Slashdot Mirror


Patriot Act to be Expanded

m4dm4n writes "It seems that the patriot act is being expanded rather than scaled back after a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee. The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval, as well as the ability to designate subpoenas as secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison."

232 of 1,523 comments (clear)

  1. Home of the brave... by ^Case^ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... land of the free?

    1. Re:Home of the brave... by rxmd · · Score: 5, Funny
      ...land of the free?
      As in beer, I guess.
      --
      As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
    2. Re:Home of the brave... by takeya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At the risk of sounding seditious...

      THE LAW IS WRONG. DO NOT SUBMIT.

      I, unlinke our government, will continue to observe the law of the constitution over all others. If the document is amended and altered so that it no longer represents the spirit of freedom and "for-the-people, by-the-people" government that I feel is the best in the world, then I will leave and find a better government.

    3. Re:Home of the brave... by ninjafury · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Damn, I'm going to college in america, but now more than ever I'm glad I'm not American. Slowly but surely, youre rights are being stripped away....I seriously hope that nothing huge happens within the next 5 years. When I'm gone, it'll be funny to see if all hell breaks loose.

      You guys should start fighting for your rights before they're taken away from you...This way the government won't think too lightly of trying to pass acts such as the this one.
      Power to the people, cuz the people want peace

      --
      I know everything, I just don't remember it all..
    4. Re:Home of the brave... by Godboy_g · · Score: 2, Funny

      That is if you can call american beer beer.

      --
      I LIKE TOAST!!!
    5. Re:Home of the brave... by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "...the constitution was designed to be a living, evolving document..."

      Not true. The Constitution was designed to lay some ground rules so that we would not get off course. It is meant to be as constant as reasonably possible. That is why it is so difficult to change it. Even with a Republican majority and a Republican President they were not able to pass an amendment pertaining to gay marriage.

    6. Re:Home of the brave... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When it's convenient liberals dont mind changing the constitution (not that i'm saying i know anything about you, takeya), but then when it effects them they scream "injustice!".

      I'm actually a registered republican, but as of late I've been feeling pretty out of touch with the party and by the current use of the word I guess I'm now a liberal (just a little background).

      I cannot speak for others but my rational for liking or disliking a law or ammendment has nothing to do with it being "convienient" or not. I have a very simple test if I like it or not in cases like this. Does the law/ammendment grant more/expand rights and freedom or does it limit/take away rights and freedom? That is it!

      If it gives more rights to people, then its good and I'm all for it. If it limits or takes away rights, then I'm against it. Simple as that. For example, Amendment XIII - Slavery Abolished, Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights, Amendment XV - Race no bar to vote, Amendment XIX - Women's suffrage. Those are all good. Amendment XVIII - Liquor abolished. That is bad.

      Now I'm not an anti-patriot act nazi. Most of it is actually pretty common sense stuff, but there are some BAD parts as well. If this article is correct is seems they are expanding the bad parts instead of repealing them as we all hoped.

      I really hope being against this type of expansion of the patriot act isn't a conservitive/liberal issue. It'd hope we could all agree this is not in our best interest and work together to try to convey those feelings to those in congress.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    7. Re:Home of the brave... by ChristTrekker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sound like a classical liberal to me. Many today call these people libertarians, since the term "liberal" has been coopted by leftists.

    8. Re:Home of the brave... by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I, unlinke our government, will continue to observe the law of the constitution over all others

      And you, will sit in jail for being a raving moron. Why was he modded insightful? Other then to show "This is not how you should act."

      Here are steps you can take:

      Protest the law
      Write your senator/representative/governer/presidnt (threaten to not vote for them if they vote for this amendment...and then follow through.)
      Sign a petition of as many people as you can get (registered voters preferred)
      Complain
      Do not prove them right (by breaking the law)
      Use the media to your advantage
      Get into politics, modify the laws yourself

      I guess since the Constitution does not say anything about drinking and driving you go drink and drive right? I guess because the constitution does not mention anything about getting car insurance you don't have any but still own a car right?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    9. Re:Home of the brave... by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really hope being against this type of expansion of the patriot act isn't a conservitive/liberal issue.

      If this takes away rights you had, then conservatives should be against it.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    10. Re:Home of the brave... by Intron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, the constitution does address those issues. It says that anything not covered by the constitution is up to the states. And states do have laws about DUI and car insurance. What is covered by the constitution's fourth amendment is:

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      That's the part that the Patriot Act is trying to sweep under the rug.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    11. Re:Home of the brave... by enosys · · Score: 2, Insightful

      LOL, the phrase "anti-patriot act nazi" is so ironic considering that the Patriot Act is making the country more like a tyrrany.

    12. Re:Home of the brave... by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is something way more powerful then a check - the media. Get the media to tell your story and you will find out how a lot of representatives will listen. Nobody wants to be known as the bad guy - especially not a politician - why not paint him as a bad guy

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    13. Re:Home of the brave... by Chrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It will not be funny if all hell breaks loose. It affects the entire world if a country disintegrates.

    14. Re:Home of the brave... by Xabraxas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sam Adams is damn good beer.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    15. Re:Home of the brave... by Xabraxas · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Case in point,in this forum my right to free speech and redress of grievances has been stifled for political dissent.

      This is Slashdot! Do you actually believe your "right too free speech and redress of grievances" have been stifled for "political dissent"? If Slashdot really affects your life that much then you need to get out more. Besides, Slashdot seems to lean left so what were you expecting? If most of us hung out at with freepers we would be tormented, and it would be expected.

      Sometimes you have to sit back and realize this is a forum, not the government, not work, and not your next door neighbor. Get a grip.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    16. Re:Home of the brave... by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In order to "survive the supreme court", the patriot act would have to be challenged in court first, no? And since the bush administration has a habit of making certain laws and regulations secret, it could be very hard for anyone to challenge the expanded patriot act in court. You can't challenge something when you don't even know what it is.

    17. Re:Home of the brave... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Look at the language you quoted - Upon "probable cause" - it is assumed that the FBI will only do search and seizure upon "probable cause". So it can easily be argued that the Constitution is not violated. At least in your quote, nothing here says it has to be done by the court systems.

      If you re-read this I think you will see the fourth amendment says you need more than just probable cause for search and seizures. You need a warrent and those warrents require probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.

      Now there are many types of warrents, but in this context (as judges have upheld for centuries) it refers to a writ from a judge. This is ABSOLUTELY required or the 4th amendment has NO meaning. If any cop/agent and just say he feels he has probably cause (hey I got a feeling) then it means nothing. This is why a writ from a judge is required. The probable cuase must be brought before a judge who should unbiasedly judge if the probable cause is suffiecent. Without that, its nothing more than KGB time.

      From Wikipedia: "A search warrant is a written warrant issued by a judge or magistrate which authorizes the police to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a criminal offense.

      All jurisdictions with a rule of law and a right to privacy put constraints on the rights of police investigators, and typically require search warrants, or an equivalent procedure, for searches within a criminal enquiry. There typically also exist exemptions for "hot pursuit": if a criminal flees the scene of a crime and the police officer follows him, the officer has the right to enter an edifice in which the criminal has sought shelter.

      Conversely, in authoritarian regimes, the police typically have the right to search property and people without having to provide justifications, or without having to secure an authorization from the judiciary."


      This new expansion seems like they almost read this passage from Wikipedia about how authoritarian regimes work and said, "Damn that'd be nice! I want that!".

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    18. Re:Home of the brave... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree with most of what you are saying. The issue of competing rights is obviously true I just didn't want to go into a long winded discussion (as I sometimes do) about all the aspects of my thinking on such things. I just wanted to quickly say the basic thinking. Really you need to judge the net freedom effect (feedom gained minus freedom lost) and this is always pretty subjective and difficult to quantify.

      I also completely agree about accountability. I however would extend that accountability past the high-level administrator and also include any congressman who for it or president who signs it. I mean what is the compelling reason for this? If there is something that important (national security) and you have the proof, you can get a judge to issue a warrent in a matter of minutes. Remember, this isn't about "in pursuit" cases which are already allowed to handle situations where a matter of minutes make a difference. These are about getting bank records, etc. We've moved past the days of Pony Express here! We have cell phones, faxes, email, etc, etc. The only reason to not put this before a judge is if you really don't have the probable cause the law requires.

      I understand you are comfortable with all this and don't think they will be abused, but what do you base that on? Look at any regime which has welded these powers and you will see plenty of abuses (some quite shocking). I know this is the USA and all and we are supposedly the "good guys", but I find this type of blind faith quite disturbing.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    19. Re:Home of the brave... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Please explain oath and affirmation. Does it say this oath and affirmation needs to come from the court? Or does it need to come from someone who took an oath to this country? Every FBI agent needs to take an oath prior to becoming an agent.

      Neither of those really. What it means is the cop/agent who presents the "probable cause" evidence to the judge must swear the evidence is accurate, etc since there won't be an oportunity for the accused to rebut this "probable cause" evidence.

      Fair enough about Wiki. Here is a link to the applicable section of federal rules of criminal procedure. To quote the most relavent section:
      (b) Authority to Issue a Warrant.
      At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:
      (1) a magistrate judge with authority in the districtor if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the districthas authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district;
      (2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed; and
      (3) a magistrate judgein an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331)having authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred, may issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district.


      I agree that the patriot act is for the most part fine. Its just a few parts that bother me and this new extension is type of thing that bothers me. I'd agree with your postion on time sensitive issues, but this really has nothing to do with that. There are already of plenty of "in pursuit" exceptions to search and seizure that account for those situations. This is about bank records etc. And if it is a national security issue, they could contact a judge for approval basically just as fast as they could contact thier bosses for approval. With faxes, email, cell phones, etc for important stuff you can get a judge to sign-off in a matter of minutes providing you have real probable cause. The only use for this I see is wanting to search without the probable cuase required by law.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    20. Re:Home of the brave... by |/|/||| · · Score: 2, Informative
      That makes no sense. The puch line is "they're both fucking close to water."

      That said, there are good american beers. Try a Fat Tire sometime. :)

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    21. Re:Home of the brave... by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Slashdot seems to lean left

      WTF?

      If anything, this place is pretty right-wing. Hackers tend towards anarchism and libertarianism; most of the politics I've seen here, and indeed in this discussion, have been along the lines that government should get the hell out of our lives as much as possible.

      Slashdotters, it seems, would rather take their chances with the terrorists than entrust more power to central government. That seems quite a right-wing notion to me; the left tends to prefer government intervention to solve social problems.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  2. Anyone get the feeling... by ForestGrump · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone get the feeling we're becoming more and more of a police state?

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      where'd you get that idea?

      the US has fair and democratic elections, does not lock up people without a trial, does not torture, and has no weapons of mass destruction..

    2. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by rxmd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Anyone get the feeling we're becoming more and more of a police state?
      What are you, as an American, doing to stop this from happening to your country?

      Democracy must not be taken for granted. It needs to be constantly fought for and won, else it will be coopted and lost.
      --
      As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
    3. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's the problem, nobody cares that their democracy (or more accurately their constitutional republic) is dead and gone. It simply baffles me that people are so willing to piss away their freedom and it drives me crazy that I'm in the minority of people who see what's going on. The average US citizen will display his faith and patriotism in the US and all that it stands for, especially after 9/11, even though we have become the very thing we used to stand against; it sickens me.

    4. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by zmooc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude, your country is viewed as the sole definition of a police state by the rest of the world, might you not have noticed.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    5. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by maelstrom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what is one thing you've done besides bitch about it on Slashdot?

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    6. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by maelstrom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, cause there aren't any countries like North Korea that would be closer to the true definition of a police state...

      I don't like the Patriot Act either, but we aren't to the point where we have to fear being killed for critizing our leadership or laws either.

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    7. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are you, as an American, doing to stop this from happening to your country?

      Well, I voted against the bozos in the last election, and tried to convince everybody I could to do the same. ;-)

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you know when people are at their most likely to overthrow tyranny? When they're starving, poor and unemployed. Otherwise, they are too busy working and providing for their family and trying to stay alive.

      People get up in the morning, commute for a couple hours, work for ten or twelve hours, telecommute for a couple more hours. Feed the family. Pay the bills. Try and save a bit for retirement (or children's education, etc). Fix the broken shit in the house. Spend quality time with the kids and wife. Get some rest before doing it all again the next day.

      Only when the majority are starving, poor and unemployed do they have both the incentive and the TIME to put everything on the line and make a change. Otherwise, it's all they can do to keep up with current events, much less act on them.

      It's sad, but it's true. And for more of us than would like to admit it.

    9. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Adrilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What bothers me, is that if you have a view that disagrees with the current powers, you are viewed as anti-american. I love my country, but I don't agree with everything they say, democrat or republican, and I don't think anyone should. Our country was built upon questioning authority. But it seems you must have blind faith or else you're viewed a dissenter and a traitor. After 9/11 I realized things had to change, but I don't think the patriot act was the correct way to go about it. It almost makes me fear my own country, because I don't know when I or anyone I know, innocent or guilty, could fall victim to this secret law system.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    10. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The problem is that people don't think that they matter. The person they voted for in my state, and won by a large margin, isn't the president, so their vote doesn't matter. They can't afford to send "gifts" to senators, so they don't matter to them. How many people have you heard that wouldn't even think of voting for a 3rd party candidate, because it was wasting a vote? In a land of 300 million, people have a hard time believing that their one small voice matters. They need a way to realize that there are more out there that think the same, and if they get together, they can be a large voice.

      I mean, look at the Parent Television Council (I think thats their name) That one group of ultra conservative parents is responsible for something like 97% of complaints to the FCC for indecency in broadcasting, and has almost single handedly changed the policies of the FCC. Although I totaly disagree with what they are trying to do, (kill all the people you want on TV, but don't show love!) I think its amazing that they have bonded together, and been very loud until they got what they wanted. As much as I disagree with their tactics and message, I have to admire the fact that they can do it, and have a little more hope that maybe others will do something similar for what they believe.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    11. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't like the Patriot Act either, but we aren't to the point where we have to fear being killed for critizing our leadership or laws either.

      Oh, good. America is still free: criticising the leadership is not a capital offence.

      Is that the standard now? America - Land of the Not As Bad As North Korea?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    12. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by bobbis.u · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That's because the majority of Americans are brainwashed from a young age.

      I'm not trolling here and perhaps I'm not totally informed, but don't children chant their allegiance to the flag in primary school every day? Isn't it drummed into to everyone to love the constitution? Even though parts of it are hideously outdated and you could argue that every day it is being corrupted further.

      Everyone thinks it teaches children patriotism and respect for the authority in place in the country. But it breeds the worst kind of patriotism where people will unquestioningly do whatever their leaders want and will rarely protest against them. True patriots love the landscape, the people and the values they stand for, not some petty symbols and words written on a piece of paper.

    13. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by maelstrom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No,read what I was responding to before posting. The OP said America is the definition of a Police State and I claimed that North Korea would be my definition of a police state.

      Ever heard of slippery slope?

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    14. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do you prefer? Freedom from terrorists or freedom from the government?

      Personally, my answer is freedom from the government. But most people seem to think the other way.

    15. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The average US citizen will display his faith and patriotism in the US and all that it stands for, especially after 9/11, even though we have become the very thing we used to stand against

      Well, what do you expect. Americans are indoctrinated from birth that they live in the "shining beacon of freedom, land of the brave and home of the free" and so on. As if other democracies were nothing but pale copies of perfection. I would at times call it blind faith, that nothing bad could happen here almost by definition. And by implication, that makes the US government the leaders of the free world, equally flawless.

      Sure, there are political disagreements but everyone thinks they work for the people, in particular to create economic prosperity. And in this regard to protect the people, all out of acting in the people's best interest. As long as you have such a deluded perception of government, it does not matter how big, how intrusive it gets because it is a big, intrusive force of good. As long as the cause is just, disruption of privacy and civil rights is accepted, because the ends justify the means.

      Of course, no other organization in history has ever been able to wield that kind of power without succumbing to abuse, persecution, corruption, power grabs, search for personal profit and so on. If you look more closely at the collapse of empires like the Soviet Union, you see that is one of the biggest reasons for their economic and social downfall, more than the ideology itself. But not the US. Because the US goverment is Good, and the Soviet government was Evil. QED.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Adrilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry about that, I got a little worked up by the article and saw straight past the joke. I have a sense of humor, I promise, and next time I might even use it (but that remains to be seen).

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    17. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by CleverNickedName · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Right, cause there aren't any countries like North Korea that would be closer to the true definition of a police state...
      I don't like the Patriot Act either, but we aren't to the point where we have to fear being killed for critizing our leadership or laws either.


      If your definition of freedom is not having to "fear being killed" by the people who are supposed to be looking out for you, then you deserve what you get.

      I'm also amazed by people who use the argument "at least we're better off than ". That belief will keep you in line right up until America is the most abusive, corrupt, damning country in the world.

      You really do deserve the rights we Europeans take for granted. Unfortunately you now need to fight for these.

      --


      Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
    18. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How many people have you heard that wouldn't even think of voting for a 3rd party candidate, because it was wasting a vote? In a land of 300 million, people have a hard time believing that their one small voice matters. They need a way to realize that there are more out there that think the same, and if they get together, they can be a large voice.

      Unfortunately in America that's not really true because of the electoral college voting system. Unless you can turn enough people to flip the state majority from one party to another, then you have made NO difference. As far as voting goes, America is the least democratic of any election holding country in the world.

      The electoral college system provides a sham decocracy that keeps the majority dumb "we're living in utopia" Americans happy with the fig-leaf appearance they're living in a democracy, while being able to ignore all votes except those from a handful of swing states where it can easliy be controlled.

    19. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Xoro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but have you ever been to the U.S.?

      Your trails of "almost by definition" to "by implication" to QED is ludicrous.

      Sure, there are political disagreements but everyone thinks they work for the people, in particular to create economic prosperity.

      I don't think I've ever met anybody who believes this. On the contrary, suspicion and mistrust of government is common to almost every political viewpoint anyone holds in this country. Why do you think every politician runs against Washington, no matter how long he's been there?

      The simple truth is that people fail to oppose the patriot act because it has zero visible impact on their lives, not because they believe it derives from the heavenly benevolence of government. Argue along that axis (and please, with something less sci-fi than endless repetitions of "They came for...") and you will win every argument you have about the PA.

      The stupidity of the right presents such a fantastic opening to its opponents, but they all seem to prefer to scream "brainwashed fascists!" instead of trying to actually win the debate. It's really pathetic.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    20. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well gee, let's think about this for a second. Usually when I make a post about something political it's with an intent to persuade people to open their eyes. But of course nobody reads slashdot or any other public forum and certainly nobody reads my comments, right? Apart from openly discussing my concerns about our government on the internet I also talk to people in real life. I inform people who are uninformed and try to tell them what is really going on. You wouldn't believe the number of people who had absolutely no idea what the Real ID Act was, or even the Patriot Act. I also attend and speak at assemblies from time to time in the university square. I vote for who I think will do a better job, though this is sort of a moot point since so many candidates are jokes anyway.

      Before you automatically assume I do nothing which was very evidently implied by your post, FUCKING ASK ME. I have no idea how you were rated +5 Insightful when you so arrogantly posted that.

    21. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by TheOldFart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Terrorists don't exist in vaccum. They exist in reaction to something bugging them. Stop bugging them and they will have no reason to cause terror. Every bit of reaction from 9/11 had nothing to do with fixing the reasons it happened and everything to do with bugging the hell out of the entire planet. First it was a feel wacky arabs pissed. Now it's the entire planet. Way to go...

    22. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by dominiv · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, then things are going to happen sooner rather than later, as it was on the news today (well, at least here in Belgium) that 36 million americans live in a family where there is not enough food.

    23. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by KiroDude · · Score: 2, Funny

      People get up in the morning, commute for a couple hours, work for ten or twelve hours, telecommute for a couple more hours. Feed the family. Pay the bills. Try and save a bit for retirement (or children's education, etc). Fix the broken shit in the house. Spend quality time with the kids and wife. Get some rest before doing it all again the next day.

      .... And then dance and drink and screw, because there's nothing left to do ...

    24. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Having people pledge alliegence to the Country they belong to is a bad thing? That's brainwashing?

      Yes, it is a bad thing. You can see it on CNN, you can see it in the attitudes of American tourists overseas. They think that, just because random chance led them to being born in the USA, they are somehow a higher form of life than everyone else. Pride in your country should come from the actions of the people themselves striving to better themselves and their country, not from some dogmatic pledge injected into every childs brain.

    25. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by fuzzybunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point. I've had this conversation with many "fellow Americans" (I live abroad and have no desire to go back due to things like this.)

      It always astounds me how many people simply don't care about what many of us consider to be essential civil liberties, or are totally sold on the idea that such draconian laws are necessary to fight terrorism, drugs, child molestation, whatever. It's like arguing with a wall.

      There are extremists on both sides of the American political spectrum; the problem is that the "conservatives" (what a stupid term--I think we should start calling them "nationalists") have this crisis of conscience where the social fanatics support the same sort of governmental power that the "my country, right or wrong" types do. And yet they all vote together. On the other side, most moderates or "liberals" have this problem that the wackjob leftist faction is making them look bad.

      Bit of a ramble, I apologize, but the upshot is that you have a fairly large minority are very upset about the seeming inability of many voters to grasp the underlying issues, and to understand that the reasoning given for this kind of stuff (to protect the homeland!) is horseshit, smoke & mirrors and is dooming much that the US stands for.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    26. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by cold+wolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why don't we form a Slashdot Organization, and bring the /. effect to the US government? We rank in the hundreds of thousands, so if we create a community that is unified by one simple concept, even a whisper from us would deafen the politicos.

      Slashdot admins, please consider this request. Form a politically active branch of /. that acts in the best interest of all technology advocates.

      Or will you sit back, content with being another Anonymous Coward...

    27. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by zmooc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You may be right that the situation in e.g. North Korea or China is be a lot worse, but those countries don't claim to be the land of the free and we basicly expect them to be like that. We call those states dictatorships rather than police states.

      The USA on the other hand is a democratic country in which freedom has always been a very important thing, a country that has always been trying to expand this freedom to the rest of the world and a country that has always had a large influence on the rest of the world. To see the freedom in this country - of all countries - deterioate this rapidly, is a lot more scary to the rest of the world than the situation in non-democratic and not really that influential countries like China or North Korea.

      It's especially this influence the USA has on the rest of the world that makes this scary; think about the situation around DeCSS, the new German passport that has to contain RFID chips in order to get into the USA, requiring armed US air-marshalls on airplanes while the international agreement is: no guns in planes, invading iraq based on false claims about WMD etc. etc.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    28. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by winsomecowboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      "America - Land of the Not As Bad As North Korea" Thats this mornings Tshirt.

      --
      Quantifying chaos since 63
    29. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think there should be blind questioning either. But if the patriot act, an act that none of us can know the entire content of, that takes away such important constitutional rights, can't be questioned, than what can? Ideally, a person should have an alternative when disagreeing with a proposal, but at times, a person knows that something is wrong even if they don't know exactly the right answer. Truth is, sometimes doing a nothing that is right, is better than doing a something that is wrong. Maybe I don't have the answer to what should be done, but someone else may. But once that wrong action is taken, it's hard to go backwards, which makes it hard to erase the wrong action and replace it with the correct one, which may have taken a little more time to bring to fruition.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    30. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well it is sort of hard to accurately extrapolate all the different nuances and tones a poster put into his/her statement that would be present in their voice, but to me it seemed like he/she was implying I did nothing which several others have stated flat out in this thread. I will apologize if he/she was simply asking, but it did seem like he was implying the aforementioned which ticked me off.

    31. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Eskarel · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually history has shown this statement to be untrue. Most revolutions are a product of rising expectations, rather than absolute extremes of misery.

      Most historical revolutions have occured when things were getting better, but not fast enough. When things are really bad people are too busy surviving, but when things start to get better they get the idea that perhaps they deserve more and the system isn't giving it to them fast enough.

      That isn't to say some revolutions aren't sparked at the depths, but people tend to become animal like in those conditions and while animals are sometimes violent they are usually only violent in the protection of their little bit of survival rather than any grand ideas.

      Of course the US has never really had a revolution, at least not a successful one(the civil war could almost count, though I don't agree with most of what they were fighting for), and has not progressed anywhere near as far as either the UK or most of the other Anglo nations. Though some of them are moving backward rather quickly.

    32. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by cluckshot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just a bit of history

      Thomas Jefferson pushed the bill of rights ever more forcefully as his french friends began to meet the french razor for their accused state in Paris etc. To be blunt, the bill of rights is not something to prevent us from handling terrorism. It is something to prevent the worst kind of terrorism. STATE TERRORISM by a government who arrests without warrant... Jails on evidence obtained by rash seizures and private secret searches... and which keeps anyone who opposes it marked as enemies of the state.

      I have been at some length of effort to determine if the Patriot Act as now constituted has any functionality useful for Anti-terrorism. Bluntly it has none. It hasn't even been used for that purpose effectively. The few arrests under it resulted in charges which were so blithly messed up by the Federal agents that they were useless. If you are inclined to believe some of these arrestees were guilty, the US Attorney General and et al were practically enemy agents sabotaging the cases. If you believe the charged were innocent the Attorney General and his minions were playing Gestapo. Even more scary is the reality that both conditions are probably true!

      The bottom line is that no additional powers were needed after 911. The USA was not some phlebe in the world without laws or well practiced experience handling such events. Contrary to the claims that we were, terrorism was noted in the US Declaration of Independence. It has ruled US History until about 1940. The Indian Wars and much more were halmarked by such events. The USA does not need to suspend its legal/constitutional protections in order to deal with Al Qaeda. This act and its extension are just plain wrong. The few effective enforcements we know about are even more scary when we find that they were applied to affairs having nothing to do with any acts of terrorism.

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
    33. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The person they voted for in my state, and won by a large margin, isn't the president... How many people have you heard that wouldn't even think of voting for a 3rd party candidate, because it was wasting a vote?

      I'm always amazed by people who say they wouldn't vote for a 3rd party, and then go on to vote for the guy who loses anyway.

      I often think that if all you people who said "well, I would vote for a 3rd party, but can't because then the wrong candidate will win!" just went and voted for your 3rd party, that 3rd party guy would win!!

    34. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the upshot is that you have a fairly large minority are very upset about the seeming inability of many voters to grasp the underlying issues, and to understand that the reasoning given for this kind of stuff (to protect the homeland!) is horseshit, smoke & mirrors and is dooming much that the US stands for.

      I have to admit, I do feel powerless in the USA. I don't talk politics anymore, because I'm afraid I'll piss someone off, due to it being such a divisive issue (but, hey, this is online, and I don't have to be near anyone I piss off). But the feeling of powerlessness is really very hard to deal with sometimes. I (like many on slashdot) am a liberal, and when I see things like the "Nuclear option" threaten to happen in congress, it scares me. When the party that won the last election 51% to 49% now sees fit to force its policy onto 100% of the country, and when the democrats stand up and say "Hey, we've affirmed a lot of your nominees, but this one is just over the edge.", the party in power threatens to take their ball and go home if they don't get their way.

      And I don't even understand everything that goes on in washington. I mean, I have my views: basically, I want peace, separation of church and state, and social progressivism, but it's really hard to find someone on the hill that believes the same things I believe in that's not an asshole.

      I dunno, I always see people saying "If you're unhappy with the government, vote! Get involved!". But what happens when you really do vote, and nothing happens. What happens when you're part of the 49% and yet it feels like no agenda you support is ever taken into consideration, much less acted upon. Plus, I'm so damn busy working 50+ hours a week and taking care of the 1 year old so that maybe someday my wife and I can close this gap between the haves and the havenots and maybe, just maybe, afford a house.

      ~Will

      --
      sig?
    35. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by the_quark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As such an "in touch" person who sees what's really going on - you do realize that most of the powers the Patriot Act gave to the FBI to fight terrorists, it's had to fight the drug war since 1982? And to fight Medicare fraud since 1997? And have been used by federal agencies from OSHA to the SEC in the verification of their regulations? That, in fact, the only thing that's kept the FBI from using these powers against you for the past twenty years is that they're either basically honest or just don't give a damn about you?

      The war on drugs did far more to trample the rights of the citizens of the US than the war on terrorism ever has (or will). People whining about this stuff now have been asleep at the switch for a very long time. You want to crusade for freedom - don't start trying to block minor enhancements to FBI power like this. Start by trying to roll back all the laws and court decisions over the past twenty years that have rolled back your 4th and 5th amendment rights, that have elimninated any expectation of privacy in financial transactions, that have made it very difficult to do anything significant in cash. Undo law enforcement's ridiculous powers to sieze your property without trial and sell it for their profit. End racial profile stops that result in drug searches.

      It's not some Bush or Republican plot. They're just trying to do to terrorists what we've been doing to drug users and dealers for a really long time. The elimination of our rights has come from both parties, as they've both controlled Congress and the White House over the time this has occurred. If you're mad at Bush personally about the Patriot Act, you're blinding yourself to the fact that it passed the Senate 98-1. No party or president has a monopoly on favoring expedience over principle. While Brave Democratic Senators stand up against these largely meaningless provisions of the Patriot Act, no person in any party is making any move to restore the rights we've already had stolen from us.

      This Patriot Act crap is mouse nuts compared to what Congress and the courts have done to our rights in order to stop demon weed over the past two decades. I'll be impressed with your clarity of vision when you start being mad about the stuff that's important.

    36. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Allow me to introduce my friend, Sarcasm. Sarcasm meet Anonymous Coward #29483

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    37. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by chill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, then things are going to happen sooner rather than later, as it was on the news today (well, at least here in Belgium) that 36 million americans live in a family where there is not enough food.

      Considering the majority of Americans are categorized as "overweight" or "obese", please define "not enough food".

      In the U.S. the majority of the attitude is defined by apathy, "Praise Jesus!" and "pass the french fries".

      The only revolution in sight is the one from Nintendo.

      -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    38. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by myside · · Score: 4, Informative
      Would you be amazed if I used the argument that we are better off than Europe then? Take a look at your own framework for collecting and distributing data on "suspected" criminals, along with other powers not seen here in the US since WWII (or even then).

      The British, for example, have a much lower threashold to search and sieze, as well as detain without trial. England is not alone however.

      I guess what I'm saying, with about 5 minutes worth of research, is, it's not wise to throw stones if you live in a glass house.

    39. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Hasai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you have an alternative?

      That is, do you have an alternative that *doesn't* eventually devolve into a totalitarian state run by a select elite?

      --

      Regards;

      Hasai

    40. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Terrorists don't exist in vaccum. They exist in reaction to something bugging them. Stop bugging them and they will have no reason to cause terror

      How the hell did this get marked insightful?

      Tim McVeigh was bugged by the Federal government. Maybe we should dismantle that after he brought his gripe to our attention with the OKC bombing.

      The white-supremacists who burned those black churches a couple of years ago were probably bugged by all the black people in the country. Perhaps we should deport them.

      A lot of arab-muslims seem to be bugged by the fact that we do not govern ourselves by Sharia law, women in the US vote, drive, and sometimes dress immodestly, we are a nation of infidels etc. etc. -- perhaps we should become an Islamic state to appease them...

      You have to do what you believe is right, and not be swayed by people who try to make a point by murdering innocents.

    41. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by J.+T.+MacLeod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At what point do they STOP being bugged?

      A little study of history shows us that point comes at no reasonable compromise.

      Furthermore, not everyone is even INTERESTED in reasonable compromise.

    42. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by AnhZone · · Score: 2, Informative

      The main issue is not the electoral college per se, but the winner-take-all rules. A couple of states, including Maine, have their electors proportionally allocated to the candidates according to the popular vote. In most states, the candidate who wins the most popular votes, even only 50%, gets all the electors. Having proportional allocation of electors makes your vote relevant in all elections.

      --
      Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born there. (GBS)
    43. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by DarkVader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This country isn't built on blind obidence. Or shutting up. Or ignoring the details.

      I see what you're saying, but a lot of people don't realize that this country WAS built by people whose common ground was saying "You're doing it wrong" and who worked out the details later.

      And in this case, the "patriot" act is an act of treason. I don't care how thought out the details are, they're pushing this country and the world in the wrong direction.

      The stupid traitors here are the congresscritters who are pushing this, and the ones who are allowing it to happen.

      And as for details, I'd far rather risk my life by letting a few terrorists go free than have everything this nation is supposed to stand for destroyed in the name of "security". We don't need the "patriot" act. We never did.

    44. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean the ones that keep the president from pandering to California/New York/Florida and telling the rest of us to fuck off?

      That part?

      Funny that people think the power rests in the executive branch.

    45. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by rishistar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe not a police state, but it certainly looks like its heading towards a democratic fascist state:

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

      Mussolini, in a speech delivered on October 28, 1925, stated the following maxim that encapsulates the fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".) Therefore, he reasoned, all individuals' business is the state's business, and the state's existence is the sole duty of the individual.

      Seems to sum up the Bush POV to me.

      --
      Professor Karmadillo Songs of Science
    46. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At what point do they STOP being bugged?

      Have you tried NOT bombing them for say, one whole year?
      Because that hasn't happened once in my entire lifetime.

      A little study of history shows us that point comes at no reasonable compromise.
      Furthermore, not everyone is even INTERESTED in reasonable compromise.


      And you are right, many people, the U.S. government, for example, are not interrested in reasonable compromise. It's "do as we say, not as we do" while they kill with their own bombs at a ratio of 10 to 1 in reaction to a terrorist bombing.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    47. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Having people pledge alliegence to the Country they belong to is a bad thing? That's brainwashing?

      Thank you for demonstrating what a huge failure the U.S. educational system is. You have demonstrated that you can't even critically regard a topic you have lived with all your life as well as a failure to understand the history behind the pledge of allegiance. It was written by a socialist who wanted to celebrate columbus arriving in the Americas. It originally had different text and did not include "under god" even though the author was a minister, and originally everyone did the whole right-arm salute thing at the end, but then we decided we looked too similar to the nazis and changed that too. Kinda interesting the parallels with the last part huh? The Nazis used patriotism as a tool to control Germany, as a result a lot of people surrendered their will and critical thinking to the government and did horrible things, all the while thinking it was "for the greater good" of the German nation.

      Pledging to uphold and ethical or moral principal is one thing, pledging allegiance to a country or document, either of which can be remade to do horrible things is foolish and dishonorable. Indoctrinating children into believing that they have to align their beliefs and actions with those of the country in which they happen to be born, or for that matter eliciting an oath from someone who is too young to understand and be bound by such a thing is wretchedly unethical. It's like a parent making their four-year-old swear to always do exactly what uncle Tom says, no matter what, without considering whether what he says to do is ethical or not. Blind obedience is not a virtue.

    48. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Garabito · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A lot of arab-muslims seem to be bugged by the fact that we do not govern ourselves by Sharia law, women in the US vote, drive, and sometimes dress immodestly, we are a nation of infidels etc. etc. -- perhaps we should become an Islamic state to appease them...

      A lot of countries in the western world don't govern themselves by Sharia law, women in those countries vote, drive and dress immodestly; but they haven't been attacked by islamic terrorists nor are they hated by the islamic world as you americans are.

      Perhaps it might be that those are not the real reasons. Maybe it's because all of these other countries don't invade other arabic (or non arabic) countries just to benefit their oil industry, nor have they supported oppresive dictatorships just because those dictatorships benefit U.S. interests in their region. Or maybe because the whole U.S. pro-freedom/pro-democracy propaganda is pure bullshit, because the U.S. goverment has not supported democratic elected goverments if they were against U.S. interests. (google for "Salvador Allende")

    49. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are a great many who do care, and we have been fighting for quite some time now. I used to read stuff like this on Slashdot, get all worked up, post, then do nothing and wonder why I felt so dissatisfied. Then I realized that no one else was doing anything about it, dammit, so I had to. I started a grassroots political organization here in New York that has swelled to 15,000 people.

      Last election cycle we took back three state senate seats from the neo-cons, and fought really hard on two others, getting the one to within 8% of victory and the other to within a mere 18 votes! That puts us 4 seats out from regaining a majority in state senate, and in turning back the neo-con tide here in New York. We also fought really hard to remove a Bush rubber stamp Congressman called Vito Fossella from the district in Staten Island. Got our guy to within 8% again, but because of our efforts the party is now going to focus money and support on that race in 2006.

      Right now we're working on NYC races for mayor, etc., but really planning for the mid-term elections in 2006. We're 15 seats out from recapturing the House of Representatives, people. What does that mean? The ability to launch congressional investigations into Cheney's deals with Big Oil, who leaked Valery Plame's name to the press, the Downing Street memo that confirmed that Bush lied to the American public to get them to invade Iraq, etc., etc. It means we can impeach, imprison (at Guantanamo!), and expunge this blight from our country and world.

      So get out there and help! The neo-cons are petrified of the idea that Americans will wake up and start fighting back. It doesn't matter where you are in the country, fight back. We vastly outnumber them.

      --
      Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    50. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Siener · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At what point do they STOP being bugged?

      A little study of history shows us that point comes at no reasonable compromise.


      I can think of quite a few cases where compromises have been reached:
      1. The end of apartheid in South Africa
      2. Northern Ireland

      Neither of those two solutions were perfect, but in both cases terrorism was effectively stopped by the two parties making a compromise.

      Now please name a few cases from history where a compromise could not be reached and where terrorism was then stopped by all out warfare.

    51. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Siener · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of arab-muslims seem to be bugged by the fact that we do not govern ourselves by Sharia law, women in the US vote, drive, and sometimes dress immodestly, we are a nation of infidels etc. etc. -- perhaps we should become an Islamic state to appease them...

      Repeat after me: The terrorists don't give a shit what happens inside America. The terrorists don't give a shit what happens inside America.

      Got that?

      They are bugged by U.S. foreign policy. They are bugged by U.S. military bases in the Middle East. The are bugged by the support that the U.S. gives to Israel etc. etc.

      This "they hate us because of our freedoms" is 100% bullshit.

    52. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by Raven_Stark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps 36M Americans don't get enough food. However, this isn't due to a lack of money for the food. The welfare system ensures everyone can have enough to eat.

      The government's War on Drugs, improper care for the mentally ill, and welfare system that often encourages dumb behavior (such as having many kids to receive more money or poorly timed withdraw of benefits upon re-employment) promotes poverty.

      Dumb choices such as buying Twinkies and soda pop rather than meat and milk causes the poor nutrition. Trading food stamps for recreational drugs is another choice that leads to bad diet.

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    53. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by deblau · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, some people are just irrational and power-hungry. Real nutcases invent problems and troublemakers, then blame everything on them. Like Hitler blamed the Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals for all of Germany's problems. He was Germany's worst domestic terrorist, and he wasn't bothered by external political problems. The same situation is going on in the Middle East. Everyone blames the Jews, because it gives people a common cause and keeps them from thinking for themselves.

      Real terrorists are Evil. There is no moral ambiguity here. They need to be hunted down and destroyed. They cannot be reasoned with -- you've seen the propaganda videos, those young men and women suicide bombers have been completely brainwashed.

      On the other hand, they only need to be stopped when they're in a position to harm our citizens. I don't support unilaterally going to war in Iraq. Yeah, they harbor terrorists, but they're half a world away. When they enter the US, bust 'em hard, but don't throw away thousands of lives in some desert somewhere out of some sort of misplaced revenge motive.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    54. Re:Anyone get the feeling... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you go about starting grassroots political organizations, exactly? I've been looking into doing so (see my sig), but I don't know where to start. Oh, and by the way: what's the name of your organization?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  3. Short said: by guruevi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can do whatever they want without any judges or other laws having to say anything about it and when you go public (or to your lawyer) you go to prison? Isn't that a human rights violation?

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:Short said: by Seumas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but if you consume any of the news from the American press, you would have the impression that Amnesty International is pretty much just like the French. Meaning, anti-American, anti-Freedom, hippy snobs that we have to boycott and hate.

      Remember, you can't be with us if you criticise us. And if you aren't with us, you're with the terrorists.

    2. Re:Short said: by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Isn't that a human rights violation?

      Only according to anti-American Communist Islamic organisations like the UN and Amnesty International. Remember, the people this will be used against are terrorists. You don't support terrorists, do you?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Short said: by Rumagent · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sadly the current american administration doesn't care about international treaties.

      But we welcome the highly skilled americans who wish to join us in Euroland:)

    4. Re:Short said: by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perfect revenge:
      1)Note the names of every assho^H^H^H^H^HPolitician who voted for this.
      2)Join the Gesta..., euh, FBI.
      3)Serve said politicians a nice spoonfull of their own medicine.
      4)Don't forget to videotape them.
      5)Wait, while this shit is voted back out of excistance.
      6)Sell the DVD.
      7)Profit!

    5. Re:Short said: by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You seem to be forgetting that "human rights" is a human invention, the definition of which changes depending on who you talk to. What you might think is 'obviously' correct someone else might think is 'obviously' wrong.

      Just because it is fuzzy at the edges doesn't mean we should throw out the concept. The UN declaration of human rights is a good place to look. The US constitution another. They do not exhaustively enumerate them, but they are some of them. You are deliberately clouding the subject by picking an issue where two human rights (the rights of the mother to decide over her own body and the rights of the unborn child) clash. There is no such unclarity here.

      The judicial power of the USA lies with the courts. To grant or not grant a search warrant (read: a temporary suspension of normal civil rights, just like imprisonment) is a judicial decision. If the FBI is granted that power, they are both the investigators and the courts. Even though they are a lesser court which do not pass sentences, they are still exercising judicial power. The FBI are not a fair and independent court by any standard, and so this obviously violates human rights.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Short said: by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      2)Join the Gesta..., euh, FBI.
      3)Serve said politicians a nice spoonfull of their own medicine.
      4)Don't forget to videotape them.
      5)Wait, while this shit is voted back out of excistance.


      You got modded funny. But how do you think that the "intelligence community" gets to make politicians give them more and more power? They know your secrets, and they'll keep them secret... for a price.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  4. How Very Orwellian... by colonslashslash · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Still, it's all in the name of fighting terrorism, of course.

    Eurasian spies are everywhere....

    --
    She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
    1. Re:How Very Orwellian... by ElaborateCalculator · · Score: 2, Funny

      Eurasian spies are everywhere....

      It's Eastasian spies, we have always been at war with Eastasia.
      Please call into the Ministry of Love on your way home

      --
      --darren
  5. Hurrah! by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yet another step is assuring freedom will overcome terrorism!

    It's just too bad Bush can't have a third term. How will we be safe when he is gone?!

    1. Re:Hurrah! by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think he'll stand down after his second term? He's quite content to piss all over your Constitution, so why shouldn't he get a law passed allowing more than two terms of office?

    2. Re:Hurrah! by iapetus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No need to worry. Because of the ongoing war against Iran it will be necessary for him to stay on for a third term. America needs continuity, and anyone who says otherwise supports the terrorists.

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    3. Re:Hurrah! by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True. He has admitted that he speaks with god or jesus. I suppose he could announce that Jesus told him to serve a third term - and there are enough crazy religious sheeple in this country that would accept it.

      I just hope the general freedom thing as a citizen lasts another 40 years. Once I'm dead, to hell with you all. Just don't stick me in a gulag during my life time.

      The thing is, you can't expect a society raised by public schools (the government) to question things like The Patriot Act. Remember, these are the same people who today overwhelmingly state that the government should have the authority to censor news papers and that the press has too much freedom and that they should even be required to recieve approval from the government before publishing all stories.

      In a society where the young people think we have to much freedom we are seriously fucked. Our young people are supposed to be the rebels. The fighters. The change-makers. Not sheep.

    4. Re:Hurrah! by Seumas · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry, but even Americans aren't stupid enough to elect a president named "Jeb". I mean, that's some Beverly Hillbilly shit right there.

    5. Re:Hurrah! by masklinn · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The thing is, you can't expect a society raised by public schools (the government) to question things like The Patriot Act. Remember, these are the same people who today overwhelmingly state that the government should have the authority to censor news papers and that the press has too much freedom and that they should even be required to recieve approval from the government before publishing all stories.
      Why couldn't you?
      There are public schools run by the various govts all over Europe and we still have the guts to tell our respective govts to go stuff themselves when we feel like it...

      The issue isn't that schools are public, it's that the standards and teachings are fucked up, and that the people who should step in to make that shit stop (parents, teachers) are brainwashed enough to support it or not realize it (but... oh well... intelligent design rocks all the way doesn't it?)
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    6. Re:Hurrah! by the_quark · · Score: 5, Insightful


      True. He has admitted that he speaks with god or jesus. I suppose he could announce that Jesus told him to serve a third term - and there are enough crazy religious sheeple in this country that would accept it.

      Anyone who seriously thinks the US is a "police state" right now because of the "war on terrorism" is seriously lacking in historical perspective. The "war on drugs" has been much more harmful to civil liberties for the average American than anything the Bush administration or the last couple of Congresses have done.

      As to the original idea - that there are so many "crazy religious sheeple in this country" that GWB could simply declare himself the next coming of Jesus and do whatever he wants: Assuming you're not just kidding, it's a ridiculous statement.

      I would happily bet you (or the author of the parent of your post) $1,000 that GWB will not be President of the United States on January 21, 2009. Do you seriously think A) he would just ignore the constitution and B) everyone else would let him get away with it (especially including whomever the Democratic candidate for President is)? How would that work, exactly? He'd call off the election? You think states would stand for that? He'd let the election happen and then...what? Refuse to move out like a tenant who can't pay the rent? If you think that would last more than about three hours you seriously misunderstand this country. Evangelical Christians are a larger percentage of the electorate than I (as an atheist) would prefer, but they are far from a majority in this country. Even if they were able to wield power far in excess of ther size, they are by no means a monolothic block. A large percentage of them, believe it or not, respect the order of law and don't actually want a theocracy in this country (even if they do hold some moral beliefs informed by their religion that I disagree with). Not many of them would want a religiously annointed, unelected leader. Believe it or not.

      I mean, you're talking about a man with 45% approval ratings. You seriously think he'd be able to say - whatever his justification - "I'm not going to give up this office," and other people - especially the other people who want said office - are simply going to let him do it?

      As to your last point, I agree that I wish people were more educated about the unalienable rights we have. I wish more people understood the way the Constitution attempts to lock the government off to prevent those rights being trampled on. But that's not a new, unique phenomenon - the average American is woefully uneducated about much of our laws and history. I recall reading in the 80s that a majority of high school seniors identified the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as being a phrase from the US constitution. So, having no idea what's in that document isn't a new phenomenon.

      In summary: The ACLU needed to be screaming more about the rights we lost in the war on drugs. Most of this Patriot Act whining they're doing now is over things of little actual consequence. My fear is that, like the boy who cried wolf, when some future Congress or President really does try to institute a police state no one will be paying attention to the ACLU because "they always scream about everything, but nothing really bad ever happens."

    7. Re:Hurrah! by NitsujTPU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What makes you think that this is all Bush.

      This is an act of the Legislature. Bush can't do this. We can't blame Bush for EVERYTHING. There are a couple hundred people responsible for these laws.

      You have one or two from YOUR STATE. Write them. Tell them to stop.

    8. Re:Hurrah! by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you seriously think A) he would just ignore the constitution and B) everyone else would let him get away with it (especially including whomever the Democratic candidate for President is)? How would that work, exactly?

      Quite simple really. There will just be another 9-11 event prior to the election and the election will be canceled for reasons of national security. Go check the history books, it's a tried & tested formula.

  6. Re:LEEROY JENKINS by IronMagnus · · Score: 2

    best first post ever.

  7. Powers without balances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Kinda makes one wonder when the first people start disappearing. Maybe they already have. At least the commie witch hunts of the 1950's were internal. But you're beginning to scare your neighbors now.

  8. US = Jenga by dew-genen-ny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The perception of US 'freedom' is being undermined on a daily basis just like pieces of wood being removed from a jenga tower.

    Wonder how long you've got before it topples. /glad I'm european.

    --
    tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
    1. Re:US = Jenga by cyberfelon2k5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I for one welcome our new Jenga playing overlords.

  9. Five years of Bush! by johansalk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Five years ago, before Bush and his administration came to office, my heartfelt wish was "if only I had lived in America rather than Europe". After five years of Bush in office, my heartfelt bliss is that I lived in Europe rather than America.

    1. Re:Five years of Bush! by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to register with you local town hall, this is not for taxes or services or anything(that is all seperate) you just have to register that you are living in there city

      In America, you have to "register" with the US Post Office and IRS (and the DMV since you need a state ID or driver's license to exist). And, by way of employment or banking, the social security administration.

      You are required to carry identification with you all the time, stopped without it, instant jail.

      In America, if you have no identification on you or you refuse to produce it, you are going to be hassled, possibly threatened, and probably detained (perhaps taken to the local station for a lengthy period of time until they sort things out). Though it isn't illegal, lack of identification will get you some serious mistreatment.

      Oh, and then there was that case in Texas where the guy was basically arrested for refusing to provide identification on the side of the road by his home.

      When you stay at a hotel your information and picture is send to the police.

      When you stay at a hotel in America, you need to provide photo identification and a credit card. There are few (and seedy) hotels that will allow you to use cash. And even if you do, they often still require identification and a credit card for security reasons. It's a simple step for the police to locate you or find out where you stayed and when.

      No, this isn't Communist China or the STASI. Not yet. But it ain't all that "free", either. Christ, we're letting the MPAA pay the police force in LA to monitor the streets with video cameras for bootlegging. And most big cities have videocamera surveilance at intersections and public gathering spots.

      If we think we "aren't like europe", it's only because we've been brainwashed to percieve it that way. Just like, growing up, society brainwashes us to think that America is the only democracy in the world and that everyone else is imprisoned for speaking their mind outside our borders.

    2. Re:Five years of Bush! by johansalk · · Score: 2, Insightful



      I have no concerns about identifying myself and smiling for CCTV and other sorts of cameras. In fact, I'm happy that when I sit by the fountain in a European square and watch Europeans play in the sun that there is a monitoring camera that's watching over all to keep them safe. Here is what matters; in Europe I have higher trust that such information gathered won't be misused against me, and that my rights will be respected. I have greater confidence that they care about maintaining human rights and due process, and I won't find myself in a Gitmo-like situation without charge, trial, or such. I have greater comfort in knowing that the majority of the population are liberal-in-mind, respect individual differences, and that like the Swiss just voted to grant the gays further rights, they won't politically lynch the minorities or be easily agitated by expedient Machiavillians, having well learned their lesson from WWII.

    3. Re:Five years of Bush! by kirinyaga · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know what country you are talking about, or if you gathered several laws from different states. Anyway, in france (wich is certainly not the less policed state in europe) :
      You have to register with you local town hall
      Only if you want to obtain thinks offered to locals (such as the right to vote at local elections)
      You are required to carry identification with you all the time, stopped without it, instant jail.
      You have a delay to prove your identity. I don't think the proof has to be an id card, I guess a testimony from a member of your family can do it. And it cannot be asked without a reason (to be honnest, the police don't seem to care a lot about this part of the law ...)
      When you stay at a hotel your information and picture is send to the police.
      You just have to give your ID to the hotel. The police can request the hotel to see it.
      The police can already request all the information from local businesses and other state entities they want
      It's a bit more complicated than this bold statement. Most of the time, a judge is necessary.
      Now, I'm sure there are a lot of other things the police can do in europe it can't in USA (and the opposite is probably true as well). The problem as I see it is more about already existing freedoms that are disappearing ... It is always a bad trend.

      --
      Kirinyaga
    4. Re:Five years of Bush! by alexhs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Replace Europe with America in your post and re-read.

      Do you get it ? American government and Europeans governments do almost the same (Europe being just about 10 years behind), people are just brain-washed into thinking that THEIR government won't misuse these informations while the other will.

      About people being more respectful of individual differences : I think it's because you generalize from governments positions to people ideas. American government being full of neo-cons doesn't mean every American is (but I might be wrong, I never went to the USA ;) )

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    5. Re:Five years of Bush! by malkavian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funnily, I come from the UK. You know, the place America split from a few hundred years ago, simply because the regime was too oppressive.
      Nowadays:

      We don't have to arbitrarily register with a city hall, just because we live there, that gets passed to anywhere (apart from to pay local taxes, and even that database is so screwed, they can't work out a correct bill, let alone identify anyone with it).

      We don't have to carry any ID whatsoever. Some places (banks, video hire shops etc. require a letter saying you're resident at an address).

      When you stay at a hotel here, you don't need to provide any ID whatsoever.

      The police can request whatever info they want from anywhere. But they make the request to a court, which decides whether the request is a reasonable one, before the police turn up with their warrant.

      About 10 years ago, I really wanted to emigrate to America. From travels, it seemed like a vibrant, forward thinking place.
      These days, again from travels and experience, those same places are now seeming far more fearful, and closed minded..

      These days, I'm always reminded of the old slogans "No taxation without representation" that led the (very justified) revolt.
      These days, people just accept the 'tax' on blank media, and all kinds of goods, that just ends up filling the pockets of corporations, with no representation at all..

      It sometimes looks as though it's merely taken a few hundred years for the US to get away from what it hated so much to such a point, it's become exactly what it fought against in the first place.

  10. Don't panic! by JamesD_UK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The solution to your problems as a resident of the United States may be at hand.

    1. Re:Don't panic! by mirio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is something that really gets my blood boiling. I guess it's the 'retreat' mentality that annoys me so much.

      If you hate your country don't like the current political climate, by all means leave. If however you love your country and don't like the currently political climate...then fight for change, whether it be by joining PAC's or just word-of-mouth...do something.

      Do you seriously want to abandon what is by any measure the world's most dominate military power to Bush and friends? I don't. I choose to stay and fight.

      You people claiming that you should leave because things are not going your way makes you sound like a grade school kid taking his ball and going home when he starts losing.

      I spent 6 months in 2002-2003 working in Montreal. I've been to BC, Toronto, Quebec City and other places in Canada. It's a great country and I believe it would be a great place to live (given the proper cold-weather attire, of course!). However, Canada is just like any other industrialized country...with it's own strengths and weaknesses.

      Let's just hope the Dems can put up a candidate in 08 that actually scored higher than Bush at Yale! :-)

    2. Re:Don't panic! by Ubergrendle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As proud as I am to be a Canadian, our society is not without fault and actually is beholden to American foreign policy far more than I would like. More importantly, however, is the fact that I would hope progressive, educated Americans would rather stay at home and fight for a higher ideal. If all such people gave up on the US as a lost hope, then it truly will become a capitalistic police state.

      Moderate republicans and progressive democrats need to simply point to the United States' noble origins -- Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, all progressive atheists who believed in the rights of man over the rights of religion. Religion mixed with government is *anti-america*, always has been and always will be!

      Note: This does not preclude men of faith from taking office, but their oath is to their country first and faith second. If they can't make this commitment, then they should not be in government.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
  11. In Soviet USA... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Soviety USA, lame joke applies to YOU.

    --

    "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

    Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  12. As a US Citizen abroad by castlec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems like every bit of political news I get these days makes me think a little bit more about not going back. It saddens me to say this but it's true. Apathy is killing our country. We need to remind people that our empire is not unlike others before. They all fell apart. Ours will too.

    --
    When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
  13. Nice! by t_allardyce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The best thing about these new laws is there won't be any evidence of abuse of power - anyone who squeaks will be locked up and have their reputation destroyed, its like getting rid of free speech without actually getting rid of it: genius!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Nice! by pegasustonans · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's more like getting rid of free speech full stop.

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
  14. The terrorist will not win! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember George Bush said that the terrorist _will_ not win. It looks like they have already won to me.

  15. Remember Sibel Edmonds! by johansalk · · Score: 2, Informative

    "...we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases [brought forth by Sibel Edmonds] serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability... Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public's interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight." U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) in a Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft http://www.justacitizen.com/

  16. Osama by leomekenkamp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Osama Bin Laden gets exactly what he publicly stated he wanted to accomplish: make the US government behave more like some 'muslim' governments. OBL thinks that only when the US populace suffers the same as the muslim populace that change will come to the world.

    The fact that he publicly stated this is where it gets interersting, because this leaves open (IMHO) 3 options for the US government:
    1. US government does not know what Osama said was his reason for attacking the US, and therefor simply react how Osama wants them to react; in this case US government consists of a bunch of morons
    2. US government knows *damn well* what Osama said and do Osamas bidding, because it suits them well in becoming more like Big Brother
    3. US government knows what Osama said, but think he is lying. Question is: why would a terrorist be lying? A terrorist wants to get his way, so there is no use in lying about what you want to accomplish through terrorism. Like option 1, US government is filled with morons.
    So, US government is either too dumb for words or wants to be like Big Brother. Don't know which of the two is more scary.

    --
    Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    1. Re:Osama by malikvlc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Found this interview:

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/combating/bu sh_10-11d.html

      Interview back in October 11, 2001. Relevant question (of course, Bush does NOT answer it):

      REPORTER: Mr. President, I'm sure many Americans are wondering where all of this will lead. And you've called upon the country to go back to business and to go back to normal, but you haven't called for any sacrifices from the American people. And I wonder, do you feel that any will be needed? Are you planning to call for any? And do you think that American life will really go back to the way it was on Sept. 10?

      Clearly, works like this Patriot Act show America is far from "life as normal".

      --
      Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try. ~Yoda
  17. Not What the Forefathers Wanted by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can our representatives not see that they are bastardizing our constitutional rights so bad that our forefathers are turning in their graves so hard that they're tunneling out of their coffins. How do the reps not see that we don't really want these rules. George Bush and the reps scream freedom from the tops of their lungs while at the same time strip more and more freedoms away from their own people. Why is it so bad to get judge approval for document retrieval? Yes, it may take a little more work and time, but we need checks and balances, not law enforcers becoming judge and jury on a whim. Along with secret subpeonas, and the rest of the patriot act, they're taking our whole legal system underground and out of our hands. I can't believe how quickly they're trying to take away the fundamentals that make us US Americans, but I'm even more surprised at the rate they're succeeding at it.

    --

    "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    1. Re:Not What the Forefathers Wanted by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      we don't really want these rules

      Ah, but we do. Oh, we don't, not we sophisticated intellectuals, but we the people as a whole are very keen on these rules.

      Every single damn poll I see reveals massive support for further crackdowns and additional police powers, to protect us from terrorism.

      The masses actually believe they're in real danger. They've completely bought into the whole politics of fear we've been fed for the last few years.

      With thunderous applause, indeed.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Not What the Forefathers Wanted by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 5, Informative
      How can...
      How do...
      Why is it...

      Well, it might be some sort of plan. See "The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism here. Interesting note:

      "As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen points of fascism and all seven warning signs are present. But we're not alone. Israel also fulfills all fourteen points and all seven warning signs as well. Welcome to the new republic, redefined, revised and spun. It is not too late to reverse this in either country, but it will be soon. The first step is realizing it. The second step is getting involved. As the propaganda slogan disguising our current war goes, "Freedom isn't free." But our war for freedom isn't abroad; it's here at home."

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
  18. MOD PARENT UP by sosume · · Score: 5, Funny

    +5, insightful
    +5, informative
    +5 years in prison!

  19. Patri-what-ic? by name*censored* · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is hilarious. In my country (Australia) we *have* no patriotic act, and also, we dropped two thirds of our national anthem because, well, we really couldn't be bothered singing the entire thing. It's like, we're... America on opposite day.

    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
  20. All you yanks can come crash at my place... by EvilCabbage · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... Hey, at least here in Australia we have nice beaches and beautiful women and our governing body is just stupid, not totally morally corrupt. Yet.

    1. Re:All you yanks can come crash at my place... by cranos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This would be the same government who would quite happily lie through its teeth about "Children Overboard", or when handed evidence of a large Chinese spy ring operating in the country seem more concerned with placating the Chinese than getting to the bottom of the whole mess.

      I hate to say it but Howard and Co are pretty much as morally corrupt as the Labor Government that sat on its hands while Indonesia invaded East Timor.

  21. The other way around by MochaMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not an American myself, but I'd suspect that you're exactly the kind of person who should be going back to the US to stand up for what you believe in and help turn the current political climate around.

    1. Re:The other way around by demigod · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...stand up for what you believe in and help turn the current political climate around.

      I don't believe it's possible to make a difference in the US unless you have lot's of money or maybe own a company that makes voting machines.

      --
      "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
      Major Major
    2. Re:The other way around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As an American living abroad, I thought I should go back as well, so I did. Now that I'm here in the US, I find that most Americans LIKE the way things are going, as evidenced by the last election. Why should I jeopardize myself and my family to work against the will of the majority? Democracy is working - people are getting what they want and deserve.
      Where's my passport?

  22. Re:So what are the options here... by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Or are they possibly better informed than you and doing what they think we need done?

    Good point. We should trust our government. They are better informed than we are. They are more intelligent. The Government knows better than we do what is best for the country. We should not question the government.

    So, in your universe, what is the rationale for holding elections at all?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  23. America's been through worse and survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As I expected, many +5 insightful comments have appeared, claiming that american democracy is dead, or that the U.S. is approaching the police state, and so on. I really encourage you folks to try a broader perspective. Of course, those new laws are bad, and abusing citizens' rights, but
    1. It's nowhere near the situation during, for example, maccarthyism. Read something about the period. People were out of jobs (or forced out of the country!) for no reason at all, other that they were untruthfully accused of sympathizing with communists. And yet, American democracy survived this, and -- if anything -- became only stronger. Really, you should have more faith in the system's built-in mechanisms. It worked amazingly well for two hundred years.
    2. There is absolutely no comparison with the real police states, which are, unfortunately, still very common on our miserable planet. I think, It's insulting for the tortured to death victims in Iran, or China, or Russia, to even compare the minor inconveniences that Americans suffer with the police state actions. Looking from most of the Earth, America is land of the free, regardless how funny you may find this claim.

    1. Re:America's been through worse and survived by Mjaum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "We're fine, we're fine, everything's fine, nothing to see here..." Five years later: "How could we not have seen this coming?!" You either fight for your rights while you still have them, or you lose them. When they are lost, the fight is going to be a lot harder. But hey, keep fiddling. -Kristian da Mjaum

    2. Re:America's been through worse and survived by szaz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Iran! Are you mad! As a former member of Tehran's expatriot community I can say the Iran was - about 6 years ago - a more liberal, tolerant place then the US is now. Iran had no fundamentalists in government - UNTIL the US started threatening it, then the people got scared, voted for fundamentalists who promised to wage war, and now - whilst being far from a fundamentalist state, it is not what it used to be. The average American really should be given lessons in International History

    3. Re:America's been through worse and survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hm, first off all, I think it's at least up for debate if McCarthyism was worse than the current situation. After all, holding prisoners indefinately without trial, torturing prisoners, ever widening the rights of federal agencies whil specifically excluding proper checks and balances really is something to worry about.

      Further, you are of course right that the US has already lived through areas in which its freedom was threatened and always had the strength to overcome these problems in the end. However, the problem with your argument is, that the US was able to solve these issues specifically not as some people just leaned back and took a "it worked in the past, it will work now" attitude, but because people fought the developments they saw as threatening their freedoms.

      About your second point.
      You are of course right that there are far worse countries when it comes to human rights abuses than the US. I think that really goes without saying. However, that doesn't make human rights abuses in and by the US any better, does it?

      Further, I don't really think its the same when the US does such things, as when for example North Korey does them. Now don't get me wrong, they are crimes however commits them, but the US is after all the oldest democracy in the world, the worlds only superpower and without a doubt the leader of the so called western, civilized world, whereas North Korea is a criminal and rogue state.

    4. Re:America's been through worse and survived by rannala · · Score: 2, Informative
      2. There is absolutely no comparison with the real police states, which are, unfortunately, still very common on our miserable planet. I think, It's insulting for the tortured to death victims in Iran, or China, or Russia...

      Oh, really?

      And yes, it worked well for two hunderd years, but so did the preceding systems.

    5. Re:America's been through worse and survived by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, people seem to lack knowledge of US history. Sad really, so I'll mention two interesting events:
      -Nixon: I found some interesting comments in the news after the whole Deep Throat thing. In essence, seems like the FBI wanted to and almost managed to monitor every single member of organization whose only crime was their political view.
      -Eugenics: Till the late 50s almost 100k "feeble-minded" people were sterilized, many of them because they somehow didn't follow "Christian moral standards." For example, let's say you're a teen and got raped then sent to an institution for such people. If you're unlucky enough (say your mother committed some crimes) then you could get sterilized as would your child (after of course being determined to be "feeble-minded " by a "specialist").

      Nonetheless we have to oppose such things, so that they don't destroy the US. I've heard people who've lived through the above history say that our acceptance of presidential lies is disturbing. The government doesn't matter, society does and if we accept these losses of freedom as normal than it's all over. If kids are thought there is nothing wrong with such actions then everything will collapse.

    6. Re:America's been through worse and survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a former member of Tehran's expatriot community I can say the Iran was - about 6 years ago - a more liberal, tolerant place then the US is now.

      Yeah. Sure. Liberal, tolerant place that puts women in prison and through lashing for not covering their hair. Liberal, tolerant place that sentences people to death and executes them for converting a Muslim to the Baha'i faith. Liberal and tolerant place, where people are stoned to death for having extramarital sex.

      The average American really should be given lessons in International History

      The average slashdotter should check the Human Rights Watch reports.

    7. Re:America's been through worse and survived by lelitsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ahem, what? Iran was a liberal, tolerant place with no fundamentalists in government in 1999? Maybe President Khatami was trying, but Ayatollah Khamene'i, the real power wasn't. I won't go into the the events of July when riot police raided Tehran University and beat at least 4 students to death, but lets take a quick look at what Human Rights Watch (a strong critic of the US War on Terror) has to say about the rest of the year:

      General Yahya Rahim Safavi warned reformers in April, "we are seeking to root out counterrevolutionaries wherever they are. We have to cut the throats of some and cut off the tongues of others." A few days later he threatened, "we will go after them when the time is ripe...fruit has to be picked when it is ripe. The fruit is unripe now."

      Executions after unfair trials proliferated, including cases of stoning to death in public. For the first time since 1992 a follower of the Baha'i faith was executed in prison. Other religious minorities, including Sunni Muslims, Evangelical Christians, and Jews were subjected to discrimination and persecution. Prominent dissidents, including writers and editors, were subjected to arbitrary detention and independent newspapers were closed down. New laws were passed discriminating against women and aimed at restricting debate about women's rights. Torture was widespread during interrogation, and the government failed to take steps to halt violent attacks by vigilante groups which serve as enforcers for conservative clerics, known as the Partisans of the Party of God (Ansar-e Hezbollahi) . As tensions with the Taleban rulers of neighboring Afghanistan mounted, Afghan refugees, more than a million of whom have lived in Iran for many years seeking refuge from civil war, were attacked and beaten by crowds leading to several deaths.

      Hundreds of people were executed after trials that failed to comply with minimum international standards. In June, the daily newspaper Hamshahri, reported the public hanging of four young men in the city of Ahvaz, in the south, for "insulting" Leader Khamene'i and "armed robbery." Seven people were reported by opposition groups to have been convicted of adultery and stoned to death in October 1997 and six more were reported to have been sentenced to stoning in January. On July 21, Ruhollah Rowhani was executed in the city of Mashhad on charges of converting a Muslim to the Baha'i faith. This execution marked a deterioration in the situation of this intensely persecuted minority. At least fifteen other Baha'is were held in prison and seven were facing death sentences because of their faith. There were further detentions of Baha'is in September when dozens were detained in a new wave of repression. In May, Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh was arrested and later hanged in prison. His crime was never declared in public and any legal proceedings which occurred did so in secret.

      Read the other 10 pages on HRW's site.

    8. Re:America's been through worse and survived by hamburger+lady · · Score: 2, Informative

      lemme get this straight. the poster says that Iran was a tolerant place 6 years ago, right before it changed.

      you try to disprove that assertion by linking a story about an event that happened 3 years ago.

      in effect, you're helping prove the parent's point.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    9. Re:America's been through worse and survived by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "the US is after all the oldest democracy in the world"

      The rest of the post was relatively well-argued and lucid, but this... Dude, what have you been smoking?

      Do USians really believe this? Has america really become so insular that even apparently-intelligent, eloquent citizens think they and their ~300 year-old country invented something as ancient and basic as democracy?

      And, of course (despite the fact I agree with the rest of what you said), you do realise you've just negated any good points you made by demonstrating clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, right?

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    10. Re:America's been through worse and survived by jafac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Saying that it's okay becauseother nations are "worse" or that McCarthyism was worse, is pretty much saying that "two wrongs make a right".

      Either you support Essential Liberties or you don't. Either you think trading Liberty for Security is a nifty idea or you don't. Either Liberty is a Luxury or a Necessity. Thousands of years of human history have demonstrated how well the philosophy of authoritarianism works. But we're about to re-learn that lesson here, in America.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  24. All this because of 9/11? by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You US citizens need to put things in perspective. 2,823 died in that attack. Thats very sad but damnit, its not even a drop in the ocean compared to other dangerous things. Almost a million a year dies of off bad diet and no exercise (heart faliure). 90,000 dies in motor accidents. 28,000 people is killed by firearms a year. Where are the tough actions preventing theese much worse sources of death?

    9/11 was just an excuse to implement the police state the Neocons always wanted. The things the US hated the most about Russia is now being implemented and the US citizens is just watching on. As long as the media is pumping out false and outrageous propaganda it wont change either.

    Damn im glad i dont live in the US!

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:All this because of 9/11? by Kirth · · Score: 2, Informative

      > the Democrats elect far left wing candidates

      Doesn't exactly look like that. I'd call most of them democrats as "conservative center". Otherwise the PATRIOT-act would never have passed.

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    2. Re:All this because of 9/11? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You US citizens need to put things in perspective. 2,823 died in that attack. Thats very sad but damnit, its not even a drop in the ocean compared to other dangerous things. Almost a million a year dies of off bad diet and no exercise (heart faliure). 90,000 dies in motor accidents. 28,000 people is killed by firearms a year.

      There are around 25,000 certified civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion.

  25. In Soviet America... by Chatsubo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    PATRIOT acts on YOU!

    Sorry, couldn't resist. But seriously. At a time when Russia is just becoming a functioning democracy, I think this is actually pretty ironic.

    --
    > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    1. Re:In Soviet America... by horrens · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you kidding? Russia is far from becoming democratic, more like sinking back to dictatorship.

    2. Re:In Soviet America... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Are you kidding? Russia is far from becoming democratic, more like sinking back to dictatorship.

      Are you kidding? America is far from remaining democratic, more like sinking into a dictatorship.

      Sobpoenas with no judge that people can't know about that are allowed to be made secret and classified scream of the KGB making people disappear in the night and despotism to me.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:In Soviet America... by S3D · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are you kidding? Russia is far from becoming democratic, more like sinking back to dictatorship.
      That is not entierly correct. You are mistaking the democracy with the rule of law. Russia is a democracy in the sence that it's ruler is chosen by majority of voters and voters were not coerced by the therat of violence. The rule of the law is another question. Russia always had a problem with it. Though for now it's not conciderably worse then during Eltsin reign.
    4. Re:In Soviet America... by stwar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More Like Fascism to me, not the communism.

      What is Fascism?
      Well its a form of Militaristic Emperialistic type that is 'elected' by the wealth of the Corporate Elite. Google it up.

      People of this world are being duped into set of ideas that make up the order of things. At an Age of mass communication. How long will it take before a massive revolution takes place that whipes out the world of corporate pimps? And true Socialisam takes place. And no, not the Communist type Socialisam that everyone thinks of when they hear that word. True Socialisam has never been done before. For it to be true entire globe would have to choose to perticipate.

      Think about it. It would be like a giant open source project. That eliminates money and simply requests are made and fullfiled as they are ordered, on a world wide scale. By that I mean anything from growing food to operating trucks and airplanes. Different groups would be created to fullfill every human needs. Through a system that the main goal isnt profit but true human needs.

      I can just hope that it happens soon.

    5. Re:In Soviet America... by myside · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe, but Putin didn't loose his dogs on Khodorkovsky simply for being rich, he did it because Khodorkovsky was throwing that wealth at the opposition party. This also had the effect of making Yukos a state run enterprise. These actions do indeed fall well to the right on the political spectrum.

    6. Re:In Soviet America... by kfg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But at least the people so arrested will still be subjected to the due process of law, with representation and fair public trial by a jury of their peers.

      Oh, wait. Nevermind.

      Well hell, I've always wanted to go to Cuba, but faced government sanction if I did so. Now it's government sanction that will get me there.

      Isn't it ironic?

      KFG

    7. Re:In Soviet America... by pianophile · · Score: 2, Insightful

      as Hitler was a Socialist. His party was called the National Socialist Party and that was abreaviated to Nazi.

      NSDAP was just a name. The party may have started out with Socialism or the concerns of workers in mind, but over the years that went by the wayside. Hitler's government was Totalitarian, not Socialist. And the term "Nazi" was derogatory and not favored by the party.

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    8. Re:In Soviet America... by destroyingworld · · Score: 5, Informative

      A point...

      Although it can be said that the Nazi's borrowed some ideas from mainstream socialist thought such as the expansion of social benifits in the form of programs such as old age pensions, they did not follow many of the core principles of socialism. They opposed the concept of class conflict that is key to most socialist thought. Moreover, their embrace of nationalism, a idealist philosophy, is in direct conflict with the materialist beliefs of most developed forms of socialism. Additionally, most of the more socialist oriented members of the nazi party were killed in the "The Night of the Long Knifes" which was a purge of the left-wing of the Nazi party that Hitler used to consolidate his power. The Nazi government should not be viewed as socialist, but rather corporatist in that Hitler utilized powerful corporations (VW, BMW, MB, etc...) in order to acheive his production goals rather than acheive them directly though the state.

    9. Re:In Soviet America... by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Thankfully in this country we have checks and balances.

      ...but the checks and balances are among the components of our Republic being systematically dismantled. "Activist judge" is the new slander for a judge that dares exercise their duty to check and balance.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    10. Re:In Soviet America... by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bush is not a patriot. He is killing everything that America once stood for.

    11. Re:In Soviet America... by Chatsubo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that sounds exactly like the "democracies" I know. America not being one of those I know first-hand, but from recent wars and the like, sounds pretty much the same. The USA just kills people on a bigger scale.

      I find it very amusing that most of the replies I get of things that the "evil" Russians are doing that make them not qualify for a democracy, are done by perfectly "legitimate" democracies worldwide. Being myself a citizen of a very new-found democracy. I can tell you one thing, It IS very corrupt, and cencorship does take place. It's just that now everybody KNOWS it's happening. Maybe it is just because it is a new democracy. But articles like this convince me otherwise.

      Let's just face it, all governments do these things. Just like there is no true communism, there is no true democracy.

      Anyway, besides Russia, what democracy is NOT sliding towards socialism? They all are.

      The main reason I see for this? The majority is poor. They like getting free stuff. Socalism/Communism promises free stuff (Even though it never delivers). Thus popular vote (In the world according to Chatsubo) will always favour those who promise more socialistic behaviour from government.

      Look at the way politicians canvas. They PROMISE YOU STUFF! "We'll build more houses for the poor", "We'll provide cheaper medical care" etc. etc. etc.

      Like I said, they never actually deliver (where I'm from), but then again, the majority is usually not all that smart anyway (Not necessarily the same group of people who are poor, which makes it even worse...)

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    12. Re:In Soviet America... by phoenix321 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have a rule of law without democracy, it's all for nothing.

      Even more, if you have a rule of law without democracy you have genuine fascism. Nazi Germany was a rule of law, everyone stood against the same laws and those laws were properly enforced. Except for the fact that it were draconian, bigot laws specifically designed against enemies of the ruling party. Jews and communists weren't imprisoned and burned at the whim of a camp commander or local warlord but at the order of the chancellor himself that had become law.

      The first true dictatorship move was the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" (law of empowerment), that enabled the chancellor (who headed the executive branch before) to issue presidential orders ("Notverordnung" or "emergency order") that were treated like laws. So the parliament issued a law that said everything the chancellor undersigns is from now on treated as a law. And the bureaucrats in Nazi Germany heeded every order to the letter. Even if that meant genocide.

    13. Re:In Soviet America... by rsynnott · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, don't be silly, Hitler was no more a socialist than Stalin was a communist, Tony Blair is a socialist, or Bush is a conservative.

      --
      Me (Blog)
  26. Re:Not passed yet. by SupremeSpod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Rise up, overthrow the Giant Lizard Tyrants!

    But seriously folks, this is getting scary.

  27. Meanwhile in Denmark... by LarsWestergren · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Greenpeace has been charged as a terrorist organisation because some members climbed up on a roof and unfolded a "NO GM PIGS" banner. The government is invoking a "anti-terror" law that was rushed through by the right-wing government.

    Remember this is the country where Bjorn Lomborg was given a post as a director of an Environmental Institute.

    Fascists are really grabbing for power around the world.

    --

    Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    1. Re:Meanwhile in Denmark... by ErikZ · · Score: 4, Insightful


      So, Denmark uses an anti-terror law wrong and this means what exactly?

      The mark of a free society is that you can get lawyers, go to court and fight things like this. Or has all the members of Greenpeace been rounded up and executed already?

      And everyone is grabbing for power around the world. Sheesh. So, your choices are to either understand and deal with these people.

      Or post "The sky is falling" on Slashdot. I suppose the latter is easier.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  28. They can't subpoena MY information... by Mori+Chu · · Score: 2, Funny
    But the proposal appears to grant the FBI more power to seek information from banks, hospitals, libraries, and so on through "administrative subpoenas" without prior judicial oversight. The subpoenas are only supposed to be used for terrorism or clandestine intelligence cases.

    I'm one step ahead of them. I chose Citibank, so my information has already been leaked!

  29. You guys.. by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Home of the free, land of the brave.

    It's easy to say from across the pond, I know -- but you guys..

    So it would appear the plan is to protect your freedom by taking it away from you. Way to go.

    Sure if you believe the terrorists "hate our freedom" and want to destroy it, these measures may appear to make some kind of sense.

    But the fact is most of these terrorists don't mind your freedom, they mind US foreign policy which is supporting their dictators and exploiting their peoples. They are not fighting the US, they are fighting the US' ruthless protection of corporate interests overseas.

    Add to that the sheer hypocrisy of imposing measures on others (e.g. no trade tariffs, no agricultural subsidies, no profileration of WMD, etc) while openly refusing to impose same on yourselves.. Frankly, although I despise violence even more than imperialism, I think I understand why people would fight that tooth and nail.

    I really hope that you will stop this madness from within -- otherwise the next 911 is just waiting to happen.. And I hate to say it but that one will be your own goddamn fault.

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    1. Re:You guys.. by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But I'm curious, if the next 9/11 is going to be the US's fault. Why is that, and how would the US have to change to not have it happen?

      Because it will not be done by a Muslim fanatic but by a McVeigh. It will not be done out of religious mania (unless you call the New World Order conspiracy theory a religion) but out of hatred for the government that is destroying what America once stood for.

      Ask yourself: how bad does it have to get before you become a terrorist? Substitute the equivalent phrase 'freedom fighter' if it makes you feel better. Then think that there are people whose tolerance for perceived tyranny is less than yours.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:You guys.. by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering that the US gets dragged into many hot spots in the world, I would prefer that they're not armed with poison gases or nukes

      Well yes, except that the US usually drag themselves into hot spots, and are quite often responsible for the spots being hot in the first place. Besides, obviously they're in fact very selective in doing so -- I mean, how many US troops in Sudan?

      Other countries sniff at our hyprocracy, but frankly, put up or shut up. Most countries don't even give a damn as to what happens to the people in other countries.

      Agreed, absolutely. My own government could do much much more in the way of caring for other peoples. That said, do you really believe those troops are in Iraq for altruistic reasons? Torturing Iraqis for their own good? Oil and similar corporate interests have nothing to do with it? Again - how many troops in, say, Sudan?

      Start spending huge amounts of blood and treasure in other places and then say "Sure! We think it's ok for you to have completely indiscriminate weapons of destruction in your unstable country."

      The reason those soldiers are willing to spill their blood, or the only reason I can imagine at least, is they actually believe they are "helping Iraqis" or "defending the Homeland". Both arguments are easy to take apart. And the treasure, well that treasure is actually really just another channel from US taxpayer's wallets to corporate bank accounts. Unless you can point out the flaw in the following:
      Pentagon uses taxpayer's money to buy bombs from Lockheed et al. Blows up Iraqi houses. Uses MORE taxpayer's money to hire AMERICAN companies to rebuild what was destroyed.

      You, my friend, should really read up on some info rather than just repeat the propaganda lines. For instance, read Baghdad Year Zero by Naomi Klein. Either tell me where she's wrong or admit at least there's more going on then they're telling you..

      And why can the US have them? Well, we sure don't get foriegn aid when we have a disaster, do we?

      So, you're saying that not receiving aid gives you right to have WMD? Are you even serious? Well what's your beef with North Korea then? How much aid are you giving Iran? Come on..

      But I'm curious, if the next 9/11 is going to be the US's fault. Why is that, and how would the US have to change to not have it happen?"

      If such an attack would come from the outside, like it did last time, I believe it will very likely be the son of someone you bombed or tortured or dissappeared. Face it, current policies are only creating more terrorists -- even your own agencies are sort of saying this.

      One idea would be to change your definition of a "free country" to actually involve freedom, not only subservience to US corporate interests.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  30. Time for Action by weavermatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm ready to start taking action. I'm ready for civil disobediance, public demonstration and if it comes to it even more drastic action. Actually, I think I just might contact the UW campus and see if I can arraneg a demonstration here in downtown Seattle in the next couple of weeks.

  31. Re:So what are the options here... by plnrtrvlr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We do not have to assume that our Senators and Congressmen are "stupid" to explain what they do when they're doing stupid things. If you have paid any attention at all to history, you will see that nations do their worst when they are led by a small cadre of despicable people who have managed to position themselves in such a way as to manipulate the appearances of truth, leaving good men (and women) with the choice of following along, or falling from power entirely. Just watching the follies on the hill that surrounded the tradition of fillibustering judicial nominations should be evidence enough of the truth behind the manipulations of our government. Your post needed one more option: "Outmaneuvered on the chessboard of government (being led around by a small group of evil men)"

  32. Captain Obvious: by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Vote?

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  33. Gulag's? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Amnesty international used the word "Gulag" to provoke a reaction and got an amazing over-reaction. If democracy and human rights have any chance off success then the American people must take that report seriously and demand the "detention" centers be opened up to scrutiny and the people within them given due process. Hiding people in a "black hole" run by the military is by definition the opposite of a freedom loving country. If the US cannot demonstrate the rule of law by example then it does not deserve anymore respect than a warlord in a cave.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Gulag's? by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "U.S." isn't doing this. It's the U.S. Government. It hasn't been in the control of the people for decades.

      What the "U.S." cares about is entertainment (TV, movies, music) toys (cars, motorcycles, boats) and bare survival. We're so busy in the pursuit of those things that we don't want to think about politics and governance. Of course once in a while some band of "cooks" will rise up saying crazy things like "patriot act is bad" and stuff but they are forgotten as soon as the next commercials come on.

      The masses of the people have to be hurting pretty badly before we will notice what has happened.

    2. Re:Gulag's? by CarrotLord · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a wonderful visual image of a band of swedish chefs rising up and saying "De hurdy gurdy patriot acten is badden-flaggen" ...

      Or did you mean "kooks"? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kooks

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
    3. Re:Gulag's? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice theory, however you can't even run a fully accountable election any more. Electronic voting with no paper trail?

      Lose one democracy point.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    4. Re:Gulag's? by lendude · · Score: 2, Informative
      You need to be beaten around the head with a clue stick.

      The people at Gitmo are not conferred the status or treatment that apply to prisoners of war - they are placed in this facility specifically so these principles do not legally apply to them.

      At least do some semblance of fact-finding before spouting off - here's a fucking link which comes up second in a google search of 'guantanamo bay pow':

      http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/detention.ht ml

      --
      "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
    5. Re:Gulag's? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 2, Funny

      *bing!* Dark side points gained.

    6. Re:Gulag's? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The men at Gitmo are prisoners of war and they're being treated better than any POWs is the history of the world."

      Amnesty is doing the same job that the Administration has congratulated them for many times in the recent past. In other words Amnesty is quite correctly asking the Administration to follow standard humanitarian monitoring (something that is tolerated by many Middle East countries) and a qaint convention called "due process". This is so the rest of the planet can go half way to beliving that statement and as a result may put a little less effort in trying to kill you. Amnesty have done the planet a great service by asking the question loudly, unfortunately the rest of world simply shuddered when it saw the reaction. If supporting due process and accountability is a "leftist" position then I'm a pinko-eco-terrorist and your a baby-eating facist from the ministry of information.

      "Go to ANY Islamic country"

      Are you happy to wait until your country is worse than Saudi Arabia before you stop swallowing "trust us, were the government" statements?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Gulag's? by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And most of the people who "slipped it in" were re-elected. The people ARE responsible.

      --
      What?
  34. This is why I joined the Free State Project by Seth+Cohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As the federal system gets more and more police state like, I want neighbors who are like minded.
    Here in New Hampshire, even with just over a hundred people moved, we're already making a difference.

    Put aside your preconceptions about New Hampshire (it's not THAT cold, people), about Libertarians (We're a wide mix of positions, from very moderate to extreme), about politics (NH's system is amazingly and uniquely open, and forget 20K, just a few thousand activists could make a huge difference here), and most of all, about liberty and freedom (What are you going to tell your children about what you did when they took your rights away bit by bit?)

    Check out the Free State Project now... we don't need 20K activists to move to make a difference, we just need you.

    --
    Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
    1. Re:This is why I joined the Free State Project by Seth+Cohn · · Score: 4, Informative

      What would you notice? Well, let's see, we directly helped kill a Red Light Camera bill (spy camera issues tickets), and we've got people doing a variety of both political and civil disobedience issues... it's still early, so we don't have tons of " 'We' did this", but we've got a voice and some momentum.

      No specific towns. Manchester is the _largest_ city (100K), and one activist there told me that if he had a dozen people working together, he could work miracles there. We don't need a 'Free Town' specifically... or a Free County. NH's setup is such that we can do a lot with just a vocal activist minority.

      Job prospects? NH has no income or sales tax, much of it is less than 1 hour from Boston, and it has the lowest unemployment rate around.

      --
      Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
  35. What did you expect? by vuzman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Keep voting Republican and a police state is what you'll get. It's not like their agenda is secret or anything...

  36. chicken little strikes again... by pointbeing · · Score: 3, Informative
    RTFA.

    The committee that proposed expansion of the Patriot Act was the Senate Intelligence Committee - their job (among others) is to facilitate intelligence gathering.

    This is a pretty far cry from getting something all the way through Congress.

    --
    we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
    -- anais nin
  37. Bush doesn't speak with Jesus by Mithrandir86 · · Score: 2, Informative
    He's religious, but he's not a Theocrat. He's often misquoted.

    From the article:
    "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president." What? Did George Bush really say that? Does the president imagine he has a divine mission?

    Well, he was quoted to that effect by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. The full quote, however, does not quite sound as if Mr Bush is labouring to scrap the republic and replace it with a theocracy. "But if that doesn't happen, that's okay," the president continued, "I have seen the presidency up close and personal. I know it's a sacrifice, and I don't need it for personal validation."

    He's socially conservative and fiscally incompentant, but still, he's not Tom DeLay or Bill First. Those are the scary ones.

  38. Uncle Bush Needs You! by fabs64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.mdrails.com/images/marc_marshal.jpg
    A real picture from a poster in a train station in america apparently...

    Hmmm...

  39. I wouldn't call this idea an "expansion" by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's really whole new territory.

    If you breath into a paper bag for a few minutes then look at USAPA carefully, what you find is a bunch of restratints on how the executive branch operates removed; restraints that could slow down response in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. This kind of thing wouldn't have helped in the 9/11 scenario, but might have helped had had our act together an caught wind of the operation as it was unfolding.

    My sense is these are not completely unreasonable changes; but the law was poorly conceived because it didn't introduce any mechanism that would audit the use of the expanded powers. I don't think that would pose any practical barrier to quick action. If you think that there are terrorists somewhere on I95 with a huge truck bomb, then do what you have to do, and we will sort things out later.

    So, if the USAPA needs changing, it needs mechanisms of accountability built in to examine the executive's actions in a putative "ticking timb bomb scenario", after the need for desperate action has passed. That way, you don't create dank dark corners in which all kinds of nasty things could breed.

    What makes the changes proposed here interesting is that they're not just removing restrictions on the executive branch -- they're proposing that the executive branch have powers that have heretofore been only granted to the judicial. They're proposing, in effect, an unofficial change in the constitution. A small one from some standpoints, but it's a shift of power between the branches of government. Up until now, if some government official wanted to poke around in my files, he'd better be able to convince a judge -- a judge who doesn't report to the same boss as him.

    And still -- no accountability for how this power is used.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  40. Not Yet. . . by snitty · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is obviously a notable lack of understanding of senate procedure here.

    The expanded Patriot act is "out of committee." Now the full senate has to vote on it, the house needs to get their similar bill out of committee and they need to vote on it, and the president has to sign it.

    There is no question that if it goes to the president he will sign it, but the bill may not make it out of the senate.

    --
    Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
  41. Re:So what are the options here... by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Funny
    Quite right. Time to change the process required for a constitutional amendment so that only a bare majority need to agree. Requiring 75% is anti-democratic.

    You do not go far enough. For freedom and democracy to prevail, we should carry it further. Why should some old piece of paper block the will of the majority elected government? A constitution is inherently tyrannical; it says that there are things that the government, elected by the people, cannot do. What an insult to the principles of liberty that we hold dear!

    If the government, voted in by the people, wishes to pass a law then it should be able to do so. That's democracy. Anything else is liberal tyranny and should be abolished.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  42. White hat ? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a slightly offtopic question. Namely, I was wondering why the politics section in Slashdot has a white hat as its symbol, when all the stories seem to be about politicians doing bad things ?

    Wouldn't a black hat be more appropriate ? Maybe even Darth Vader's helmet ?-)

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  43. Government in theory by AtlanticGiraffe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Step 1: Constitution
    If this step is done right it should protect citizens from the government, each other and outside forces.

    Step 2: Law enforcement and homeland security
    Write laws dictating how those constitutional rights will be protected and how this will be financed. Execute the plan.

    Step 3: Sit back and relax
    Any law passed after this will only increase the power of the government to harm the citizens. A perfect constitution would, in theory, prevent this from happening.

    Like the subject reads, this is just Government in theory. Government in practice always seems to fail miserably at all three steps and wind up with so much legislation that no single person could understand it all.

  44. A show of hands... by toupsie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ok, if the Patriot Act has had an extremely negative effect on your life, raise your hand. How many of you have had government agents take you or your family to jail? How many of you have stopped posting negative comments about Bush and the US Government in public forums?


    That's what I thought...

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    1. Re:A show of hands... by jb.hl.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not that something bad has actually happened yet, it's that something bad could happen.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    2. Re:A show of hands... by wcdw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More to the point, how many of you could actually talk about it if it has/had happened? Without going to jail?

      And how many of you KNOW your house has not been the target of a 'sneak and peek' operation?

      That's what I thought.

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    3. Re:A show of hands... by GauteL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      History is full of people letting awful things happen because it doesn't affect them personally.

      When it happens to you or your family, it is too late to act.

  45. Americans: Join that movement! by AtlanticGiraffe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Libertarian movements like these are popping up in Europe as well. In Iceland (my home country), a libertarian party will be an option for voters in the next congressional elections in 2007. I know who I'll be voting for.

    Governments, in general, are getting way too big. Their power over their citizens is overwhelming and we need to stand up and do something about it.

    Americans: Join that movement!

  46. A little perspective, please... by the_quark · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes. A little perspective here, please. Whatever you think of this proposal to expand the Patriot Act, recognize that it is only a proposal. The original article states:

    The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval...

    The FBI has gained nothing. No laws have been changed. There is no new secret, Judge-free subpoena power. It is possible that there will be such a power in the future, but this is just one of the very first steps needed to get it done.

    Other commenters in this thread have bemoaned that poor state of education in the US, that so many citizens don't know what rights they have. Well, it's not quite as grand as all that, but here's a little civics lesson for those of you whose main political information comes from /.:

    Laws in this country must be passed in both the Senate and the House. The process is often very messy and cantankerous. Even a very popular bill can get stalled using different parlementary techniques, and it is not uncommon that a bill that looked unbeatable in January will end up dying in some comittee and not passing by the end of the year. More controversial bills are even harder to get through, and there is a very complicated chess game that goes on in which bills are ammended and revised as they move through the process.

    This particular bill apparently passed the Senate Intelligence Commite, 11-4, a couple of days ago. If you look in more serious news accounts, they make it a lot more clear that no new powers have been granted, and this is but merely the opening salvo in a long Congressional negotiation on this topic.

    From here, the bill travels to the Senate Judiciary Committe, where "Feinstein and other Democrats planned to again offer amendments." Even if it makes it through there as-is, it would need to be considered by the whole Senate. Even if it passes there, a parallel bill will have been going through an analogous process in the House. Those two bills probably won't be the same by the time they pass both houses of Congress, so from there it's off to the joint committee to come up with a "compromise version" that everyone expects will pass both houses. Finally, the House of Representatives and Senate both vote on the final version, and, if it passes, it goes to the President for his signature.

    It is quite impossible to say at this point if some provision voted into a bill in an early Senate committee is going to make it into law.

    I believe concerns about this particular provision of the bill to be a bit misplaced. As best as I can determine, this takes the existing system for issuing subpoenas to companies for relevant documentation that exists in "foreign intelligence" cases and applies the same standard in domestive "terrorism" cases. So, for example, if the CIA turned up evidence that someone trained in Pakistan and is a member of Al Qaeda, as it stands right now, they could issue a subpoena without a Judge's prior approval to gather information from (i.e.) the phone company to try to build a case against him. However, if the FBI determined that a purely domestic terrorist was planning on blowing something up, they would not be able to use the same power.

    I would like to see a frank and open debate in this country about the privacy and expectation of privacy of records owned by companies. Under the existing US Constitution and laws, if I make a phone call, the record of that phone call belongs to the phone company, not me. The phone company has no fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seziures," and it is therefore much easier, from a constitutional basis, to get a warrent to request some documents. As well, the phone company has no particular interest in fighting such requests, so it complies with the

  47. Hello? Not yet law! by rdwald · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one who noticed this is just now leaving the Senate Intelligence committee, and has yet to be voted upon by the Senate as a whole, let alone the House? Seriously, people, it's all well and good to be paranoid, but wait until this is actually law. The only thing to do now is write your senators.

  48. One small problem ... by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... they won't let you leave from the big house with bars.

    You might be well advised to find a better government sooner rather than later should you do so at all. As a citizen of another country with an arguably "better government" (Australia) I'd like to point out that (a) we're trying as hard as we can to be as stupid as America, and (b) Please, please, please put your vote to stopping this stupidity at it's source instead. If all the sane, smart Americans leave we're all f**ed.

  49. Time to act by davmoo · · Score: 2

    Besides mouthing off in Slashdot, now is the time you need to contact your senators and express (in a polite and professional way) your displeasure with this bill. Chances are your senators do not read Slashdot, so they don't know what you're thinking if you don't contact them.

    So either pick up the phone, or get out pen, paper, and a postage stamp.

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
  50. What I Want To Know Is... by kaellinn18 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where the FUCK is the judicial branch? Hello? Checks and balances? Wake up, courts! Congress is planning to expand their craptastic Patriot Act so that the executive branch can go gathering information WITHOUT YOUR APPROVAL. Seriously, if I was a judge, I'd be so incredibly pissed off. I'd like to hope that this would never make it by the Supreme Court, but I'm beginning to think that's too much to hope for. Disclaimer: I'm a conservative, but I no longer consider myself a Republican. The actions recently on behalf of both parties is reprehensible. The government stopped working for the people a long time ago. One almost wants to say "revolution," but then that would make you the "T" word wouldn't it?

    --

    --------
    This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
    1. Re:What I Want To Know Is... by BandwidthHog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where the FUCK is the judicial branch?

      Ducking and covering. They're busy being beaten about the head and face with the term "judicial activism."

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:What I Want To Know Is... by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Judicial branch is under direct assault. House Majority Leader Tom Delay right after the Atlanta courthouse shooting of a judge (and others): "If they thumb their nose at Congress and the president, the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.". About judges in florida who diasgreed with federal interference in the right-to-die case: "Congress for many years has shirked its responsibility to hold the judiciary accountable. No longer." Asked whether the House would consider impeachment charges against the judges involved, he responded, "There's plenty of time to look into that."

      Don't think the republicans already thought of this obstacle. I'm with you - the judicial branch is my only hope, but I'm afraid Rehnquist won't hold out until 2008.

    3. Re:What I Want To Know Is... by solios · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Judicial deck has been stacked for years. That's the point of the Senate filibuster thingy- the Party In Power is trying to ram more sympathetic judges into federal courts.

      Reaganites control the horizontal AND the vertical.

  51. Anyone for stasi ? by TractorBarry · · Score: 2

    So that's where all the old STASI people went after the fall of communism.

    They're alive and well and running America :)

    --
    Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
  52. America: No longer a Republic by scorp1us · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "For the republic for which it stands..." Welcome to the American Democracy!

    Can someone who isn't already a Libertarian tell me what a republic is? I thought not. On the surface they look the same- they both vote. But in a republic you have RIGHTS some of which are inalienable and others which are granted by consitutions. No one may violate your rights without first going through the steps ("Due Process")

    It is in a democracy that you have no rights, though there are votes. The majority may vote themseves any privialge they wish. They can vote your wife, mother, or sister to be community property. Such an act is repugnant to a republic.

    With the Patriot Act, and the subsequent expansion, we are venturing down a road where "Due Process" is a mere inconviennce or completely disregardable. Forget rights, lets turn this into a demoracy because it is more convienent for the governement. Hogwash. Governing was never meant to be easy. I'll show you "easy governing" it's called a dictatorship. WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE. Due Process is a requirement of any "republic".

    Stop the slippage now. Write your senators and represenatives. Vote Libertarian. Restore the Republic!

    "So this is how liberty dies? With thunderous applause?" - Amadalia, SWIII:RotS

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  53. An apropos poem that sums up the folly of your by Phil+John · · Score: 2, Insightful

    thinking:

    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

    --
    I am NaN
  54. My new empire! by Lispy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I think it's time for a new chancellor. A strong chancellor!"

    As a german I must say we had this before, a democrcy being turned into a dictatorship and I think that's where Lucas borrowed from in the prequels. I can see some of these tendencies in the US too. And I must say I am worried...

    1. Re:My new empire! by stanmann · · Score: 2, Informative

      You need to look a little bit further back in History for Lucas' inspiration.. around 40 BC.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  55. Nobody here gets it. At all. by huge+colin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is not Republicans, or Democrats, or Greens, or Libertarians, or any other group that decided they'd get some recognition if they labeled themselves with a sophisticated-sounding word.

    The problem is that people are stupid. That's all. Personally, yes, I would love to have the freedom to say and think and do whatever I like, but I'm totally unconvinced that people in the US or anywhere else are intellectually equipped to handle anything remotely like freedom.

    If you're one of the people who actually thinks logically and rationally about things: sorry, but you're in a very small minority, which would explain why elections don't turn out the way you'd like.

  56. Let's not argue, people... by renderhead · · Score: 2, Funny

    There's more than enough tyranny for both Russia and America to sink into dictatorships! Why be greedy?

    --
    I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

    -RenderHead

  57. Terrorists can attack your freedom... by Kaorimoch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    but only Congress can take it away.

  58. Re:I disagree w/the traitor statement by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
    the framers intended - protected dissent
    Three words: free speech zone.

    Dissent is dead and buried. Sure, while you might not automatically be arrested attending a protest, you can be guaranteed that the people in power will ignore you, and that their cronies and financiers (who control the media) will either marginalize you and your cause or portray you in the worst possible light.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  59. Re:Steps the administration needs to take by stanmann · · Score: 2, Informative

    1) Captured while violating or being in the company of those violating the international laws of war and performing or appearing to perform Terrorist acts against the US.

    2) There is no torture at Gitmo. The living conditions of the Guards is more sparse and regulated than those of the prisoners.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  60. Good Point. Mod Parent Up. by matthaak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, it has to be challenged and make it into the courts before the courts could do anything about it.

    This is an extremely important point. It is not unusual for the Congress to pass unconstitutional laws. But the courts can't do anything about them until until they hear a case concerned with them. Some of this has already ocurred.

    So this is why Supreme Court nominations are even more important than these individual Acts in the long run.

  61. WWII Generation (was: My new empire!) by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The WWII Generation, lately called "The Greatest Generation" protected us in the U.S. from this slippery slope by remembering what happened. They are nearly all gone now and those who remain are elderly. They maintained a certain brand of idealism even as they aged which, for example, prevented a national ID card system in this country because it reminded them too much of the Fascistic blanket of bureaucratic control that nearly smothered the world when they were young, and the heavy price they paid to liberate the world from that grip. They created the United Nations and the Geneva Convention partly out of concern for the rest of the world -- but partly to prevent the need for sacrifice on the scale of WWII and to protect American soldiers when sacrifice couldn't be avoided.

    Their children and grand children haven't learned these lessons of history as well as some of our contemporaries in Germany, Russia and other parts of Europe. As the leading example, no pun intended, we have today a child of a Veteran of World War II in the White House, leading the charge to trade a reduction in civil rights in this country for promised increases in security. On the bright side, there is a debate going on here, a public debate. Consider Bruce Schneier's recent book Beyond Fear, which seeks to help us learn how to consider the trade-offs that security decisions require at all levels, personal and societal.

    The terrorists who struck The World Trade Center want a world run by an archaic, theocratic totalitarianism with eye-for-an-eye style justice meted out by them and their hand-picked like-minded sociopaths. When we give up civil rights to fight terrorism, the terrorists gain ground. However, we have many checks and balances here and we are a very long way from sliding into totalitarianism of any sort here in the U.S. Unfortunately there are many people who don't see the slippery slope when they step out upon it.

    Back on the bright side, today we have more interaction between the people of different countries than ever before. The internet provides opportunity for dialog between the citizens of different countries which is historically unprecedented. German students come to the U.S. and talk to their friends about history, Russian emigrants in the U.S. talk to their friends about what's happening now in Russia, and how strange it is to see things like secret subpoenas and detention without charges and trials in the U.S. I've heard examples of both groups express surprise in conversations with young Americans ignorant of history, "Don't you realize this is how Fascism starts?" With fear. Yoda got that right, for sure.
    Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
    --Yoda
    As a citizen of the United States I would like to thank you for remembering and reminding us. There are many of us here who appreciate your patience. We are a young country, but an old Democracy. With your help, we will make it through this without sliding into an Orwellian 1984, nor a Fascistic 1934.
    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:WWII Generation (was: My new empire!) by makohund · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, Yoda got that right. And it reminds me of another teaching, from another world, that actually tells you how to deal with it:

      I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

      I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.

      Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

      --Bene Gesserit Litany against Fear

    2. Re:WWII Generation (was: My new empire!) by swiftstream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank you.

      That's about all I have to add, as a fellow American.

      Checks and balances, I hope, will yet be our saviours. The judicial system still seems to be keeping a decent check on Congress, and then of course we have the likes of Tom Delay making sure they keep a check on our judges... :-|

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
  62. you got euro-served by itcomesinwaves · · Score: 2, Funny

    from Eddie Izzard:

    "Two languages in one head? No one can live at that speed!"
    "But the Dutch speak three languages and smoke marijuana..."
    "Yes, but they're cheating"

  63. Proposed Constitutional Amendment by srobert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would like to petition the government for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which will read as follows:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    If we only had some language like that in the Constitution we'd be protected from these expanding government powers. But I doubt that enough elected officials or the people would ever support such a radical notion.

  64. Re:Steps the administration needs to take by stanmann · · Score: 2, Informative

    YEs, the US and Soviets sold them to him, and he used them against IRAN and the Kurds. He refused to prove that he had disposed of them and blocked the inspectors trying to find out.

    --
    Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  65. Patriots... by i · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. 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 greater danger."

    -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

    --
    Mundus Vult Decipi
  66. Wrong by isotope23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They are not ultra-conservative. They are Pro-state. An ultra conservative judge would read the constitution, understand it, and then declare much of what the federal government does unconstitutional.

    BTW, do not call them neo-cons. Call them Nazi-cons. It better describes their worldview.

    --
    Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
  67. So this is how... by egypt_jimbob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So this is how Liberty dies--to thunderous applause.

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
  68. Some of us have just gotten to scared to protest by gmezero · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've got a family to provide for. I can't tell you how many times I've had to step back and reconsider speaking out on issues of concern. The last thing I want is to be labeled a terrorist sympathizer because I don't approve of things that my government is doing. Hell, I'm even worring now about posting this as non-anonymous... but damn it, this is insane! I should never have to worry about this kind of crap in my own country. Wow, this is all so screwed up, and everyone around me can only see abortion and gays as the sole issues of discourse when it comes to an election. Argggg...

  69. Thanks for the excellent link... by matthaak · · Score: 2, Informative

    I just finished reading Baghdad Year Zero. Thanks for passing it along. It was tremendously informative and insightful. A must-read for anyone who thinks like a journalist and just follows the money.

  70. Fake Conservatives by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Real conservatives have let fake Conservatives steal their name. In exchange for getting carried along with the power grab. Except few actual conservatives have any power in the deal, and the fake conservatives use their unprecedented power to destroy much of what true conservatives value. In the bargain, though, lots of true conservatives have become fake conservatives. Because they value the power more than they value what they used to say they would conserve, until they had to actually do it.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Fake Conservatives by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're talking in terms of modern "conservatives". Conservatives say they represent individual freedom and responsibility, accountability to justice, strong physical defense (police and military), and the smallest possible government. They called themselves "conservative", casting themselves as protecting existing principles, when they launched their modern movement - as a maverick political minority - in the early 1960s. However, now that they have a lock on national, and therefore global, power, those calling themselves "conservatives" represent corporate protection of people from liability, "suspensions" of freedom in the name of "security", politicization of justice to serve narrow, influential constituencies, and failures of physical defense to protect us from crime and attacks. Fake conservatives use all their orwellian propaganda to increase government to its maximum (even unsupportable) extent. Invading personal lives, protecting criminals, spending trillions on crony corporations, sending police and military to destroy lives and cities around the world, all justified on unaccountable lies.

      Real "liberals" are entirely consistent with real "conservatism", without the straitjacket of "no change" in the brand name. Liberalism is focused soley on more freedom, especially freedom from the government. In Jefferson's time, the government (the king) was the primary means of executing all the oppression that modern conservatives say they challenge. Jefferson, an applied philosopher with much success to recommend his methods, was able to produce much of the "conservative" agenda through revolutionary change. Modern liberals often differ from his central exercise of limiting government power. But Jefferson didn't have to deal with the privatized power of corporations, empowered by government to oppress people once the government lost its franchise. Jefferson's work stated clearly that people have rights, and we create governments to protect them. Now that we have corporations, all we've got is government to protect our rights from those corporations. So liberals find that the smallest possible government is larger than was possible in Jefferson's time. Of course, there are all kinds of people calling themselves "liberals" who just want freedom for themselves, at someone else's expense. Or just less freedom for everyone, as they join the means of protecting our rights, without regard to the ends which destroy them. Fake conservatives have no monopoly on orwellian exploitation of labels for recruitment and promotion propaganda.

      Libertarians also have ranks swollen with people hiding behind an conveniently marketable propaganda mask. I've known many, including registered party members, in New York, California, and points between. Usually, they're people who want political license to have power over neighbors who won't exercise all their rights and responsibilities. Libertarians who can't recognize the qualitative quantum leaps in results from aggregating personal actions on a huge scale. Gun control is a clear example: Libertarians are often people who want a "get out of jail free card" in case they decide to shoot someone. Corporate governance is another: lots of Libertarians want a monopoly of their own, so they protect the monopoly rights of others who've already got one. Neither of those principles respect universal freedom, or the rule of law. But they're popular marketing techniques for getting new Libertarians by registration, fake libertarians by agenda.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  71. You asked for it... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And you got it. 9/11 brought out the real vengeance aspect of the American public. Whats funny in a very sith sort of way is that the only ones (besides Iraqi civilians) who are getting the short end of the revenge are the American public. Bush and his buddies knew within nano-seconds that 9/11 was their big break, their great once in a lifetime opportunity to push through this kind of crap legislation. Why? Because if you voted against it you weren't (ahem) "patriotic"... When was the last time the term "Homeland" was used with such broad applications by a government?

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  72. Re:and has this impacted you? by yourfnmom · · Score: 2, Insightful
    How has it impacted me? Well, for starters, it's pissed me off so much that I'm no longer willing to sit the fuck back and ask myself ignorant questions like "how has this impacted me?" I'm asking instead about how it could impact me, or my future children. All of my reps and senators have heard from me, and will continue to hear from me. Small pissed off groups of people is all it takes to get things done in this country, I firmly believe that.

    For me, this is what started it all: http://www.justacitizen.com/articles_documents/May 14-05-Gagged%20but%20not%20Dead.htm It's unreal.

  73. It's all to fight terrorism .. by willtsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Sometimes you think these guys have spent a LOT of time studying the Nazi takeover in Germany and 1984.

    Who wants to bet that Co-Intel Pro (or the modern equivalent) is already up and running again.

    Me must give up our freedoms to keep our freedoms. Hah, I'll take rampant terrorism over THEIR brand of freedom.

    --
    -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  74. On the other hand... by metamatic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, on the other hand...

    - The UK has a network of surveillance cameras that America's authoritarians can only dream about.

    - The UK just had an election in which electoral fraud is strongly suspected, because the postal vote system was left open to abuse.

    - In 2001 the Home Secretary described civil liberties as an "airy fairy" concern.

    - The RIP Act makes routine surveillance of ordinary citizens a reality. It goes even further than the PATRIOT act, in that it requires ISPs to develop and install monitoring software at their expense, and makes it a criminal offense to refuse to incriminate yourself by handing over your encryption keys on demand. Oh, and it also makes it an offense to tell anyone you're being investigated or that you have been forced to hand over your keys, so much for freedom of speech.

    - The UK also amended the law in the 90s so that refusing to incriminate yourself could be used as evidence against you in court--i.e. there is no "right to silence".

    - The current government is set on introducing a mandatory identity card with biometric features.

    - The UK Official Secrets act allows people to be put on trial for crimes against the state, without being told what they actually did. (i.e. the evidence against them can be ruled secret under the act).

    - Even though the ruling party deliberately lied to the country to support a war on Iraq, they were still voted back in with a huge majority--just like the situation in the US.

    - The Criminal Justice Act of 2003 suspended the right to trial by jury, and suspended the "double jeopardy" limits, allowing the state to continue to harass people indefinitely.

    - The new Home Secretary is now trying to undermine the right to a fair trial.

    - The UK government handed over power over intellectual property legislation to the WTO, just like America did. Tough luck if you don't like software patents; the government doesn't have the power to decide not to allow them, because of the GATT TRIPS treaties signed in the 90s. (Signed even though many of us wrote letters to politicians, protested, etc.)

    One of the reasons I left the UK is because the country is so damn complacent. For some reason, UK citizens don't care about the UK's lurch towards fascism; they're too busy looking at America and feeling smug. At least Americans seem to be aware of, and care about, their country becoming a fascist state, even if they are powerless to stop it.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  75. Yeah, if you believe the talking heads. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I find it hard to believe that the US government is intentionally evil. This notion
    of a sinister shadow lurking, waiting to enslave us all is childish and should be left
    at the movies.


    The reason you find it hard to believe is that you are probably a human who wouldn't knowingly harm others for personal gain. However. . , it is entirely probable that the same kind of psychopathic behavior which led to the collapse of Enron and the trillion-dollar piracy which devastated more than 20 other huge corporations in the same six month period is also comfortably installed in the halls of government.

    There are monsters out there, they lie amazingly well, have enormous charisma, and they are naturally drawn to and vie for positions of power from which to inflict their misery and chaos upon the world. Psychopathy is not a myth. It is a medically proven reality, and it is active in the world right now.

    This does not mean that ALL of the government is bad. But it does mean that the highest seats of power are almost certainly occupied by a number of individuals with no compassion or ethics and who are hell-bent on torturing the world. Judge the tree by the fruit it bears!

    Bush's weird speach and dialogue problems are typical of the psychopathic mind. Psychopaths who have been caught and studied illustrate this. Look it up. There's a lot of information for those who are willing to learn.

    Either directly or indirectly a portion of the American government orchestrated the attack on 9-11 specifically to create the current situation.

    Everybody has heard this before, and anybody who bothers to investigate the matter properly, (that is, beyond reading poorly researched and outright false articles in Popular Science, will come to the same conclusion. --If they have the courage to overcome the mountains of state-installed mind-programming and look the beast in the face without flinching.


    -FL

  76. Another Option by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is this new thing called civil-disobedience, some Indian guy invented it I think. People could concievably try that one out too...

  77. Efficient government is dangerous by Brass+Cannon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Expanding the patriot act will make the law enforcement agencies better able to do their job (i.e. more efficient). That's not necessarily a good thing. There is another name for efficient government. Fascist dictatorships. The US Government is the most powerful in the world. The worst thing that could happen would be for it to also be the most efficient in the world. The Italians commented under Mussolini that he had the trains running on time. Efficient.

    The founding fathers designed this government to be inefficient & slow, with checks and balances to impede legislation. Freedom means accepting risk.

    We should not be so afraid of risk that we are willing to give up freedom and privacy. We put up with greater risks every day and don't take such extreme precautions. We drive down the street in 2 ton automobiles within feet of drivers we don't know. We go to work in buildings with hundreds of people we don't know. Risk is all around us. As a matter of fact, the entire US system of government is based on increased risk in favor of freedom. A simple example is the basic idea that a person innocent until proven guilty. That assumption assures that more guilty people will go free than innocent people will go to jail. We, as a society agree we are willing to walk among dangerous criminals so that we do not endanger the freedom of individuals.

    Laws build up, they don't expire. Even those with built in expiration dates like the Patriot act don't go away when they expire, they get bigger. National ID cards restrict travel, expanding the Patriot Act reduces freedom of expression, national "public" schooling makes us think both are OK.

    Abandon the two party system (there are really only minor differences between them anyway) and vote for an oddball.

    Suggestion Slashdot editors - How about reporting "the Senate Intelligence Committee is GOING to vote on the Patriot Act next month" instead of "It seems that the patriot act is being expanded rather than scaled back AFTER a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee." Your way reports the news & let's us all complain about how we all just lost some freedom. My way lets us mobilize and tell our representatives what we think.

  78. Judicial Review Still Applies by pudge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something most people are missing (some, like Declan, intentionally), is that you do not lose your right to have judicial oversight of the subpoena. You have the right to get judicial review of the subpoena before complying with it. Maybe that's not a good thing, but all those who imply that our Fourth Amendment rights are being violated are simply incorrect. Maybe the spirirt is being violated; that's a judgment call, but it certainly is not as bad as many make it out to be.

    Funny how when you learn more about something, it's often not as bad as it first seems.

  79. Simply Brilliant by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks for this post. I especially appreciated this line, but not for it's intended purpose. Frankly, it made me cringe....

    The terrorists who struck The World Trade Center want a world run by an archaic, theocratic totalitarianism with eye-for-an-eye style justice meted out by them and their hand-picked like-minded sociopaths.

    You know why? Because from my perspective, those hard line "conservatives" (very large air quotes) who run our government speak about this daily...

    A slogan of the Texas republican party (of whom George W Bush is the most prominent member) states "The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation." Several right-wing organizations actively state "Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government." Among other things, the push for Christian Theocracy is more thinly veiled at the top reaches of our power structure (and actually spoken openly in some circles) than it has been since 15th century Puritans.

    In addition, today's "conservatives" are leading the push to increased usage of the Death penalty and increasing mandatory sentences while reducing or in some cases completely removing the judiciary's ability to diverge from these mandatory requirements due to extenuating circumstances. This is the first time in America, at least since the Salem Witch trials where the punishment for certain crimes far outstrips the damage or harm caused by that crime. One great example involves "crimes against children". While there are serious crimes perpetrated, the sentencing for such crimes has grown significantly out of proportion with actual research findings showing harm and danger to children. A simple pat on the butt or even a hand on the shoulder can net a mandatory minimum sentence of more than 10 years, though studies show that non-penetrative abuse is statistically shown to have very small long term effects on children when the issue is treated with open discussion, trust and patience.

    Small-time drug usage also has been shown to have statistically very little negative effect on society as a whole, but is punished with ever-increasing sentences that far outstrip the crime.

    On top of this, top officials in our government often speak of the courts or opposition parties as "getting in the way of progress" when they strike down things like the patriot II and DMCA or the Internet Decency Act... when in reality they are struck down because they grossly infringe on our rights as citizens and people. The proper reaction is to be embarassed that they would make the MISTAKE of outstripping their power,but instead they vow revenge and simply re-write the bills with more "sneaky" language to see if they can get them passed in a second round of voting.

    Then, they push laws giving the executive branch power to overrule (war powers act) and oversee (2001 PROTECT act) the legislative branch and judicial branch. Soon, they are appointing chairmen sympathetic to their cause regardless of their qualifications to handle the job and instituting collective organizations through wich they can better consolidate the power base and coordinate covert activities and actions. And a small bit of trivia, KGB loosely translates to "Comittee for Motherland Security" through which most Soviet intelligence and covert operations took place. That was Stalin's equivalent to consolidate his power into a single state entity that reported directly to him rather than to other arms of his power base.

    I won't even go into the list of seven countries who have directly violated UN resolutions in the last 5 years (S Korea, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, US) or the countries that have executed minors in the last 25 years (Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, US) or the first-world countries that currently prisioners without trial and without recourse (uhhh US, maybe Russia, China, if they count) or should I point out that the US was the second greatest contributor to what are referred to today as "terrorist organizations", as recent

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  80. come, come, let's be reasonable by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been called a 'troll' several times too, but mostly by small-minded people that didn't like what I had to say, because it involved criticism.

    But so what? It's proof one is doing something good, I say, if people try to use a common fallacy (claiming someone is a troll to invalidate what he says, while, even *IF* he was a troll, it still wouldn't say anything about the validity of *what* he said) to shut you up.

    That said - and mind you, I have had experience with (the stiffling of) free speech, as one can see on my blog - I do think slashdot is one of the greatest systems invented yet, to allow ALL people their free speech. It is true: things that are considered crap get a low rating, and people can decide to skip that, but in principle, you ARE given the possibility to speak your mind and to be read by the public that wishes so.

    Look at this thread: even while you are on 'troll, -1' I still read your post, and I still replied.

    So, first of all, I doubt you are being targeted for political reasons; slashdot may have a 'libertarian' viewpoint most of the time, there are enough zealots from the right and left (both to the extremes and not) to be pretty balanced on the pure political side.

    But, even if you *are* being targeted for political reasons, it is incorrect to claim your right to free speech has been taken away. If they would *delete* it, yes, then you might have a point. But because the readers rate your postings low, does not mean you are derived of your free speech right on this forum, IMHO.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  81. Contact these senators! by math+major · · Score: 4, Informative

    Arlen Specter
    711 Hart Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    (202) 224-4254

    Dianne Feinstein
    331 Hart Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    (202) 224-3841

    Mike DeWine
    140 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    (202) 224-231

    Joe Biden
    201 Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    (202) 224-5042