soon anyway.
What Rep. Sanders hoped to achieve at this time is questionable. With all those other things stacked up against him, the best he could have hoped for was a little media buzz at the expense of 420 representatives' time. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, and I support the idea behind this proposed legislation, but this specific instance was doomed from the start.
Don't complain that it didn't get passed this time since it wasn't going to anyway. Help get it passed when the timing is more appropriate.
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
They DO have to be given legal representation. However, the specifics of how that will work are still fuzzy. The military did seem to move to implement it right away.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
The Rich.
That's it.
The poor aren't represented except as a very small minority. You have to be a multi-millionaire to become president. It's in the rules!
Sure there are sub-groups within The Rich party, but they aren't that different. They all still believe that greed is a admirable trait.
The Rich party doesn't want any competition, and they will never have any because they control all 3 branches of the government, The Media, and nearly all our business and industry.
So get out there and vote for The Rich Party! It's the only one that can possibly win anyway.
Greed and excess will kill the US
...happen in the library. Trrst666: Dude, I blewed up teh mail b0x! O54m4grl: OMG! rofl thats funny! Trrst666: N0w I find teh pr0n 054m4grl: a/s/l?
Think a moment about the Constitution, and then since this is /. think about computer and network security.
The Constitution was written the way it was because the Founding Fathers didn't trust Governemt, including the one they were creating. Therefore they created a Government with three independent branches, each with checks and balances on the other two branches, in an attempt to create a trustworthy system. In security-speak, they attempted to create an open, trustworthy system so that it would function correctly even if some particular untrustworty components were incorporated. (elected or appointed)
It's ALL about trust, plain and simple.
The President is head of the Executive Branch, and Commander In Chief, but only Congress can declare War. Of course, leading up to the Gulf War II, Congress gave the President a blank check to make War. The only control they appeared to put on it was 'payable to Iraq', but the amount, date, and decision whether or not to exercise were not filled in.
The Legislative Branch makes laws, and the Executive Branch enforces them, but since enforcement of the law essentially deprives the accused/convicted of Constitutional Rights, the Judicial Branch is involved in the process, both in warrants and in judging and sentencing. The Patriot Act significantly weakens the Judicial Branch's participation in the warrant process. (This sentence keeps the post on-topic)
Back to transparency, for a moment. Transparency allows us to see the checks and balances in action, so that we can see that our government is functioning as designed.
OTOH, when the Government begins to operate in an opaque fashion, it doesn't matter whether or not we trust the Man at the Top. Opacity shrouds downward from the starting point, so it requires that you trust the start point, *and everyone from there on down*. This has particular relevance with respect to Abu Graib. Even if it were just 'a few bad eggs,' the cloak of secrecy gave them the space to operate. Keep in mind that Abu Graib techniques were imported from Guantanamo, another 'cloaked' installation, and we've heard next to *nothing* from there, other than they're being kept in what sounds like dog kennels. Eventually this will come out, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
> Edwards struck me as slightly more honest than most politicians.
;)
;)
-nod- He's a relative noob, although he brings more experience to the job than Bush 43 or Reagan did. Hopefully he hasn't had time to get jaded and cynical yet
> Kerry though, is the worst kind of candidate there is
I wanted to keep this thread about election reforms, and not the specific candidates... but I'm curious what about him you don't like? I've stated my objections to his policies, I'm curious what yours are. Mods: be gentle, I -did- tag this thread OT
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
All these corporations who have such a strangle-lock on the Gov't, should take a cue. Such a condition would NOT be good for business. Hard to sell Britney Spears CDs when you're in a bunker somewhere.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
My point though, is the gov't does investigate your reading habits, and the Patriot Act is one more blantant attempt to make keeping that private more and more difficult - and that's flat out wrong.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
How many of you are planning to vote in your primary elections? Your vote won't be so diluted there and you might actually make some kind of difference (assuming there is more than one canidate trying for the same position).
Is real life is like the movie "Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson where all they have to do is find out who bought "Catcher in the Rye"?
... I new the bad guys were winning but I had no idea to what extend!
Good evening my fellow Americans. Today is a grave day for our nation. I had to order a military curfew for all major cities in our great country. Intelligence information indicated that terrorists are planning to attack our freedom. Our nation is at war. We have to defend freedom and democacy from all evildoers that hate our values and our civilization. This is a time of grief but we will prevail. God bless America...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Not mentioned is that the congresspeople were shouting "Shame! Shame! Shame!" as the voting time was being extended. It sounds like a joke, but it's true. I've never heard of something like this happening in congress before.
"What group does the Patriot Act single out and go against?" Anybody and everybody the government feels like - that's the point
http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
The true problem with the "Patriot Act" as I see it is that if the Government decides to do something to you (or me) under this act, you (or I) will never hear about it. So how can you say that nothing is happening do to this act? The Act itself expressly forbits any mention of any actions taken under it.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
"Now, go burn Atlanta to the ground and I'll look the other way."
It's a joke, don't take the above as an actual quote.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Hold your congresmen accountable.
Roll Call Results
Bill Text
We have the best government that money can buy.
We should wait until AFTER the Government has seriously abused the USAPATRIOT Act before we start complaining.
After all this is GW Bush and John Ashcroft, everyone knows these two won't abuse our civil liberties. Nor would any future leader, either!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
IANAL but in my reading of the text of the US Code http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1861.html all I see is granting of powers to the FBI that any Podunk county District Attorney has the capability to do investigating any crime committed in a state.
It must also be remembered that under a Democrat controlled congress the powers of the FBI and CIA were severely limited to the point that they were hampered in the functioning of their duties as mandated by congress.
So all you /.ers wont get carpel tunnel
syndrome clicking on my link I have attached the US Code being talked
about here so as a reading might make a difference to you.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Sec. 1861.
Sec. 1861. - Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations
(a) Application for order; conduct of investigation generally
(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall -
(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(b) Recipient and contents of application
Each application under this section -
(1) shall be made to -
(A) a judge of the court established by section 1803(a) of this title; or
(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) of this section to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
Neutrons are slippery little rascals, they can fool you. They can bounce and show up around corners you don't expect.
The "why" doesn't matter. (BTW, you're wrong. They were denied lawyers because that might give them hope and hope makes the job of the interrogator harder -- the Army said so explicitly.) The detentions are automatically illegitimate because these people had no recourse to any independent authority to challenge their detentions.
I'm sure the United Kingdom is glad to hear that it is no longer "an established government". I mean, sure, the royals have gotten out of hand in the press from time to time, but I don't think Britian is "a country in chaos that is under marshal [sic] law".
How could you possibly know? They haven't had a hearing or a chance to challenge their detention. If the government has evidence, try them -- that's what free societies do. Free societies don't lock people up without hearings, without lawyers, without communication, and without limit. Only totalitarian societies do that.
Hmmm. You mean like the five British citizens transferred to the UK and almost immediately released because they were determined to have been innocent bystanders? Yes, I have been truly impressed with the rage and fury of our President that his underlings held innocent people incommunicado for two years... oh, wait, no. He hasn't expressed any such feelings. He's just griped that Blair made him give up these "detainees".
Huh what? It's been more than 2.5 years for most of the detainees (who still number nearly 600). And the US started releasing prisoners only under pressure from allies. In fact, the military began a review process only under the hammer blows of the United States Supreme Court -- one of the most deferential courts in recent history. Thank God that the US military, unlike its commander-in-chief, still believes in civilian control and the rule of law.
And that's the problem: You'd assume it because we all like to think the US plays fair. But the facts don't seem to support that nice faith. We'll leave aside, again, the issue of how do you know they're not "innocent" if they've never had a hearing before competent authority.
This isn't about "them". It isn't about some "foreigners". It's about us. Do we stick with three centuries of the rule of law, that has seen us through crisis external and domestic, that has established a society once revered the world round for its evenhandedness, fair play, justice and freedom? Or do we throw all of that away? Do we abandon the core principles of our civic faith -- checks and balances, the rights of the accused, the reliance on an independent judiciary? Most importantly, do we abandon the rule of law to the whim of one man, no matter how well-intentioned?
Guatanamo shines a harsh light on our commitment to human freedom and the basic beliefs of our society.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The day that Sadaam was announced captured, was the very day the legislature approved the Patriot Act II (as a rider) in an unrecorded vote on a non-descript bill (it should have been recorded).
Just about every time that the feds do an annoucement of some magnitude, but do not have anything to back it up, the capital is up to some important vote. For example, with Ridge's statement, the level should have been raised. But it was not. What that says is fact is seperate from word.
This also ties back to when Ashcroft spoke about terrorism plans on us, but all the other branches denied what he had to say, but only later did ridge go along with some of it.
Indeed, these are terrorifying times.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It was you who were the terrorists. Your punishment? You were driven to the coast and your buildings set alight. Still, thats what you are now doing in Iraq! Good job it works eh. Hmm...
"The first rule of Patriot Act is, you do not talk about Patriot Act"
As it stands now, yes, Libertarians would probably be quick to fix many things I think are wrong in the US, but I also think they'd break quite a few things that I like quite a bit.
I'd rather support the party that has the most overlap possible with my own interests, then do what I can to help push that party in the direction I want. For me the Libertarian party just isn't that party. At least at the moment.
It doesn't mean I "asked for this." It means government is complicated.
You know it is a little difficult finding examples of this, what with the gag order and all (see Section 215). Still though, here's the primary example offered up by most media outlets, and here's another, more obscure example from my home city.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I can read the words . . . but I can't make out the meaning . . .
.
What are you talking about?
Sure I'm concerned about the government overstepping it's bounds. I'm concerned about the government empowering and encouraging trial lawyers looking to bring businesses and doctors to their knees in massive litigation. I'm concerned that people would like to milk healthcare for evey last dime until it crumbles and becomes a government run system. Imagine how many college bound students will be thrilled to study 8 years of medicine to end up in a government run system and collect their hourly wage. Postal workers always seem so thrilled with their workplace . .
Sorry, I realize that was an off-topic rant, but I think it helps illustrate my point. As a Libertarian, the PATRIOT act doesn't really concern me. "My God man! He's checked out 'Fundamentals of Microwave Cooking' FOUR TIMES this month!!" I'm not a Libertarian becaues I'm paranoid, I'm a Libertarian because it makes smart economic sense. Don't confuse your values with mine.
What DOES worry me is massive, corrupt Unions, restricted trade, billions of dollars spent murdering dime store drug dealers, and putting honest Tabacco farmers out of business because you have no self control. By the time the cancer spreads from your lung to your heart 10,000 Phillip Morris employees will be out of a job, a Southern Farmer will have 50 acres of worthless crop and your lawyer will be on his yacht writing Edwards a personalized thank you note.
I don't like the government. I never said I was afraid of it.
I live in europe, and we have more liberal laws, more freedom than you up there in the US. Still we also don't have a lot of soldiers in various countries starting wars (we only have soldiers in other countries cleaning up YOUR mess)
So, who is dodging bullets for MY freedom? The US military? And how's that? Because in afghanistan people are planning to kill our freedom? Ever checked the amount of heroin flooding europe and where it comes from?
It is right-wing conservatives like you who kill more parts of your 'freedom' than any terrorist is ever able to.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
And "don't do suspicious things"? WTF? Suspicion is in the eye of the beholder. And this reactionary, paranoid, fascist administration is suspicious of everything!
Just because you don't "need" civil rights now doesn't mean you won't want them in the future. Go read 1984 again: the biggest supporter of the State was the neighbor, Parsons. And look what happened to him.
What it does is prevent them from informing you that a judge has approved that you can be monitored.
Don't you get it? If there was a judge in the loop, it would be OK. The problem it that the searches are entirely at the discretion of the FBI, no warrent needed! That is what is scary...
All unchecked powers are scary, that is why the founding fathers require the judicial branch to be involved in determining what reasonable search and seizure is.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
We check out the new book shelf at the library.
IN SOVIET AMERICA
The library checks YOU out!
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
"How many [al Queda] terrorist attacks have been successfully carried out on US soil since 9/11?Pardon, say that again? "None," that's right. Now, why do you suppose that is?"
Actually, I think the real reason is that I haven't cleaned my refrigerator since before the attacks. Ergo, my dirty refrigerator has kept this country safe for 3 years!
It's not even correctly quoted. I doubt the nazi regime would have "come for the catholics" since they're just as many as the protestants. It would have been VERY stupid politically.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
No, I'm sorry, but good ideas, unlike fish, do not lose their "freshness." Jefferson's quote is backed by the principal of liberty -- an eternal condition necessary for man's proper existence and moral life.
It's only a free society that deserves to survive, and the more free it is the more it deserves its perpetuation. No one in his right mind is in love with someplace simply because of its geographical location or the fact that he was born there. This country is worth saving only if it remains free! To paraphrase another founder: Give this country liberty, or give it death!
Can the US survive as a free society when threatened by the enemy you describe? Of course it can. It can survive by bringing the war to the enemy. It won't survive as the "land of the free" however by bringing the war to the people of the United States.
The great fault of the war on terrorism -- apart from the attack on liberty here at home -- has been the half-handed nature with which we have gone after terrorism and the countries who back it.
We should instead be vigorously and viciously exterminating terrorists, their training camps, and breaking up their schools which indoctrinate the young. We should be occupying any country we take over in the same manner in which we initially occupied Japan: as victors who will now make the rules, rather than as "liberators" with our "so sorry to inconvenience you with our presence; we'll be leaving shortly" nonsense.Moreover, we should be denying these countries the money they've been earning and using against us. We should immediately begin off-shore drilling all around the United States, the drilling of Alaska, and so forth, and repeal the ban on building nuclear reactors. Damn the caribou and the spotted owls! (And while I'm at it, damn those who think we should be waiting for the bus instead of driving, and turning our heat down to 64 degrees in the winter.)
What the US should offer to all countries is peaceful trade. When some decide that the US is a "devil" because our women dance half naked on MTV, and our children talk back to their parents and marry whomever they want -- fuck them! Let them live in some sort of arrested middle ages; but when they decide that we can no longer live in peace, there is only one proper response any self-respecting free country can make.
Curtailing our liberty isn't it.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
In reading some of the comments on this story it seems to me that most people have not actually read the PATRIOT Act.
First of all, the full title is the USA PATRIOT Act and it's an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". Second, there was no new law created for the act. All it did was extend current laws that were only used against drug dealers and the mob. It would have been illegal for the FBI or other investigative body to use those tools against a terrorist. So, a law was needed that would allow that. Plain and simple. How many of you created the same uproar that is now created for the PATRIOT Act when those laws applied to drug dealers and mobsters? I expect that some will say 'but anyone could be considered a terrorist' but the same argument could be made about being a drug dealer or mobster.
The other important factor to remember is that the tools allowed under the act can not just be applied randomly to any U.S. citizen. The act states that a court can only issue orders "after the government demonstrates the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a U.S. person is not conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment." It does NOT say that they can obtain a warrent for just anyone to see what pops up. The key words there are "international terrorism" and "clandestine".
Since these laws have existed for a long time (well before 9/11) and we did not see an errosion of our liberty, I can not see what is the problem of applying these same laws to terrorist. If the laws were so bad why didn't people give the same arguments they give now to the PATRIOT act to them? I suspect that because it was Bush who was President at the time it was passed? Even if they voted for the act to exist for 5 years, both Kerry and Edwards voted for the act. As someone quoted elsewhere regarding Franklins statement about giving up temporary liberty and then went on to say that is why it is bad, remember that Kerry and Edwards voted for that so they are guilty of that as well.
You have to remember that our government has three prongs. One leads and proposes laws to lead us in a direction, another creates and passes the laws and still another checks those laws against our constitution. Perhaps some of you forgot that the Supreme Court recently ruled that you can not be held as an enemy combatant without trial? So the system does check itself. Ordinary Joe will not be searched or investigated for no reason and will not be arrested without being charged and will not sit in a prison without going to court.
I just had to comment because everyone seems to be running their mouths off as to how much of our freedom has been taken away. That is simply NOT the case.
And, I Just realized I screwed up the html link.. again, Damn, work is affecting my concentration on Slashdot
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that the military is protecting my liberties by killing people in a foreign country. If my freedom is truly in danger from some foreign threat, I'll grab a gun and defend myself or die trying, thank you very much!
This fallacy that you are serving your country by joining the military needs to stop right now. You're not serving your country; you're serving politicians who use you as their pawn to advance their agendas.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
Try using an apt analogy if you choose to refute an argument with one. I don't think you'll find legislation that specifically calls upon the government to keep secret your space alien friends. This is explicityly part of the PA. Perhaps try this one: Premiss: The government specifically authorized warrants to be issued without a magistrate and in complete secrecy, both before and after their excercise (e.g., PA). Argument: The lack of public evidence for the use of this power FOLLOWS FROM THE NATURE OF THE POWER. Lesson for the logically challenged: This is a TAUTOLOGY. Surely only an idiot would claim it hasn't been used because the records of it's use are not available... Surely...
How has the patriot act affected me?
My wife who has a job, couldn't cash her paychecks because her license expired. Simple get a new license, right? She has four names and when she got her previous license they would only put three names on it. Now since the license name doesn't match the social security name, and the birth certificate name she has to have all the documents fixed just to cash her paycheck. Her employment only requires a social security number, but to get paid requires so much more.
Checks used to be able to be cashed after they had been signed. Now they can be cashed when identification is given. The banks will no longer allow a check to be deposited, unless the name is on your account. So, no more cashing checks for friends..
Thats just a couple aspects of it. Changing what constitutes identification. Incidentally if you have four names and only three are listed you might want to check your voter registration...
#### ## Laroue ####
I refuse to let my freedoms be dictated by the arbitrary definition of "suspicious."
What a wonderful word! It has no inherent meaning--it simply includes at any given time activities which are considered (by the subject!) to be "out of the norm."
This is what the furor is (and should be) about! Being different from the majority is not in itself criminal, and must never be treated as such! To allow criminal deviance to be conflated with all cultural deviance is fundamentally anti-American. We are a state founded on the ideal of tolerance and inclusiveness, and repression such as the PATRIOT act allows for aims us in the completely opposite direction; toward fascicm.
FUCKING PAY ATTENTION, AMERICA!
I swear to God, ignorance and apathy in America is what is dooming us. You don't watch the news because "it doesn't affect you", and then use that position of ignorance to claim that nothing bad has happened, and thus it doesn't affect you. WAKE UP.
Innocent man targeted with PATRIOT powers.
Immigrants detained without charges, abused.
PATRIOT used in non-terrorism investigations.
I don't have time to do any more googling. You should have already known about this. Mayfield was only a month ago. The report of abuses is new.
PAY ATTENTION, or you're going to get fucked while you're not looking.
The enemies of Democracy are
I live in Washington, and would like to know how MY representatives voted on this, so I can write them an appropriate letter. This is a stupid question, but where can I find out how they voted? Thanks!
let's all be honest and transparent here... there is very little in common between how the prisoners are Gitmo are treated, and how the residents of Siberian Gulags were treated. Let's not lose sight of reality amidst the hyperbole. Also, this is not comparable to rounding up Japanese-Americans during WWII... troops aren't raiding every mosque in the US and carting the worshipers off to internment camps.
.. I'm frankly not sure what form this process will eventually take.
The US miltary has plenty of space to detain people of interest: Iraq alone has had tens of thousands of prisoners (insurgents/terrorists/whatever) processed through its jails just since the end of the war. Consider the possibility that there may be a good reason why people end up at Gitmo instead of a more geographically-convenient location. It's no small expense to move a person from Afghanistan to Cuba (one of my military buddies has flown that mission multiple times, and it's a pain in the ass).
People have raised the issue regarding lack of due process, and they probably have a valid point. The SCOTUS has now stepped in to ask that due process, in some form, be followed. I don't think most people have a problem with that; Checks and Balances are good.
That said, if you're holding someone against their will for whatever reason, they probably should have some sort of representation (a military JAG officer is probably safer than some Hamas agent cum lawyer) and you should have to justify that detention to someone. The sticking point, of course, is who represents, and who judges. There are enormous national security and foreign/domestic intelligence assets at stake, so an OJ-Simpson-style public hearing is probably inappropriate.
In fairness to the current administration, the entire "unlawful combatant" issue has never been a problem of this magnitude (there were a few german spies caught and executed during WWII... IIRC, they represent some of the only applicable case law). Unlawful combatants certainly haven't been a problem in such volume... remember, Afghanistan's terror camps operated under the Taliban for years and trained thousands of terrorists. Some of them are in the US... wouldn't it be great to catch and/or kill the next Mohammed Atta before he completes his mission?
The US is not Israel. A lot of this is uncharted territory for the US judicial system. This process will work itself out, and it's perfectly OK to argue about it, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect it to take a little time.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Why the Honorable Representative from the State of Missouri.
Dick Gephardt!
Glad he didn't get the VP nomination, because he is even lamer now, IMO
Except when compared to any other government, noted one philosopher.
How did your Representative vote? Check here, or look on H5373 and H5374. (Don't know who your Representative is? Here.)
Those who changed their vote (and the discussion about "when are you going to close the damn vote, you've kept it open past its deadline!?!") are on H5373. Harris, Cubin, Gilchrest, Bereuter, Davis (VA), Bilirakis, Kingston, Smith (MI), Bishop (UT), Wamp, Tancredo, and Musgrave all changed their votes from "yes" (in favor of adding the Freedom to Read Amendment) to "no."
(Amusingly, at one point in the Record, Rep. Nadler acridly remarks, "How much time has elapsed on this vote? Are we going to hold this vote open until enough arms are twisted?")
The problem being that by voting for evil, even the lesser of two evils, things continue to only get worse.
Your objection is certainly valid, but only if the entirety of government were changed all at once. Electing any single, or even a substantial number, of libertarians to office wouldn't change anything quickly. Even a Libertarian president wouldn't be able to do, how did you put it? "[T]he whole fucking package at once."
Actually I'm quite interested. What is it about an entire package of political liberty and personal responsibility that you don't want? What is the terrible repercussion(s) of rolling back leviathan that you forsee?
If you see something I've missed, I want to know what that is. The more I learn, the more convinced I become that government does not work, that only free individuals making their own choices (rational or not!) create progress and advancement of the human species.
Government, at its best, just gets in the way.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
With the library/books issues, I wonder how effective they could actually expect the results to be? Are they going to nail somebody who buys a bunch of books on anatomy/biology on making chemical weapons?
It's not like they're signing out books such as "Terrorism for dummies" or "Reaching nirvana by blowing up infidels"
"Hi, could you tell me what the most recent 10 books the Rep has read?"
"You can't? How about the last 10 books and magazines the Rep has read on taxpayers' time?"
"No, the Rep doesn't read then? OK, how about you or one of the other staffers go ahead and read him/her something. It's called the Constitution. Spelled c-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n. You should be able to get a copy at the Library of Congress. You know where that is?"
"Oh, you do know where the Library of Congress is? You have an account? Then could you tell me what the last 10 books the Rep has received from the library?..."
And perhaps send them a copy of this great essay on the value of privacy and what Americans have lost (he warns Canadians not to lose the same ones):
"[The gov't] appears to have become convinced that privacy must be sacrificed bit by bit, day by day, in pursuit of greater goods: reassuring a public frightened by the outrages of September 11; mollifying an insistent U.S. government; meeting the wishes of police, security forces and other Government institutions that have recognized the aftermath of September 11 as an opportunity to expand their powers... Now "September 11" is invoked as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis and persuade us that we live in a suddenly new world where the old rules cannot apply.
If Parliament and the public at large have been slow to react, it is probably because for most people, most of the time, privacy is a pretty abstract concept... But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy - the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us - is at the very core of our lives...
[if privacy isn't protected] Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight. That possibility alone will, over time, make us increasingly think twice about what we do, where we go, with whom we associate, because we will learn to be concerned about how it might look to the ubiquitous watchers of the state.
- You stopped briefly in Thailand during a business trip...But might repeat travel to Thailand get you flagged by the Government's analysts as a possible pedophile...? Could you find yourself detained for questioning every time you travel?
- You're passing time browsing on the Internet and you're idly curious about what kind of propaganda in favour of al-Qaeda various extremists might be putting out. But could visiting such Web sites get you identified as a potential terrorist yourself and bring CSIS or RCMP officers knocking on your door?
- You're stopped on the street by a stranger asking for directions. But if by then proliferating street video surveillance cameras are linked to biometric face-recognition technology, what if the system immediately identifies the stranger as a known or suspected terrorist? If the police officer then calls up your name and address by matching your onscreen image to your driver's license or passport photo, will you go into security files yourself as a suspicious individual who had a street meeting with a terrorism suspect? Would you do better to keep walking whenever any stranger tries to talk to you?
The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free.The republican party of today will do whatever is necessary to get what they want! Bush didn't carry Florida? We'll fix that...just give us a few days. Want an oppressive law passed? No problem - just print it out in the middle of the night. Want to invade a country? No problem - just make claims that they sponsor terrorism.
In fact...let's use people's FEARS against them! After all, if you make people scared, you can control them!
The republican party of today makes me want to puke! Even their own conservative members are sick of them!Did any of you notice how they began trashing Edwards mere minutes after Kerry asked him to be VP? Their campaign has been 100% negative. What really made me laugh though was two things that Bush said: The first one was to chide Edwards about his lack of International experience. Seems to me that he has more then BUSH HAD when he was running for President! The second thing was about his comments comparing Edwards with Cheney. Bush said Cheney was ready to be "a heartbeat away from the Presidency". If I had been THAT reporter, I would have followed up with: "Well, at least Edwards' heart BEATS properly"!! Seriously though, shouldn't Cheney's constant heart problems, angioplasties, etc. be an issue?
Finally, let's not forget about yesterday's unspecific terrorism warning du jour, where Al Quaida is going to try and svcrew up our election. I see it as more fear mongering by the incumbents. Am I wrong?PCL, just in case you don't know that thers are already "libertarians" in congress.
. ht m
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst070504
That is, individuals more interested in invidiual liberty than in growing the state so they can line their own and friends pockets.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
(the "right to bear arms amendment") was at least partly, originally in response to the British occupation of rebellious colonies in North America. It was illegal for colonists to keep weapons in the fear that they'd be used in an uprising. The amendment guarantees the right of ordinary Americans to defend themselves from the government, should it become a dictatorship. Looks like that scenario is coming up soon, doesn't it?
I just got back from watching Fahrenheit 9/11 where the congressman says to the effect of "Do you seriously think we read all the bills? Can you imagine how much work that would be?" we discover that most politicians haven't actually read the PATRIOT Act (so Moore goes around in an ice-cream van reading it to them) even though they voted on it. I know thats just one politicians' opinion chosen out of hundreds but it really seems to explain allot about government and makes allot of sense - with all these stupid bills flying around, who actually has time to read them all and even if you read an abridged version, can you really be expected to understand what it means on both sides of the debate within the time given? It doesn't take an expert to conclude (unless someone cares to give some evidence of congress being a super-efficient organised system) that the government has a crappy environment to work in and coupled with dick-head corrupt politicians nothing useful or meaningful beyond utter bureaucracy can ever get done there, people just sit, look bored and vote the way they're told.
Oddly there were many extra things in the film I saw (in the uk) that i didn't see in the cam-divx version from the us - anyone?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Who even knows how to use the word "shall" correctly? Since, "... shall not be infringed." has been misunderstood for decades (shall and infringe in the same phrase - whew!) it follows that, ".. shall not be violated" becomes misunderstood as well.
Maybe what we need is a way to define laws in current and common language on a periodic basis.
In all seriousness:
Again, you're assuming your values are the same as mine. A common misconception of partisans addressing Libertarians.
Just because the nation is "going down the shitter" for you doesn't mean it is for me.
By "corrupt", "misguided" and "evil" are you referring to free trade, strict border control and reduced taxation?? While you have a right to oppose these issues, I have a right to support them. While Kerry might better appeal to a Libertarian's sense of personal liberties, he certainly contradicts any Libertarian economic theories. If I'm not honestly concerned my personal liberties are being stolen away (which I'm not) clearly Bush is the better choice.
If I were a liberal democrat I would vote for Kerry. If I were a conservative republican I would vote Bush. If I find issues with BOTH sides, it is up to ME to determine where I stand. If you consider yourself a Libertarian it's ENTIRELY possible, if not probable, you are Libertarian for different reasons than I. With that in mind it's illogical for you to assume that I care that a vote "not for Kerry is a vote for Bush."
So my Libertarian vote increases the chances that several decades from now a Libertarian candidate will receive federal funding for a campaign and have a legitimate chance at winning. If, in the process, I thwart Kerry's chances of winning, that's my perogative.
The sig above is, in my opinion only, a good example of the problems of translating haiku.
The original (word for word) is like
Summer grass
Warriors are...
Remnant of dream
In other words, the poet falls asleep in the grass on an ancient battlefield, and dreams of warriors, but when he awakes he immediately forgets the dream except that it was about warriors in some way.
When you wad it all into a big English sentence, that little story is lost and it becomes just a flat statement, like 'life is transient, dude', and everything that makes that haiku famous is lost.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Where did your sig come from, do you have a source?
you're a moron.
now that its out of the way, let me take this further..
no matter what the bbc, npr, and micheal moore tells you, Saddam Hussein was actually a bad guy who killed hundreds of thousands of people and was a threat to the security middle east and the world. are you fucking insane or just clueless, like half of europe?
why is it america's responsibility to save the world? since when has any other country acted without self interest. and why is it evil when the US wants to protect its freedom and our economy from people who want to destroy those things? why we should let people bomb us and kill us and destroy our economy without responding?
at least the US is doing something about sudan. unlike the rest of the world. unlike the french who once again doesn't want their sudanese oil interests threatened so they are again blocking action in the security council at the UN.
europe (especially france) is the reason african economies are decimated and people are starving. they are responsible for the huge farm subsidies around the world. and then bleeding hearts around the world send food aid that puts the few african farmers who do manage to produce a crop out of buisness and back into poverty. that crushing poverty has created the instability that has reigned in africa. how can you justify their tears, kids with out limbs, with out parents, without shelter and food. can you justify this travesty when a great threat looms in Sudan threatening to wipe out a country, snuff out a million lives in less than an year??? Where are all the liberal bleeding hearts amidst all this? Or does they only listen to their hearts when the response meets their needs?? Why proclaim the fact that you care about the children when you turn a blind eye to Africa?
if you want to help, help build a real economy so people can help themsevles. no one wants a handout, just the opportunity for fair competition.
so dont you fucking say that america hasn't helped anyone..not when people like you are part of the problem.
Do you honestly believe that the US government has not been the killer of more than 3000 inocent americans?
Thousands of blacks were put to death all over the south either at the hands of the government, or under conditions where it could easily be argued that the government shirked it's duty to protect it's citizens to the extent that it was criminally neglegent. Some of these black men were guilty of crimes for which a white man would have been put to death, but many, if not most of them were put to death for the "crimes" of registering to vote, or wistling at a white woman, or (gasp) persuing a relationship with a white woman...
And that is just the civil rights strugle... What about the students at Kent state? What about Amadu Dialo? What about all of the people being released from death row recently due to evidence that they were wrongly convicted exposed with new technology, do you propose that we did not execute many innocents accidentaly?
The USA is better than most in regards to this topic, but we are certainly no exception.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Vermont Congressman B. Sanders (I) authored this bill.
Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords (I formally R) switched to Independent because of this type of crap ( Rep.s are expected to march lock-step and the hell with the people that sent them.) Jim is an old style Republican - fiscally conservative, limit powers of government, etc.
Vermont Senator Pat Leahy is the only senator I've seen put Rumsfeld on the carpet over the White House torture crap. ( http://thememoryhole.org/spy/edmonds_letters.htm
Howard Dean from Vermont (debating Nader on NPR at 2 pm on east coast.) Dean gave party some backbone - and issues which people care about ( health care, no reason for war in Iraq) The media did a coordinated and systematic assalted where non-thinking people were lead to beleave
Support the military in Iraq - Impeach Bush
Some dumbass said:
'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'
And I answer: Not if you pay cash!
All the so called "Patriot Act" is, is a way for a corrupt bunch of facists to sieze more power and circumvent the constitution. It does not increase security at all.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004- 06/04/09.00.books
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
Whaddya mean "Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers???"
I hope this meant he changed his mind before casting his vote and not that he changed his vote after placing it. If our congresspeople can go back and change their vote, can we go back and change our votes, too (to a vote for their challenger(s))?
It's no wonder we are having so much trouble convincing our leaders to ensure that electronic voting must be secure. As demonstrated by these and similar actions, they lack all respect for democracy and proper procedures regarding voting.
Patriot act is not limited to terrorist activities
/ pt /cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partner ID=565
h tm l
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com
and if you'd like to take pictures of a hotel...
http://www.gamersnook.com/blog/archives/000455.
- Google search took me 30sec, to find an abuse case for the patriot act. Probably take the major media until after the election to figure it out.
Just curious if the FBI is trolling everybodies answers for potential terrorists...
I've lost 50 pounds and lowered my total cholesterol 30 points while raising my HDL 15 points ... eating bacon & eggs.
"what he said" on the rest of it
And they also criticize the US for putting him into power and giving him weapons of mass destruction in the first place.
Actually, there's no inconsistancy there.
Saddam was put in power to benifit a group of companies (Dick Cheyney, Frank Carlucci, George Wackenhut, etc), intelligence agency leaders (Dick Cheyney, Frank Carlucci, etc), and a conservative administration (Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheyney, Frank Carlucci, etc) that was hungry for money and power. The war to remove him was instigated to benifit a group of companies (Dick Cheyney, George Wackenhut, Frank Carlucci, George Wackenhut, etc), the intelligence agencies (George Tenet) and their contracted intelligence support (Dick Cheyney, Frank Carlucci, George Wackenhut, etc) and a conservative administration (George W Bush, Dick Cheyney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, etc).
The fact that these guys are criticized once for placing and supporting Saddam Hussein and then criticized for removing him is in every way consistant with the reality that every action they undertake and every peice of legislation they support is motivated entirely for personal profit at the expense of the American people, in violation of basic rights as are enumerated in the constitution and in disregard for the rest of the world.
The fact that they have a habit of leaving bodies strewn about wherever they go doesn't help their case either.
Read, L
"If there isn't a Second Amendment, there won't be a First Amendment."
Guns are used to kill lots of people. If their complete abolition (their nonexistence) were possible, then the merits of gun debates become more relevant (because you could prevent those people from dying). The problem is that someone (government, insurgents, etc.) will always have guns - as long as they are produced (and since they are invaluable military weapons, that will likely be a very long time) someone will be able to get them. It's only a matter of how amoral one needs to be to do so.
If the gov't has the power to take your life without the ability to stop it, then they can take anything they want - your ability to to speak or believe freely, to gather publicly, etc. While I don't seriously expect an armed revolt in the US to succeed, the potential of one is likely to make a government more likely to behave well than in its absence. Another poster in this thread said it well; governments in their desire for control have killed far more people than terrorists and other agents of violence. The fear of government (or at least of unrestrained gov't) seems more reasonable than the fear of terrorists or individuals with guns.
There is also of course the 9th (or 10th?) Amendment to the US Constitution, in which the people or the states hold rights not expressly given to the federal gov't - power comes from the people, not from the gov't.
While I don't like guns, their costs (people that die by or are injured by gun violence) are likely less than that of a government without accountability (without ability to secure their rights, people cannot demand anything of government) which their "absence" (lack of legal possession) would likely cause.
If I'm OT or have imputed beliefs to you that you don't have, I'm sorry.
You sure are proud of your illiteracy.
And your illogical logic. The problem with the Patriot act isn't the government seeing which library books you've checked out--they can already do that with a court order. The problem is that now they can do this WITHOUT JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. The Patriot Act is great if we want to go back to the days of the Red Scare or J Edgar Hoover and Enemies Lists. Check out some Computer Security books and "House of Bush, House of Saud"? Obviously you're a leftist terrorist--the next John Walker! Don't confuse individual importance with aggregate importance--you're an insignificant nothing, but aggregated by a database together with all you're insignificant nothing friends, you become something harassing and controlling. They can send you to be detained indefinitely, and they don't even need to tell a judge. Bottom line is, you're a Libertarian in name only, and you shouldn't confuse your values with the value of that noble organization, even if you are voting for them out of habit.
By the way, something you might be interested in--even as many states are passing caps on tort limits, even as the number of lawsuits and size of payouts are both DECLINING in recent years, insurance premiums are still going up for everyone. (Yes, even in the states with tort limits.) That's not to say that tort reform isn't needed for its own reasons, but the simple limits proposed by the Republicans aren't doing any good, and rising costs of insurance have nothing to do with the double digit inflation we've been experiencing lately--for that, blame the investment losses of the insurance companies in the .COM market boom and bust.
Which is why I think it's bizarre how the last, dwindling contingent of right-wing libtertarians has fixated on the trial lawyers as their ultimate enemy--look at the commercials for ambulance chasers, look at the commericals for insurance companies, look at the commercials for pharmaceutical companies. Which set of commercials look like they were produced by someone with plenty of money to burn, with plenty of power to distort government regulation of the market place to their advantage? Ambulance chasers are pawns in this game just as much as doctors are. You can find some rich doctors, some rich lawyers. You don't find very many billionaire doctors or billionaire lawyers.
Sure, Bush makes a little bit of noise regarding adding free market reforms to health care--some meager steps towards decoupling employment and health insurance--but he's had four years with a rather compliant Congress to do so and done nothing. That he has still made no progress signifies he has no interest in attacking his major donors--the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the ones that really benefit from our strange hybrid government/market system.
Besides, if everyone had self control, the Southern Farmer wouldn't be able to sell his crop either, right? Tobacco lawsuits are stupid, but no great tragedy. Certainly nothing compared to illegal detentions. Or the fantastic increase in the size of government since Clinton left office, even excluding homeland defence and military.
Uh - libtertarians?
Fsck of non-spelur
Let's see here... Coal Creek, Tn. Striking coal miners staged a rebellion (now known as Coal Creek Rebellion) against the mine owners who were using convict labor as "strike breakers", Federal and state troops were used to try and quell the miners. While the 27 miners were killed, the losses incurred by the militias and local law enforcement raised such an outcry, that the federal law that made it legal to transport "strikebreakers" across state lines and use convict labor to break strikes was repealed.
The entire history of the industrial revolution is littered with mini armed rebellions against the government. In each case brought before the courts, the 2nd amendment was used successfully to defend the striking/rebelling laborers for the use of violence.
Oh and a certain Founding Father (Thomas Jefferson) said it himself.... "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing". This in reference to the Shay Rebellion.
Perhaps now more than ever it is important for each and every one of us who debate these things (which, at least at the moment) I still have the ability to do and you do to as evidenced by each and every one of our posts, to really read and know our Constitution and our history and to not lie down and accept ANY intrusion upon your rights.
And one last quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." The esteemed Ben Franklin
At best, you really need to do some research.
Another poster skillfully took you to task about most of the other points - but the very first sentence of your post is false, false, false. Some of those held incommunicado for over 2 years and not yet charged are American citizens.
Since the time of Lincoln the same course has been followed - when there was probable cause to deprive an American citizen of his freedom, the established process was followed, charges were filed and legal representation was permitted!
But this hideous new precedent has already been established - and tolerated. There are few thoughts more chilling to me than the powers-that-be imprisoning whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, in direct contradiction to longstanding principles of American law... yet here we are, seeing no sustained outrage of the citzenry, much less our so-called "elected representatives".
<grrr>
All the people who know and want their rights are close enough to marching outside the whitehouse. Our freedom is our identity to the world...but we're slowly becoming exactly what we think is a crime elsewhere.
Problem is, if you watch/read story on the PATRIOT act, its always a divided issue. They interview random people, and about half are willing to give up certain rights or freedoms for 'our protection'. But these people don't even know what it means, or the potential reprocussions of doing so, however they still get to vote. Is it even possible to really make a statement to our government or even bring about the changes we need without the support of the large herd of ignorant/brainwashed sheep(or maybe lemmings is more appropriate?)?
Which really brings up the question: Which is the bigger crime? Having your congress represent you 100%, even if you don't know whats best for yourself; or having congress think for you when you don't agree?
Maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing here...
...
...
...
...
From the article:
[the "effort"] lost by 210-210
Rep. C.L. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the defeated provision
The bill is H.R. 4754
Well, I looked up HR4754
From that page:
H.R.4754
Title: Making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] (introduced 7/1/2004) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 7/8/2004 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 397 - 18 (Roll no. 346).
7/8/2004 1:47pm:
H.AMDT.654 Amendment (A023) offered by Mr. Otter. (consideration: CR H5358-5360; text: CR H5358-5359)
An amendment numbered 4 printed in the Congressional Record to limit "sneak and peek" search warrants by narrowing the circumstances under which notice of the execution of the warrant is delayed to circumstances where the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the warrant "will endanger the life or physical safety of an individual, result in flight from prosecution, or result in the destruction fo or tampering with the evidence sought under the warrant.".
7/8/2004 1:54pm:
H.AMDT.654 By unanimous consent, the Otter amendment was withdrawn.
No other occurances of "Otter" occur on that page. This ammendement does look related to the Patiot act, but it does not relate to monitoring reading habbits and it was withdrawn by unanimous consent 7 minutes after being proposed. No ammendments (accepted or rejected) to the bill had cosponsors.
I'm not an expert. Can someone explain this to me? All I was really trying to do is figure out who voted for and against it and I couldn't even find evidence of the vote at all.
char *mySig;
Over so called 'holy wars' due to differences in beliefs then *any* other human related death...
Love thy neighbor, unless they are scum, then you must kill, fold spindle and mutilate them...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The people who were shooting at you were actually planning to come to the US and prevent me from exercising my freedom?
Okay, I found it!
The bill was sponsored by Rep Bernard Sanders, Bernard [VT] and I see no reference to a Rep Otter.
Ammendment information is here
Vote results are here
char *mySig;
"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." - Billy Madison
You seem to have missed my central point. Perhaps I can make it more clear for you:
Judicial oversight. No judicial oversight. I can't think of anything I could care less about. ANYONE. ANYONE in the ENTIRE WORLD can look at my library reading habits and I just DON'T care. Say what you will about the 4th Ammendment, "Red Scare", and this bizarre suspicion that I'm going to be fingered as a terrorist because a friend of a friend of my neighbor's boss checked out a book on nuclear power; I don't consider my reading list to be a fundamental inalienable private priviledge. Even if it is, combined with everything else Kerry & Edwards stand for, it isn't worth it to me.
You got so fired up about the PATRIOT act you suggested I should abandon my party allegience and vote along Democratic party lines because of this act. In theory you can make it out to sound like "1984", but in reality it has no effect on me, and it will NEVER affect me. You'll forgive my selfish disregard for your well being, but as a middle-class, corporate employed, cheeseburger and beer, white American I will NEVER be locked up in a metal box somewhere in Cuba because of the PATRIOT act. Abduction by terrorists . . . . maybe. But not the PATRIOT act.
Again, I'm a Libertarian for largely economic reasons. Not because I'm a borderline anarchist. And again, I'm not voting for Bush . . . but I'm CERTAINLY not voting for Kerry.
p.s. - as for the Tabacco farmer . . . . "no great tragedy"???? How can you get this fired up about someone looking over your shoulder at the LIBRARY (which, by the way, when was the last time you were even IN a library...(not a personal attack you you, just, seriously, how often do people REALLY check out books at the library) and overlook the eradication of the single biggest economic product of most southern states!?
Reported abuses of the Act?
How ridiculous , bunky !
<grrr>
It's just so Orwellian.
In thinking about it, all they know is that you may have checked out a particular book. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that you actually read it. In fact, they'd have a hard time proving that you read any of them. If merely having certain books can help with an arrest or conviction, it's time to toss in the towel and start over.
I find myself saying this a lot......
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
This study of al Qaeda terrorists in particular backs this point up. It may be true that many "fundamentalists" are not so bright, the ones who stay committed enough to become terrorists tend to be pretty bright (and I think this is true of other religious fundamentalisms as well, not just Islamists).
How did Wikipedia suddenly become an authoritative source? Can we see some quotes from the original documents, please? Perhaps some discussion of the Wikpedia entry author's credentials? Something other than "this is my opinion based on what appears to me to be the case"? Please?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Power grab for what?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to listen.
Freedom of the press doesn't include the freedom to read.
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
The US never directly supported Bin Laden. Even Bin Laden says he never took our money or weapons. The US supported the Taliban and the Taliban indirectly supported him. The Saudis and Pakistan's ISI provided funding and weapons to the foreign fighters that went to Afghanistan (some of it at our behest). The US didn't create Bin Laden or train him. At most the US is at fault for not scrutinizing the people they did support. In fact, it was Reagan's fault because he refused to offer the Soviets (how come nobody faults them for invading and killing 750,000 Afghanis?) some trade-offs to pull out. The continued fighting help produce those extremists. The Soviets deserve at least half the blame for starting that whole war.
As for Saddam, the US didn't put him in power in any fucking way. The guy murdered and fought his way to his dictatorship. The CIA is not all powerful. Hell they can't even keep track of some WMDs. The US had relations with him since he was a counter-weight to Iran but the countries who provided the conventional weapons with which he took power were the Soviets, the Chinese, and the French. And as we've seen, Saddam had almost no WMD - which he may or may not have got from the US, but which he would've got one way or another. I think it was more likely that the French, Soviets and Chinese were the ones who sold Iraq the WMD tech since they sold him everything else. The US did cut off relations with Saddam in 1986 when he gassed the Kurds.
Just because you were friendly with an asshole because he could help you out, doesn't make you an asshole. The asshole is still responsible for his own actions.
In calling the Bush administration corrupt, misguided and evil, I am not referring at all to the Republican views that they hold. (Incidentally, I would argue that they haven't effectively represented a number of values held by their constituency, most notably that of lower taxation. Recall that the federal budget was balanced when Clinton left office.) I'm referring to the deliberate and numerous abuses of power, conflicts of interest and repeated attempts to subvert the checks and balances that the legislative and judicial branches of our government hold on the executive office.
My issue with the current American leadership is not one of ideals, but rather of character. Since day one, the Bush administration has acted exclusively in the interest of itself and its corporate benefactors, with absolutely no regard for the public good. In the process, they've sent hundreds of American kids to die on fabricated pretenses (not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that we've blown up in the process) for personal financial gain, flattened our economy and packed our courts with judges who are at best heavily biased and, by many accounts, completely fanatical. If that's not evil, I don't know what is.
I realize that John Kerry has flaws. I don't entirely trust him myself. But hey, he can't be any worse than what we have now.
But, you know, if you want a military draft reinstated, and you don't mind footing your part of the bill for the inflated defense budget, and you're morally OK with exchanging innocent lives for money in Dick Cheney's pocket, then, well, go ahead.
even though I don't agree with all of the Libertarian platform, they are the only ones heading the direction I want the country to go. Voting for anyone else is another step in the wrong direction. When the Libertarians have 40% of congree I'll consider voting for another party.
Only if you are going so fast that it's considered wreckless endangerment. Without that it's a civil offense.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
maybe that's not such a bad thought. Our system is pretty good, but I'd have to think we can come up with something better from the lessons learned over the past two centuries.
Last summer, I was taking pictures of the local reservoir. I rode my bike, brought my digital camera and starting shooting pictures. We had so much rain the overflow was shooting a fountain of water, very spectacular.
Well, after about 2 minutes of picture taking, I was surrounded by several park rangers, told me I had to leave. No reason given. They asked me where I was from, what my business was, and wanted to know more about my camera and bike.
It was at that point, I knew the current administration was way wrong. Way wrong. I'm not paranoid, but when you have moron cops stopping people peopel because of paranoid fantasies, its time for the people in charge to be voted out and replaced with someone else. Anyone else.
Right after the US ambassador threatened sanctions, Sudan pledged to disband the Muslim militias who are currently on a rampage murdering black Muslims. All previous UN efforts had been spurned. France is trying to block US efforts to impose sanctions. (Guess who sells the most weapons to the Sudan?) The African Union is also trying to help by putting together a whopping force of 300 troops to help stabilize the Sudan.
So guess what? The US is pretty much doing the most of any country to try and stop the fighting. The US also brokered the peace agreement that stopped the previous slaughter and ended 21 years of fighting last May. The Muslim Sudanese government had killed 2 million Christians and animists. What I want to know is why there was no outcry by Muslims over that. Other Muslims haven't made a peep over the current slaughter of black Muslims which has resulted in the deaths of more Muslims than Iraq. (Two can play that sanctimonious righteousness act.)
While the US doesn't consider what is going on in the Sudan a genocide (it technically isn't), it is doing something about it contrary to your assertions. I guess you are the clueless one. Insightful my ass. The only sight that guy can see is his hatred of Bush (who does deserve plenty).
Also, as an individual, Saddam was definitely top 3 in terms of evil. Saddam started 2 wars (3 if you buy Bush's weak arguments) that killed 2.1 million people. According to Amnesty International, he had about 300,000 Iraqis killed after the first Gulf War to maintain power and another 450,000 people are 'missing'. Only Kim Il Jung is directly responsible for more deaths with his starvation of 6 million N Koreans.
I guess I will actually have to detonate a nuclear device in or near an urban center to see what happens. Since I will get busted if I try to read about what will happen anyway.
No, actually, I'm just saying it would make more sense to vote Democrat than Republican if you're planning to abandon your party allegiance anyway--and judging by the election results, most of you guys DO abandon your allegiance, so there you go.
p.s. - as for the Tabacco farmer . . . . "no great tragedy"????
Wait, you're making that misspelling consistently--is their some kind of Tabacco that's different than Tobacco? If so, I apologize for maligning the Southern Tabacco industry.
How can you get this fired up about someone looking over your shoulder at the LIBRARY (which, by the way, when was the last time you were even IN a library...(not a personal attack you you, just, seriously, how often do people REALLY check out books at the library)
If you're a middle-class and middle-aged, it isn't that common to get books out of the library. Not everyone is.
and overlook the eradication of the single biggest economic product of most southern states!?
Well, you know, as a yankee software engineer I will NEVER be Tobacco farmer. So there you go ;). Hey, it's just like when factories get automated and millions of manufacturing laborers get thrown on the streets--now those workers are free to contribute to the economy in other ways, and we're an overall more efficient country. While the tobacco lawsuits may not make sense philosophically or ethically, they certainly make sense economically and utilitarianly--those farmers were growing a product that made decreased the utilitarian good of people--consensually, yes, but the freedom to poison myself in the cheapest manner possible isn't as important to me as the Constitution.
Look, you may be in the Libertarian party, but you aren't Libertarian--you're just voting for you and yours. I can respect that, but it's weird that you're making a protest vote in favor of selfishness. Not selfishness in the abstract, either, but just in your own sphere of the economy. Usually, when someone votes for these sub 1% parties, idealism is the motivator. If you're just taking a "what's in it for me?" attitude, well, it probably doesn't even make sense to show up at the polling booth.
The part where you completely fail in your argument is that there is (presumably) some difference between "what you read" and "what you think"; but the aggressive archival for investigative, legal and prosecutorial purposes, of "what you read" and the certianty of guilt-by-association (whereby the state decides that what you have read is an functional indicator of what you think) is the touchstone of a colapse of liberty.
I, for one, read all sorts of descenting opinions.
I also do not suffer from the "beleives everything he reads" syndrome.
But let's be more concrete. Suppose I went down to the library and read a bunch on terrorisim, terrorist tactics, and the tretises of various "radical muslim clerics" in an effort to learn the difference between what is presented on the evening news, what I know of "real muslims", and the social relaities of those raised to the Taliban dogma.
Not being an "approved personage" for that information (e.g. not being a member of our government actively persuing intellegence for the prupose of overthrowing someone else's way of life) I would be flagged as a potential terrorist or sympathizer. Or at least there would probably be some sort of investigation launched where-in even the most tenuous of connections would secretly tar me with a dirty brush. Goodness me, that IBitOBear has, on three occasions bought gas from the Texaco insted of his normal Shell station. The proprietor of that Texico franchise once attended a movie in the company of another muslim who once found himself in the company of a cheritable orginazation that once gave money to the wrong Mosque. And within one week of each of these atypical purchases, we found it necessary to raise or lower the National Alertness Hue. We better pick that IBitOBear up for a quick overseas vacation.
Sound all far fetched? It isn't that much of a stretch. Remember that these same government people are talking about tracing associations to 32 (YES THIRTY TWO) degrees of separation.
Hell, I have less than six degrees of Kevin Bacon and I've never been in a movie. (My rommate was in "Pippy Longstocking" when he was a child. 8-). I've only got something like three or four degress to Bush, even though I have never been in politics (My Grandfather was somewhat influential in Annapolis MD politics. 8-)
How many degrees do *you* have to Bin Laden? What if he read Time Magazine every week and his neice is a Harry Potter fan? God forbid your highschool student son heard about the "Anarchist's Cookbook" and looked it up on a dare using the computer in your den.
The problem is that, with respect to terrorisim today, we are playing the newest version of "who's the Jew" that worked out so well for so many over the last 500 or so years.
And the reason that this is so dangerous, is that human beings are *NOTORIOUS* for their inability to tell the difference between "the appearance of improprietary" and "factual guilt."
So with the PATRIOT Act's abandonment of the primary requirements for liberty being lauded by people who beleive that "only terrorists need the protection of privacy", we are one good "purge" away from the next unworkable "final solution" to some vague and unstated problem.
All these "solutions" are like the number 42. Everybody has convinced themselves that 42 is *THE* *ANSWER* but nobody even remotely knows what the question might be.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Searching on clerk.house.gov, I located the Roll call vote for the amendment.
See how your representative stood: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll339.xml
I'm trying to figure out what you're saying, I really am. At first, it sounds fairly reasonable and interesting and stuff.
Unfortunately, I cannot get past the implication that you are one of the many that believe that the universe/human race is only five thousand years old. For me, the discussion stops right there. If you are prepared to throw away all of geology, archeology, paleontology, quantum physics, astronomy, etc. in favor of questionable conclusions drawn from a heavily edited and (mis?)translated book written by unknown authors, then there's nothing left for me to say.
is to "educate" (brainwash) students, not increase their intelligence.
While one can be educated and intelligent, education tends to stunt many areas of intellectual growth. Here are a few things that school does teach:
1. Endurance - The ability to tolerate tedious and boring environments, rote tasks, institutional structures, and rigid guidelines.
2. Assignable Curiosity - The ability to fall in line and become interested in whatever subject matter is being taught at the time.
3. Ideological Discipline - This requires an uncritical approval of institutional structures. Those that believe school is organized in an inefficient manner, or that it's a waste of time, tend not to do well. Those who embrace the institutional hierarchy respond very well.
4. Respond well to Fascism - Does the student embrace authority, even rather dim-witted authority figures? If yes, then we have a great student.
5. Elitism - Does the student believe that school is a measure of intelligence, and that therefore, the huge difference in grades is caused by the fact that there is a huge variety in intelligence? Does the student believe that the reason the majority don't make it through the educational system is because they are dumb sheep? If so, the student will do well. Or, instead does the student (rightly) believe that the true sheep are the ones that make it through the nightmare process of 20 years of schooling required to get a Phd? If this is the case, the student isn't likely to be able to tolerate the process.
6. Uncritical Thinking - The student must memorize whatever facts that are presented uncritically. The student must be uncritical in his or her service to the system. If the student goes to a poor school, then he or she must uncritically learn the skills that employers require. If the student goes to a wealthy school, then he or she must learn uncritically how to be a manger, doctor, lawyer, etc.
Of course a student at a poor school can go to a better school if he works much harder, but this requires that the student embrace the system even more so than his wealthier peers.
A good book to read about this is "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt. It's an excellent critique of the educational system.
Looking at my undergraduate book collection, I am struck by just how few books one is required to read in order to get a degree. I can fit them on a single shelf. Half are for core cirriculum requirements(a fancy word for remedial education) that most US colleges require, the other half are for my two degrees, a BS in Comp Sci and a BA in Music. Of that, about 10 are books directly related to computer science. That's it, just 10 books. I bought over twice that many CS books on my own during the same two year period that I majored in CS. Obviously, ten books isn't much, so the real learning is happening elsewhere. The things being taught are the 6 things I mentioned above, not the material in the books. This is why degrees are considered important despite the fact that most of the books and material don't come close to covering everything a student needs to know.
Vote Badnarik: he opposes the patriot act, NAFTA, WTO, the IRS, etc.
http://www.meervrijheid.nl/myfiles/badnarik.png
www.badnarik.org
You speak of a comparasin between the US and "here", but there is not enough context for me to figure out where you are posting from. I can guess that it's in the Europe somewhere, and that it's somewhere with a parlament, but that still doesn't narrow it all the way.
By the way, as a US citizen fed up with the process, I agree with your analysis of the US political system wholeheartedly. Lately I've been voting for whatever third party seems to have the best chance, even when I don't agree with anything they say - because generally a process of three-way debate is more intelligent than a two-way us-versus-them debate, and having people realize the existence of a third choice will increase the general level of intelligent talk on the issues overall. I can remember when Ross Perot was a candidate, the intelligence level of debates got better with three factions involved. And that's true despite the fact that Perot himself was a grandstanding idiot, mind you. (The existence of a viable third party forced the other two to become more reasonable.)
But, instead of going from a 2 party system to a 3 or 4 party system, I think the ideal system would be a zero party system, where you elect individuals to congress on their individual merits, using runoff elections. In round one, you'd have hundreds of candidates, most of them kooks who went through the paperwork to get registered as candidates just for the heck of it, but there would be some serious ones buried in there. The application would have space to summarize your platform, and this could be posted to a site run by the election commission. Then you have a vote on them, and eliminate the bottom 2/3 or so of them and vote again, this time giving candidates more space to state their platform. Repeat the process until you are down to only two remaining candidates in the last vote, and by then the remaining few would start to have enough recognition that they could form one-time donation groups to fund their commercials and public speaking events. Basically, only those people that really care a lot would be participating in the first few runoff elections, but by the time it got down to the last few, everybody would be paying attention.
This might sound like an expensive process, but with the information age, it doesn't have to be. The major media attention doesn't need to be done until the last couple of elections in the proccess.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I'd liketo say something to all the Americans readers of slashdot who did not bother to contact their elected officials to express there opinions about this vote, and the PATRIOT act: FUCK YOU, ASSHOLES!
Joe Sixpacks, defender of the common man.
repeal the "patriot" act!
write your rep
Contact your senator
Letters to leaders
Please help get this worthless legislation off the lawbooks. Throwing legal protections out the window may be handy at the moment, but I guarentee that it will bite you or someone you care about in the ass sooner or later. As Ben Franklin said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
You think getting involved in the mid-east is sticky, Betting involved in Africa would be madness. Whose incharge? are the authorized to be in charge? do we just back whoever happens to be sitting on a seat of government now? Do we just go in a slaughter everybody? What would people like you say if we just ent there, and started exerting control? started carving it into more states? There is no person the world will say "Back him". For anybody we back, half the world will be against us. Suddam is a bad, bad man, a torturer murderer, poisoner of his own people. Are there worse? probably but where do we start? They one good thing about IRAQ is that pretty much everybody disliked Saddam. Except the french who violated are agreement and still used him to make lots of money. For the record, I don't think Bush handles Iraq correctly at all, I am not defending the path he choose to take. I am just saying the world is far too complicated to line up all the people commeting atrocities, and then fight against all the ones that everyone agrees upon. So, what have you done to try and change things? If you haven't contact your representitves, then you are just a whiny bastard who needs to either get off the pot, or shit.
Joe Sixpacks, defender of the common man.
The above is an example of infringment of the fourth amendment, not the first.
How about some slashdotter form Tennessee goes and visits him? E-mail likely won't work. A letter might, but if you show up in person and talk to him, maybe you can educate him, or he you.
But while I think that liberal talk about "power grabs" is way overheated, I am concerned about the Patriot act - even as a conservative. Why? Because long before the Patriot act, the racketeering laws were used against abortion protestors. If a protestor can be labelled a "racketeer", and deprived of legal rights, what's to prevent someone who disapproves of homosexual behaviour from being labelled a terrorist? Another problem is that racketeering is something that takes place on an ongoing basis and everyone knows it - the police are simply trying to determine the culprits. Terrorism is something that the culprits are planning for the future - often with no plans to live beyond the deed. Trying to track them down is uncomfortably close to a department of pre-crime.
However, while I would rather for the present that things like racketeering laws and Patriot acts were not around to be abused, I think the root of the problem is courts exceeding their authority and redefining words, whether they are inventing novel definitions for "racketeering" and "marriage" or writing law from the bench respecting the establishment of religion.
We need more conservative judges - who restrict themselves to interpreting existing law rather than creating new law.
Bah, that gun nonsense again. Folks rob people with knives in Japan (read http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/ every now and then). Bow and arrow are weapons too, but they aren't as "sexy" to blather on about in this country. Morally destitute people (and folks in desperate situations--real or imagined) kill others with whatever device will function most appropriately at the time. Guns are a really stupid choice--noisy, lots of bad laws, highly traceable, and made of ferromagnetic metal that sets off detectors. Household poisons, common gardening tools, automobiles and fires started with food products instead of traditional accelerants are all much easier to get away with (I worked for a defense attorney; criminals get caught because they're stupid). The 9/11 terrorists seemed to know this. The folks I know who have guns shoot food and targets made to look like food. I get a garbage bag of venison every year out of it...btw, I don't live in the "country". I'm in an urban area.
Mr. Wamp is my Rep. I know him personally...thought better of him. Well What should I say to him for ya'll next time our path's cross.
We should ask Dick Cheney, who would of course, respond with:
...the definitive answer is here
"Go fuck yourself."
But the real question should be: "Exactly how gay is Mr. George W. Bush?"
Hey, get "truth and lies of 9-11"...
One of the most interesting ones, they can now wiretap attorney-client (formerly 'privileged') communicaitons and use it in court. So much for freedom again self-incrimination...
And, as he said on the tape, sure, they say its only attorney-client wiretaps for 'known terrorists'... but then again, under the Patriot act, they can call you a terrorist and lock you up for several years without ever accusing you or charging you in court. So who exaclty is to say whether you, Joe Average buying a 6-pack at the store and going home to clean your hunting rifle, might not just be found to be a 'terrorist'.
Without the checks and balances built in by our *consitution*, which have been chucked by the P.A., such as your right to a speedy trial, your right to know the charges against you, your right to an attorney... who is to say what they *can* or *can't* do, other than them???
Very very scary sh*t.
A-hole jerks that bullied them in the first place.
WHO ARE THEY?
What do they get out of this?
Is pResident Bush hiding something?
Look! It's the Fa-a-abulous Outing of Mr. Gee Dubya Bushikins
(Maybe he was "outed" before: and the event got him removed from the National Guard. Is that why those records were "inadvertently" destroyed?)
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984"
BTW, please mention those US Citizens by name (grin
sent to "internal" exile (a la freezing starvation Soviet Gulag or Chinese Communist Laogai )
tortured a la Saddam's Iraq vice "abused"
deprived of their civil rights a la Manzanar
I believe Juanita
Care of the wikipedia entry on the 3/11 attacks:
Mistakes happen. The word from the governor of Basque County was ETA did it, and the government took it and ran with it.
Except that with few exceptions, more people have been killed at the hands of their own governments than have ever died from foreign or even domestic terrorist networks.
Excellent point. Let's put some hard numbers with that assertion. Oh, somewhere in the neighborhood of 170,000,000 civilians killed by government in the 20th century. How many military deaths? 33,000,000. Total, 203 Million. That's right, nearly 6 times as many people died at the hands of government than died fighting for it. 83,000,000 died as a result of tyranny and genocide in the last 100 years, but no, we don't need liberty or habeas corpus or the right to bear arms anymore. Those things are so 18th century.
You want to know what drives someone to fly a jet full of passengers into one of the tallest buildings in the world? Some idiot is saying it's because they hate freedom and democracy... I have a different theory.
- vs -
Saddam-era Iraq Torture Iraq torture video clip
Bottomline? ... Abuse != Torture
I believe Juanita
sent to "internal" exile (a la freezing starvation Soviet Gulag or Chinese Communist Laogai )
tortured a la Saddam's Iraq vice "abused"
deprived of their civil rights a la Manzanar
I believe Juanita
One last thing ... I triple double dare you to watch the Iraq torture
video clip
I believe Juanita
One last thing ... I triple double dare you to watch the Iraq torture
video clip
I believe Juanita
You got so fired up about the PATRIOT act you suggested I should abandon my party allegience and vote along Democratic party lines because of this act.
Umm, no, actually in my case I would suggest that you not vote along ANY party lines, since thats just a silly friggin notion anyways, and instead do what all americans should really be doing and vote for the best person for the job, period. I don't care if they are green with bug-eyes, if I think they'd be better than the other candidates, I'd vote for them, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, "Green" party, whatever be damned. If more people did that than stick with silly party lines, we'd probably have a better government in that alone.
.... sure as hell is the most dangerous terrorist ever expelled from the US.
McCarthy was right all along. Lets build a monument to his memory
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Some people in the US just can't get over the fact that there are people that disagree with the US's goverment policies (the "preemptive strike" policy, after yesterday's congressional report on US "intelligence" is a complete joke).
It is not anti-USianism, all the same people that oppose your muddle in Iraq where with you all the way on 9-11, We were all NYers.
Your goverment blew all that. The US found wide support for attacking Afghanistan, because it was a justified response.
Iraq is a disgrace, one does not need to hate the US to realize that.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm sure they'll apply the provisions of the Patriot Act as responsibly as they've been enforcing the no-fly list.
This sort of discussion is the best reason for the internet to exist. Thankyou for the eye-openers.
1)Never blame that on malice which can also be attributed to stupidity.
2)Never blame that on stupidity which can also be attributed to ignorance.
3)Never blame that on ignorance which can also be attributed to laziness.
4)Never accept an erosion of our freedoms, whether it is attributable to malice, stupidity, ignorance, or laziness.
Yndrd, you're very kind. If I had advocated reducing government by killing off politicians, rather than voting them out, imagine what kind of a furor that would have raised!
Those who deliberately choose not to vote, to withdraw their consent and invalidate the idea that democracy means people volunteer to live under a corrupt system, I also sympathize with.
Instead, I choose to say "NO!" as loudly as I can and stay within what little room left the law allows. Voting for someone who is actually not the lesser of two evils is one of those ways.
Thank you for your considerate and thoughtful response. I wish more people were thinking instead of just emotionally reacting.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
What a truly amazing display of stereotyping and straw-manning.
I find the last line particularly telling... the implication is that one must always be in favor of war, or be a hypocrite. Apparently, we're not supposed to use our brains for ourselves and determine whether a given conflict is justified.
Orwell really understood part of human behavior, the desire for power; 1984 and Animal Farm are great classics. But I don't think he understood how to fight it, because the mindless jingoism he seems to be advocating will lead straight into those same scenarios. "My country, right or wrong" is a very dangerous attitude. If you'll support those in power no matter what, then eventually you will be used to do things that are wrong, because in the BEST case, leaders are still human and make mistakes. Most of the time, their competence is at least somewhat questionable, and occasionally they shade into outright incompetence. In the worst case, they are actively malignant.
Bush and team are, at least, rather fumbling and inept. What I fear is someone who is both highly competent and highly malignant. The mindless patriots that Orwell seems to be advocating here are exactly the tools this kind (his kind!) of despot needs.
Anything I say about this would likely be considered flame bait...
There three wonderful writers I can recommend to you: Smith, Kropotkin and Mises.
You might remember Adam Smith, even if you went to American public school. His name is usually mentioned in passing as having proven that government bureaucracy is less efficient than private enterprise. His investigation started by trying to figure out why England, relatively poor in natural resources, was beating the proverbial crap out of much larger countries economically speaking. His legacy lives on in places with tremendous wealth, like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, that has nothing to do with natural resources at all. Just comparatively little market regulation.
Kropotkin was a Russian aristocrat, who traveled in Siberia to study the people who lived there, far removed from any recognizable form of "government". Gee, how could people live? Wouldn't they need some governance to make sure they didn't starve? Let's just say he came back enlightened.
Luckily, Mises has had a wider audience. http://www.mises.org/ has most of his writings available, along with a large collection of ancillary writings by astounding intellects such as Murry Rothbard.
As far as my voting goes, your other suggested method is, how shall I put it, "suicidal"?
Maybe you thought you were referring to the many millions of eligible voters who choose to not vote specifically because they believe by doing so they are removing their consent from the corrupt, abusive thing we label "government". If so, then you're still confused because there are quite a number of different ways to register displeasure with the people in power. Not voting is one of them.
Less than half of the eligible voters register to vote. Less than half of those registered do vote. Getting 51% of that little number is hardly a mandate by any rational measure.
I gladly stand with the 87% who didn't vote for anyone presently in power.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
I believe Juanita
'Johnny' Walker (the Marin County Jihad-dude) was actually charged with Federal crimes and did a plea bargin, currently serving ten-years. Was never charged under the "big bad scary evil" Patriot Act. If anything he was treated like a hostile nut case on the Afghan battle field prior to transport to US Federal prisons for trial ... did you see the video of him on CNN? A nut case who didn't get his Ritalin dose in high school
Basically your answer boils down to ... ZILCH ... no one ... nobody ... in short "no harm no foul" ... can we say this is a manufactured crisis?
Give me a jingle when the "shitlist" number reaches the:
~ 3000 murdered on 9-11
American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970. This list also includes injured Americans since Oslo 1993
120,000 Americans of Japanese origin who were detained (not tortured a la Saddam, not abused a la frat party hijinks in Iraq) in American concentraion camps during WWII
I believe Juanita
Well said.
Just attended Kerry's stump speech rally today in Raleigh, N.C. He spoke of the desire to repair the damage caused by the unilateral arrogance of the current administration, and regain the respect and friendship of the international community.
I know it's cooler (and safer) to only criticize and never put your trust in anything, but if you feel the need to change America's current course as plotted by GWB, vote for Kerry/Edwards.
Stump Speech (in 100 words or less)
1) No American working full time should be in poverty
2) We want better healthcare
3) We want better education
4) We want cleaner air and water
5) We want better standing with the international community
6) We want a strong military; we won't go to war because we want to, but only when we have to
7) We want fair trade policies
8) We'll try to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
9) Teresa Heinz Kerry: We want women to be a respected part of the process
You agree with a troll then:
1) Guns are pre emptive - a person with a gun is MUCH more likely to be able to persuade someone with a knife to drop it.
2) A criminal with a gun (who can get them in many more ways than you know how legally) can get them illegally and then just KILL you from far away. If he knows you don't have a gun, he knows you won't fight back
3) Guns are used for hunting as a sport but ALSO as animal control - New Hampshire has a DEER PROBLEM - set out traps and dogs and cats get in them
4)There is a thing called target practice - it's fun - you should try it.
5) Gun gauranty by constitution is there for YOUR protection against the government. Individuals COULD ban together and actually fight back against the military if they so choose - why do you think the white man conquered the Native Indians so easily? We had guns, they didn't. If our government ever decides they want your land or don't like you and pass a law to take your stuff or your rights - you have no defense - you have no gun.
6) It is NOT proven that in the United States gun control would or does prevent crime - other countries are exactly that - other countries.
7) Forget the black market - criminals know clever people that can make guns - you probably don't know how to make anything or aquire anything that can defend you other than a close combat device.
8) Maybe there WILL be a time in the future you might need to hunt for food. And actually there are more people than you think that do.
9) Any law that prevents a law abiding citizen from doing anything - gives a priveleddge to a criminal.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Some moderators appear anxious to slant the debate by moderating downward comments that provide potential balance and/or differing opinions.
I believe Juanita
Only 3,000 people were killed on September 11, so why are you whining about Osama bin Laden? Call me back when half your race's population is dead.
- Anonymous Jew
While it's hard for a small armed group to take over a country, at least a few major insurrections (China with Mao, N. Vietnam - while eventually they had big army support, Afghanistan) started out that way. In addition, all a small group like that has to do is make it impossible to govern - the problem in Iraq, etc. indicate that this isn't so hard to do.
If someone can take your life without fear, they can (and probably will) take whatever else they want.
According to the page you linked to, the motto hasn't changed, and isn't "The Truth Shall Set You Free" but "The truth shall make you free".
And it's obvious that the poster meant that what was disgraceful was the actions of the US with regards to Iraq. I don't think anybody thinks that Saddam was a great guy, who treated all the people of Iraq well.
What is disgraceful is how the US squandered the good will of essentially the entire world by invading Iraq.
Take a look at that final UN resolution about Iraq. Does it say that the UN will authorize the use of force against Iraq? Nope. What it says is "Decides ... to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process ..."
And guess what, there were no WMD found! I guess that means that Iraq complied with its requirements to get rid of its WMD programs.
But did the US follow the UN security council resolution and give the inspectors time to determine this? Nope. They decided that the UN wasn't going to authorize an invasion on their time frame, so they simply ignored the UN and their obligations to follow the UN charter and invaded Iraq.
In a few decades, maybe less if we're lucky, the people of Iraq will be better off than they were under Saddam Hussein, but from everything I've read, the majority of Iraqis don't think they're there yet. They may have had fewer personal freedoms under Saddam, and may have been scared about speaking out against him, but there were no random suicide bombers attacking them in downtown Baghdad. They generally had running water, electricity, and jobs.
It could be that the only way to depose Saddam Hussein was through military force. But wouldn't it have been better if that force had been a truly international one? Instead of hundreds of dead Americans and thousands of maimed ones, other countries could have shared the burden. Do you think that Iraqis would be just as resentful if the international force included all the countries that Bush Sr. had for the first Gulf war?
Even if you think that Bush was right to send US soldiers into harm's way, do you think he was right to paint a bulls-eye on their chests before doing it?
REPORT FROM THE FIELD: THE USA PATRIOT ACT AT WORK
Evidently the Patriot Act is working on a scale not yet approaching:
~ 3000 murdered on 9-11
American Victims of Mideast Terrorist Attacks approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970. This list also includes injured Americans since Oslo 1993
120,000 Americans of Japanese origin who were detained (not tortured a la Saddam, not abused a la frat party hijinks in Iraq) in American concentraion camps during WWII
I believe Juanita
Edwards struck me as slightly more honest than most politicians. This coming from someone that generally hates democrats more than he hates republicans. Kerry though, is the worst kind of candidate there is.
Of course, John Kerry is the Anti-Christ.
Well, maybe not quite the worst.
At least he isn't Al Gore.
Even though I'm planning to vote for Kerry (because he isn't Al Gore and I'm really sick of W) I'm thinking of telling everyone that I'm voting for Ralph Nader just to really piss off the liberals. If they argue with me then at some point in the conversation I'll say: "OK, you win. I'll vote Libertarian. After all, those votes really count for Kerry right?"
I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.