Slashdot Mirror
Court says: 'Terror Fears Can't Curb Liberty'
jettoblack writes "Finally, a glimmer of sanity... according to the AP, "Fear of a terrorist attack is not sufficient reason for authorities to search people at a protest, a federal appeals court has ruled..." Another great quote: "We cannot simply suspend or restrict civil liberties until the War on Terror is over, because the War on Terror is unlikely ever to be truly over..." Judge Gerald Tjoflat wrote for the panel. "Sept. 11, 2001, already a day of immeasurable tragedy, cannot be the day liberty perished in this country.""
Glad someone finally figured it out... Does this mean they'll be getting rid of the real threats to our freedom, like the Patriot Act and Bush?
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Maybe soon someone will see that this whole security thing is a farce. Saying it has prevented terrorist attacks is like Bush holding up a stick and declaring the stick repels Gorillas. -- Well you don't see any gorillas do you?? It's a farce and it's freaky that you're all falling for it!
Stop being lemmings. Question your leaders. Listen to Jon Stewart!
You put men on the moon; there has to be some smart people in the country...get them out of the closet...and make one of the president. PLEASE!
Bravo! I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who would exchange liberty for security will neither get nor deserve either."
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Understandably, SOA Watch is very biased against WHISC. They neglect to mention all of the great humanitarian things graduates have done, along with overthrowing fascist and corrupt governments. Yes, some techniques are questionable, but again, it's not the US doing the foreign work. The hippies that protest there (and it definitely happens more than once a year) see that it has caused some unneeded violence over the years and lobby to close it, ignoring the good that these people can do.
The hippies that protest there (and it definitely happens more than once a year) see that it has caused some unneeded violence over the years and lobby to close it, ignoring the good that these people can do.
I know there's some famous saying about ends justifying the means...
Yes, some techniques are questionable, but again, it's not the US doing the foreign work
Right. Proxy forces are a beutiful thing. Just arm and train groups to do exactly what you want done, and wash your hands of it.
An judge also ruled that fear of a murder attempt is not sufficient reason to search individuals at a public place because we will never eliminate all murder.
The judge then retired to his gated community after checking in with the security guard.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Judging by the actions at the Dems national convention and the lack of legislation repealing such abuses from Kerry I think the Dems are worse than the GOP as the GOP isn't saying they are against it then doing nothing to stop it.
This would be one thing if the ability to use such information was strictly limited to terrorism cases, but it's not. It essentially gives government a whole new set of tools to get anyone they really want to get, and they don't even have to hide the wiretaps and other (once illegal) searches and intercepts any more.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
I wish Slashdot would just report political news without the slant. Anyway, while the Summary stated that
"Finally, a glimmer of sanity... according to the AP, "Fear of a terrorist attack is not sufficient reason for authorities to search people at a protest, a federal appeals court has ruled...""
The article said "In the absence of some reason to believe that international terrorists would target or infiltrate this protest, there is no basis for using Sept. 11 as an excuse for searching the protesters,". Which is nice and all, but I would feel a lot better if the word "international" wasn't in there. There have been Terrorists born and raised in America.
I noticed many people quoting Ben Franklin in the comments to this article. Do you realize you are quoting him out of context? He did write (and often said) "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Do you know what he was referring to? Not Al Quadia or their ilk for sure. He was talking about welfare and the welfare state. The essential liberty he spoke of was our right not to be unreasonably taxed by the government. Surely if he saw our government today with all of it's socialist programs he would roll over in his grave.
If you read some of his writing you will find many quotes to that effect. Such as
God helps them that help themselves.
It would seem that the branch of government most concerned about our civil liberties is the one that isn't directly elected. Direct elections aren't always the best way to guard our liberty.
#1. Terrorist attacks have increased around the world since Bush took office. Far from winning the war against terror, we seem to be losing it (look at our deficit).
:)
#2. If you count attacks on US citizens, there has been a huge increase in terrorist attacks against us. Sure, they're mostly in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the terrorists don't have to travel too far.
Destroying terrorist training camps and other operations in Iraq.
Prior to our invasion, there was only one confirmed training camp. And we were protecting it. It was in our "no fly zone".
Doing the U.N.'s work for them, despite its corruption and weakness.
Strange how the UN inspectors came to the conclusion that Iraq did not have "WMD's" before Bush did. In fact, Bush and Co. still spout off about "WMD's" that Iraq had (and moved or destroyed before we invaded or whatever).
Setting an example that if you screw with the U.S., we'll kick your ass.
Yet Iraq did not "screw with the U.S.". Rather, it appears that we did so to control their oil.
Put political pressure on Iran by surrounding it with two liberated countries with newly-created democracies.
Rather, wait until Iraq elects a Theocracy. Or will we go in and overthrow their legally elected government?
WMDs in Iraq (overemphasized like I stated), proven out in the fact that David Kay, et al, concluded the desire was there and no one seems to mention the 500 tons of yellow-cake uranium that can be purified into enough fuel for 140+ bombs.
No yellow cake was in Iraq. The reason no one mentions it is because it does not exist.
All of this was clearly stated before 2003, it's just that Bush made the mistake of stressing the WMD issue more.
That wasn't a "mistake". That is what regular people call a "lie".