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 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?
Your sig is probably the most insightful thing that can be said on this topic.
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 . . .
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!
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
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"
The problem is, if i email you something saying how to create a virus and take out networks and they see it went to you. You are now suspicious and since that can be seen as 'terrorist' activity, you can be held without a lawyer, or charges, for an indefinite amount of time.
Does that sound like America to you? Sounds like the old Mother Russia or the 3rd Reich.
I'm not even from the US and am so totally against this "ACT". It's terrible that the terrorists have beaten the US of A and they don't even know it.
Our way of life has changed and we fear anything and everyone now.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
there is a reason that red tape is there. that red tape was originally put there in the constitution in the form of requiring them to get a warrant so that the police, fbi, cia couldn't just harass their citizens like the british could do at the time.
For all you Bush haters/Kerry lovers out there remember both Kerry and Edwards voted for the Patriot Act.
I honestly don't believe I'm important enough and/or interesting enough to have anybody read my e-mail.
Now here's an interesting bit of apathy. Yes, quite true - most of us are not worthy of being scrutinized like this by the federal government. But what if you're, say, a 'dangerous subversive' who is critical of the government? Certain powerful people would be quite interested in doing a little research on you then, wouldn't you agree? And should they be allowed to? Think about it ...
Besides, if your plotting to destroy some building somewhere, why don't you download a good ol' fashioned version of PGP and protect yourself
Yes, if you really are plotting something evil and doing it over the net, you would use something like that, wouldn't you? So doesn't that fact rather defeat the alleged purpose (i.e. combating terrorism) of allowing the government to spy on average people?
If you are doing something that requires you to hide it from the government, your breaking the law, and deserve to be caught.
RED ALERT! RED ALERT! Tell that to the subversives in Soviet Russia or other Ex-Communist countries. Remember, the government is not automatically benevolent. This is why democracies have things like Constitutions and division of power. And they certainly do not have laws that allow indescriminate monitoring of regular people.
Yes, yes, I know all about 9/11 and the horrible tragedy that was inflicted on American then. I am not American myself, so I cannot begin to imagine what it must feel like. But this also gives me the luxury of objectivity. Every American today needs to ask himself: Just who are we protecting ourselves against? And how do we do it? And just how much of what we have gained in the past 200 years are we willing to sacrifice for it?
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
"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.
Look at how amuck the FBI ran in the 50's amd 60's when they had little oversite. The "enemies" lists, the invasions of personal lives of people who were NOT a threat to the country, etc. I LIKE the fact that the executive branch is beholdent to the judicial for warrants. Some people far smarter than you and I setup the systems of checks and balances and I wish people wouldn't try to muck with it every time there is a small threat to the country, their meddling is FAR more dangerous to republic over the long run.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I honestly don't believe I'm important enough and/or interesting enough to have anybody read my e-mail.
.mil address, I'd just assume that my email was up for grabs.
If I had a
The fact that some (such as your self) in our armed forces aren't fighting tooth-and-nail for our freedoms is somewhat depressing.
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
I don't want the government to know anything about me. Of course, they have to know a little about me, like my Social Security number and whether or not I've paid my taxes, but beyond that I don't see any need for them to know anything. And, no, I don't have anything to hide.
Buying habits? Travel habits? Books I've read? Internet sites I've visited? No, no, no, and Hell no!
That red tape is there for a reason. The Police and other Law enforcement agencies have enormous power, and in a free society that power must be restrained.
Take a look through history, even recent US history. Law enforcement can and do abuse their power. From bashing Vietnam war protestors, to beating up innocent people to extract confessions, Law enforcers are not angels. They are people like everyone else. You consider yourself innocent and that this law will not effect you. You fail to realise that this law and laws like are the exact kinds of restrictions placed on liberties that lead to dictatorships, and that ultimatly will affect you.
If you are one of those people that believe that a dictatorship could never,ever happen in their country, then you should reevaluate your views. Democracies should always remain vigilante against those that would seek to undermine them. Nowhere is immune to the threat of an authoritarian state.
Terrorism presents a threat, only to life and limb. It presents no threat to our freedoms. We have reactionaries and politicians to do that.
May the Maths Be with you!
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
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
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.
"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
I'll say it again, no one will care about your dirty little secrets until you run for office! Then your secrets aren't secret any longer. Do you think your life so far will stand public scrutiny? What about if your reading habits are public? Video rentals? Website browsing habits? Personal thoughts? I didn't think so.
Sometimes, all too often, you're right. But there are some issues I have with your post.
For one thing, the Patriot Act, in a way, shows democracy in action. The American people wanted a swift and comprehensive law to fight terrorism, and they got it. The fact that it takes away people's liberties is a side effect. Now, IMHO, I think that the real danger to America isn't people blowing up buildings - we can rebuild those, but rather the threat to free speech and a nation where people of different backgrounds and beliefs - policitical, social, whatever, I think that its the threat to free speech as presented by the Patriot Act that most threatens America.
Still, despite stories circulating for years about all the scary powers of the Patriot Act, there are still many people in the general populas who support the law. You can argue - and correctly - that they only support it because they don't fully understand its consequences, but that misses the point. In a democracy, its not right and wrong that matter, but what people BELIEVE is right or wrong.
And yes, most recent Presidents HAVE been multi millionaires. On the other hand, I think you could argue that we want our Presidents to be proven successful, capable people, and that in the US today, realistically, most people that we'd consider to be 'successful' are millionaires.
The important thing to note is that they didn't start out that way - Clinton started out every bit the Southern country boy, for example.
If you think that over the course of him bing a Rhodes scholar, Attorney General for Arkansas, Governer for Arkansas and later President of the United States, that he didn't deserve to accumulate a fair bit of wealth (a lot of it has been since his Presidency ended, where he can make $50k speaking or several million for an advance on a book), then you don't understand how most of America characterizes (for better or for worse) 'success'.
Tim
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?
You are right. It won't be Siberian :-)
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
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 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!
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.
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
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"
...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
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.
Someone posted this below, but was karma'd out:
Actually, while the naming was done to promote "unity" or some such (it was passed after the 9/11 attacks after all), it is actually an acronym. The real name is "USA PATRIOT Act" and the "USA PATRIOT" stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism."
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
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.
Aside from vote, what else can be done to help repeal this law?
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
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.
I'm an American and I can tell you what it felt like to me:
So there you have it. Some may call me "unpatriotic". Others may even want to "detain" me so I don't "cause any harm". Thankfully, I'm not the only one in this country who feels the way I do. But it sure feels like it.
Nathan's blog
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.
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!
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.
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...
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 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 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?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.
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.
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
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?
I hope I'm not the only person who is sick of hearing 9/11 this and terrorism that. It's as bad as "we must do in the name of the children" arguments.
9/11. It happened, it sucked, GET THE FUCK OVER IT ALREADY! Our continued pre-occupation with it and terrorism is destructive to the fabric of this nation. One doesn't need much more than the patriot act for proof, although plenty more exists where that came from.
I've read the beast known as the Patriot Act. It's a great document if you like the executive branch wiping it's collective ass with the constitution.
The thing that is both sad and funny about it is it won't stop terrorism. It won't even slow it down. All it really does is grant unchecked powers or rubber-stamped powers.
The language is vague at best. It's loaded with subjective terms like "reasonable", with no further limits or description on what reasonable is.
You can be searched, monitored, investigated, and arrested WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. The best part is that they don't have to tell you. And they can hold you for an INDISCRIMINATE AMOUNT of time, without a lawyer or trial if the circumstances are "sufficient" (another term that is used without further explanation). And, as many of us know, if you do bring anything related to the Patriot act to trial, you can't even say anything about it without incurring a heavy penalty. It's a federal offense, go directly to jail for 5 years. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not attempt to invoke any constitutional rights.
And to anyone who says "we'll if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to fear", here's a big fuck you. What does the government declare wrong. Is my writing this on slashdot wrong? Is me saying the Patriot Act reflects the sesspool our system is becoming wrong? I don't know about everyone else but after all the lies, half-truths, and outright deceit that has come out of the government in the last 3 years I really don't want THEM deciding what is right and wrong.
The Patriot Act WILL NOT give anyone any security. It will not make you safe from terrorist. And it will not make the US a better place.
Why? Let's think of of it in computer terms. Terrorism is like P2P. P2P has no central server. There is no centralized location. In order to take down a P2P network you would have to take down all the "peers". This, as I'm sure many know, is practically impossible, as the peer could be anywhere at anytime.
Need more examples? Look at Israel and Chechenya. Those countries are practically under martial law and terrorists STILL ATTACK SUCCESFULLY. This should tell congress, and Americans in general something. No matter how many freedoms are stripped away and no matter how many insane powers are granted, you will not stop a dedicated terrorist, foriegn or domestic.
The only thing the Patriot Act ensures is that our constitutional rights have been compromised. Bush and co. also want to eliminate the sunset clause and extend/add more abilities for the government to trounce the constitution with. You thought Patriot 2 was dead? It's being passed piecemeal, under the radar by having sections added to other bills in congress.
I'm tired of all this stealth crap. Why don't they just repeal ammendments and get it over with. The government should just stop pretending that the great document known as the Constitution even has any meaning anymore.
Write letters and vote. I do both. Despite my lack of faith now, I still hang on to a glimmer of hope that we can make difference. We have to try something before we end up like the sheeple in 1984.
~X~
Question To Ponder:
"Why did Jeb Bush declare a state of emergency for two years on September 7,2001?"
~X~
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;
Yet taxes are the least efficient method of funding a beneficial program, since that funding must go through three different bureaucracies before it gets to the program itself: Collection, allocation, and disbursement.
The program then wastes resources complying with regulatory and reporting requirements by those bureaucracies.
There is also the ill will generated by taxing people who do not agree with the various programs, such as Catholics taxed to pay for sex education, home schoolers taxed to pay for government schools they do not use, people against the death penalty taxed to pay for the murder of their fellow people, etc.
The base immorality of taxation is impossible to avoid, without deliberately trying to do so.
Interested individual people, coming together for common interests, will each put forth effort toward efficiency in the operation. That is why such private charitable efforts as Goodwill and The Salvation Army operate on rediculously small ammounts of money, while every government program is constantly wasting vast sums.
Oh yes, let us address the "monopoly" argument. I love that one!
Remember ITT? They, along with AT&T and a handful of other multinationals was going to rule the world. Go read "Roller Ball Murder" if you can find a copy of it, that is the atmosphere in which it was written.
ITT still exists, it publishes foreign language phone books. Its "monopoly" status didn't save if from the whims of the consumer.
Microsoft? This is Slashdot, you might have noticed. There are a great many alternatives, and Microsoft is not a monopoly, because there is no penalty for not using their product. The only monopolies are those that have government backing. One of the reasons that Microsoft became the huge corporation it is is because it was easier to write "IBM compatible", then "Windows compatible" on the GOVERNMENT procurement forms than to try to specify the swath of standards that were required. This too is changing, as most days news headlines on Slashdot or LinuxToday.com will inform you.
The myth of "natural" monopolies is based upon the theory of static economic conditions. That theory is false, there is always change. If there is only one supplier in a market, it is only because they have priced their product such that no other competitor could come in and undercut them and still make a profit.
Efficient managers are continually looking for something to give them the upper hand, and with the tool of Government force available, some of them will attempt to use that power to enforce their position to keep competition at bay.
For instance, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is nothing but a paid-for attempt to maintain dominant market positions of established businesses. It is even possible to identify individual Senators and Congressmen who are in the pocket of the very wealthy entertainment industry, just do a search for "The Senator From Disney".
It is government assistance that keeps such monopolies in power.
Lastly, it is the very power of government interference in peoples lives which attracts corruption. If there were no power to take property "legally" by force and give it do another, what is politely called "redevelopment", companies would have to pay an owner what the owner thought the property was worth. It is much cheaper to buy the double edged sword of eminent domain and zoning laws.
It is the very power of government that corrupts, it is the fact that the power is available and for sale that causes it to be purchased. It is pointless to pay me a bribe, for instance, because I cannot do anything in return. By advocating government, you advocate corruption.
A corrupt business is inefficient compared to a cleanly run one. Time is spent covering up operations. Money is wasted on bribes and payoffs that a clean operation would not be paying.
If you really want to do something about corruption, remove the temptation. Eliminate the power, and there will be no abuse of power.
Remember, only a government can get away with murder on a large scale. Even the most successful serial killer doesn't match one day of the war in Iraq. (yes, i am speaking in general terms).
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
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
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.
Intercepting THEIR messages and blocking THEIR actions is fine.
However, since THEY don't wear signs, there is no way to impede them without unacceptable restrictions being placed on ordinary citizens.
So. You get the terrorists to wear signs, and I'll let you do whatever you want to to them. Until then, we'll extend Constitutionally protected liberties to absolutely everyone. If you read it carefully, you'll note that it does not give rights to citizens, but enjoins the government from restricting the rights of People. Yes, that means that even people who aren't citizens are entitled to due process of law.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
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.
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