Slashdot Mirror
Kerry's Record On Electronic And Civil Rights
An anonymous reader writes "John Kerry lambastes John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, positioning himself as a crusader for civil liberties. The question is, how much substance is there to his rhetoric? This article was an eye-opener to me, in evaluating just that. Slashdotters tending to be passionate about the Patriot Act, encryption, and electronic monitoring - subjects this article tackles with respect to Kerry."
However, since Shrub certainly didn't do it while he had 4 years to do it, we can be sure he won't if he wins four more wars.
Kerry's record in this regard is awful. But so is Bush's. So, I guess that leaves us with Badnarik who has all rhetoric and no record.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
If you're the kind of person who's horrified by the Gang Of Bush's encroachments on civil liberties, then you're likely to be someone who's also concerned about an entire constellation of related issues.
In that case, you're also likely to be someone for whom there's no doubt that Kerry will be at least a marginal improvement.
You miss my point.
The Bush administrattion has been *so* bad on these issues that virtually no one who's capable of securing the Dems' nomination could be equally bad, *regardless* of the historical record.
Virtually every President -- with the exception of the near-pathologically saintly, like Jimmy Carter -- secretly deems his first priority to be winning a second term. Kerry knows that moving too far to the right, even if he were so inclined, would threaten his re-nomination.
At this point it's not even a question of being better, so long as the badness is different, we have a chance of recovering from some of the damage Bush has done to our standing as a sane nation. If we reelect Bush, we are confirming to the world that 'We the people of the United States of America agree with and aprove of the actions taken by George W. Bush'.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
On the other hand, we need Badnerick or someone else whose issues are civil liberties. I'm still weighing things to see if I can risk voting Libertarien this year.
Realities just a bunch of bits.
Right to bear arms is a fundamental Civil Right in the US. Kerry is awful in this department.
...
I'm voting for Badnarik, and we need a strong third party to help create a new, healthier political system without these two bought and paid for parties that "represent"
However, I want to be free from Mobocracy, and believe in a constitutional republic with armed civilians and with NONE of the rights being collective, all being individual.
The right to speak freely, pursue religion, marry a dog or same sex, freedom from illegal warrants and searches (like the Patriot Act provides) is married to the right to bear arms. I refuse to allow people who champion certain civil rights portray themselves and activists when the support communist/fascist notion of a Totalitarian state, the collective right - in most cases would be totalitarians disguise their fear of an armed public by saying the Framers intended the right to bear as collective, thoroughly disproved in the Federalist Papers and by many quotes from the framers and reflected in the Framer's respective state constitutions.
When thinking of the words of Rand and Kozinski, why is it that the only people who truly appreciate America escaped from Totalitarian communist regimes?
To quote Alex Kozinski - he said history would be vastly different had American slaves or Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto been able to arm themselves.
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees," wrote Judge Kozinski, a native of Romania. "However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once," he wrote.
And to those fools who speak of any right being collective; here is Ayn Rand to the rescue: "If you accept the Totalitarian idea, if the words "State" or "Collective" are sacred to you, but the word "Individual" is not -- stop right here. You don't have to read further. What we have to say is not for you -- and you are not for us. Let's part here -- but be honest, admit that you are a Totalitarian and go join the Communist Party or the German-American Bund, because they are the logical end of the road you have chosen, and you will end up with one or the other, whether you know it now or not.
-- That each man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken from him for any cause whatsoever. These rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-- That the right of life means that man cannot be deprived of his life for the convenience of any number of other men.
-- That the right of liberty means freedom of individual decision, individual choice, individual judgment and individual initiative; it means also the right to disagree with others.
-- That the right to the pursuit of happiness means man's freedom to choose what constitutes his own private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement; that such a pursuit is neither evil nor reprehensible, but honorable and good; and that a man's happiness is not to be prescribed to him by any other man nor by any number of other men.
-- That these rights have no meaning unless they are the unconditional, personal, private possession of each man, granted to him by the fact of his birth, held by him independently of all other men, and limited only by the exercise of the same rights by other men.
-- That the only just, moral and beneficent form of society is a society based upon the recognition of these inalienable individual rights.
-- That the State exists for Man, and no Man for the State.
-- That the greatest good for all men can be achieved only through the voluntary cooperation of free individuals for mutual benefit, and not through a compulsory sacrifice of all for all.
-- Th
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
Repeat after me, too: "The President is not in the Judicial Branch. The President is not in the Judicial Branch."
Civics lesson (continued from the Eighth Grade): Once a bill is voted on and passed by both Houses of Congress, the President either signs it into law or he vetoes it. He can either explicitly veto it, or he can simply ignore it (called a "pocket veto").
Once he signs it, there is little else (as in nada, zip, nuthin') he or a successor can do on his own but enforce it.
He can ask Congress to alter the law, which follows the above process.
He can have his Department of Justice bring suit in the courts to have the law struck down, but then the DOJ is just another party in a lawsuit. The judge can decide the case either for or against the DOJ's side, and even if the judge sides with the DOJ it doesn't mean the law will be struck down (i.e., the case can just be decided on its merits or some other way that doesn't affect the law).
sigs, as if you care.
I'll even go further then argue Kerry voted for the Patriot Act.
HE ACTUALLY AUTHORED PROVISIONS IN IT! AND SO DID JOHN EDWARDS!
But let's get past the political hackery that Reason is promoting... "WHAAA! John Kerry voted for the Act, and now he's criticizing it, how can you trust him!? Whaaaaa!!!!" It's an amazingly thoughtless critique, even more so intellectually dishonest in that it criticizes Kerry for criticizing the Act.
But the truth of the matter is the Patriot Act wasn't a well thought out bill, or one that was even debated thoroughly. What it was, was a collection of hundreds of little issues that various Congresscritters had brought up over the years, all jammed together. So when Kerry and Edwards wrote parts of it, they wrote the parts which deal with dealing with money launderers and things like that.
And when they criticize it, they're complaining about the parts that allow the FBI to search your Library checkout records.
And GW Bush would have you believe the opposite, that Kerry and Edwards are complaining about the parts they themselves wrote.
The truth is... Parts of the Act are Good, and parts are Bad. AND THAT IS WHY JOHN KERRY IS SUGGESTING WE REVIEW IT!
The reason.com article is intellectually dishonest in suggesting otherwise.
From:
h tm l
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000791.
"As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students"