Slashdot Mirror


U.S. House Votes to Extend Patriot Act

Rick Zeman writes "In the wake of today's 4 dud bombings in London, the U.S. House has voted to extend the Patriot Act by a vote of 257-171. This includes 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on December 31, one allowing roving wiretaps, and another allowing searches of library and medical records."

1,137 comments

  1. Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    to welcome our new American Overlords

    1. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      http://digg.com/

      It's like Slashdot, only without the disgusting gays, and like del.icio.us, only without the AJAX-Ruby-On-Rails-finger-in-ass-wiggling monkeys

    2. Re:Allow me to be the first by Ravatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The GOP died decades ago, enjoy your neo-"conservative" agendas and lack of ability to handle finances.

    3. Re:Allow me to be the first by Roland+Piguepaille · · Score: 2

      THIS IS NEAT

      too bad no one will switch from the broken model of pisspoor editors

      --
      To confirm you're not a script, please piss in my ear.
    4. Re:Allow me to be the first by masklinn · · Score: 2

      Without AJAX?

      I guess you forgot to check this page

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    5. Re:Allow me to be the first by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh please, this is just typical liberal socialist scare mongering.

      Remember, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Well maybe if you are mistaken for someone who is doing someone wrong, or ... if you have a close relative who is doing something wrong, or ... if you once spoke to that guy who ...

      Anyway, as I was saying, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. This is for your protection, after all.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    6. Re:Allow me to be the first by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      very good comrade! although your newspeak is a bit disturbing.

      please report to the ministry of truth for re-education.

      Oh and remember there will be an additional gas ration card for anyone that turns in a suspected terrorist this month.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Allow me to be the first by onwardknave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find your sig...
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -- Goethe"
      ...amusingly prophetic.

    8. Re:Allow me to be the first by Mattcelt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wrote about this a while ago. Here's the text:

      "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

      Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.

      And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:
      "Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
      but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:
      "If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

      Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.

      But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.

      They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.

    9. Re:Allow me to be the first by muttoj · · Score: 0

      That's exactly the same what the Nazi's said to the people of all the countries they invaded.

      Don't worry, if you are a nice Nazi you won't get hurt. If you have different idea's . . .

      And I tought America was supposed to be the land of the free.

    10. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, as a sitizen of Russia and former sitizen of the USSR, I can point out why too much power in the hands of the government is wrong.

      1. Government is inefficient by its nature. Providing it with more tools to search for the terrorist will make it just more ignorant and lasy.

      2. Certain people will get lots of power and even if they have good nature in general, they, as most of the people, are going to have there own biases. Then there is a question about who is going to police the police? The more obscure the procedures, the easier it is to abuse them

      3. Politicians ARE ALWAYS DIRTY. How many politicians do you think will be interested in using some ready-made system to cover for their mess-ups?

      4. The best way to stay in power forever is when the nation is in the state of emergency. It is very easy to create one and maintain the fears, especially when one can hunt for ghosts now and again...

      Overall, the way you go now -- is straigt towards the communist-like oppression state. In fact communists, by the nature of the state (brainwashing, huge kgb, tight control over the foreigners, etc.), had probably the best control against the infiltration by the enemies. But still there were secret agents in there working for CIA.

    11. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it right and good for the prey to say, "Fuck this noise!" and go buy some ammo and suitable 'equipment' with which to resist the hunters? If so, then sign me up!

    12. Re:Allow me to be the first by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      You don't have to BE guilty, someone just has to think your guilty. Or eventually, you could just be a lesson to others no matter if you are innocent or not. By then you are into a reign of terror ... which can last a long time.

      If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about misses the point. Who says I am innocent or not. Do I get a chance to defend myself. If you want real brinkmanship, this is not recommended by the way, you could say "well I could tell the cops I saw you reading some terrorist literature, but you're innocent right? But if I didn't like you it would be easy. No proof necessary." Everyone repeat after me : witch-hunt.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    13. Re:Allow me to be the first by Redwin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or the Ministry of Love, reception is room 101 first door on your left.

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    14. Re:Allow me to be the first by Redwin · · Score: 1

      If you are innocent then you have nothing to worry about

      I'm sure many "witches" in the middle ages would beg to differ

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    15. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Remember, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

      We should not be building surveillance technology into standards. Law enforcement was not supposed to be easy. Where it is easy, it's called a police state.
      -- Jeff Schiller, 1999-10-12

      Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy.
      -- Orson Welles

    16. Re:Allow me to be the first by smchris · · Score: 1

      "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

      "Deer don't know it's a deer. Wolf don't know it's a wolf. Natural born killer."

      The wolves spouting words of comfort I understand. Sadly, I suspect a great number of the people who don't worry are deer.

      But they annoy the hell out of me when their indifference lets the wolves in power steal our liberties.

    17. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The liberals are just as bad. Americans need an old fashion politician burning, after all the world will hold all responsible.

      There is no difference is either parties corporate policy and liberals still perpetuate the lie of victimized womanhood (which has a result of persecuting my demograhic without cause or reason, therefore it's still neo-cons all the way).

    18. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that if you have done nothing wrong, you have no reason to have your life examined is not one we use in a democracy.

      The proper answer to that statement is 'demonstrate that you have a need to know.'

    19. Re:Allow me to be the first by Redwin · · Score: 3, Funny

      to welcome our new American Overlords

      new?

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    20. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      orwell couldn't have said it better himself

    21. Re:Allow me to be the first by debozero · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you have never been stopped because you fit the description..... Of course when asked what the description was they say "You know you look like those people...."

    22. Re:Allow me to be the first by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      your newspeak is a bit disturbing

      I was thinking the same thing, brother. He obviously hasn't gotten the 16th edition yet. Has everyone else here seen it? It's double plus good.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    23. Re:Allow me to be the first by The+Spoonman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please, this is just typical liberal socialist scare mongering.

      Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you there. I've been a staunch Republican all of my voting life, I even voted for GWB twice. But, frankly, the people currently calling themselves Republican are nothing more than "The Tax & Spend Christian Party", imposing their warped, hypocritical and hateful religious agenda on the country and the world. I used to believe that if I wasn't doing anything wrong, I had nothing to fear, but I don't believe it anymore.

      You even point it out in your argument Well maybe if you are mistaken for someone who is doing someone wrong, or ... What happens then? Well, if the police and DA's office believe you're the one, then they'll put the full weight of their power squarely on your back until you break. Even better, if Patriot II is passed, and you're mistaken for a wrong-doer, you can disappear in the middle of the night and no one will know why. Grand.

      They've got control of the House, they've got control of the Senate, they've got the White House. And now, with Sandy D leaving, they'll have the Supreme Court, too. I feel so wrong for voting as I did last year. Oh, well, that's why I'm making plans for Canada next year. :)

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    24. Re:Allow me to be the first by Xabraxas · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Has anyone here has even read the Patriot Act?

      Yes I have, and while it may be useful in some parts it definitely takes away some of our civil liberties, like the right to a trial.

      Here's a crazy idea... Come up with a better solution to deal with terrorism in a free and open society

      No Patiot Act is just as good as having the Patriot Act when it comes to terrorism. The Patriot Act has done nothing to protect us from terrorists since its inception. In fact, the terrorists from 9/11 should have been caught with the existing infrastructure at the time. There really is no need for The Patriot Act to catch terrorists.

      And if you think that the US is no longer a free and open society, remember that in many countries around the world, you would be hunted down, arrested and maybe even executed for expressing the thoughts that you've so thoughtfully shared in this forum

      That's irrelevant. If you want to play that game you can tell the Iraqi people that at least they don't live in North Korea. You can tell Cubans that they're lucky because they don't live in Afganistan. Human rights and civil liberties are not relative, they are absolute. We must constantly safe-gaurd them or they WILL slip away a little at a time.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    25. Re:Allow me to be the first by Pablo+El+Vagabundo · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Thank You!!

      That is the perfect answer.

      Some Gobsheen: If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?

      Me: Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.

      That will totally confuse them. They will be thinking about that for hours. Seriously I am going to use it. It is the perfect answer.

      Pablo

    26. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have a better solution? How would you catch terrorists? Please also tell me how 9/11 could have been prevented with the security measures used at that time.

    27. Re:Allow me to be the first by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 1

      Out of bordom I clicked on your link. The first article there was a hockey article. I will not be going back.

    28. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think your even welcome up here, you GWB voting mother fucker.

    29. Re:Allow me to be the first by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      Do you have a better solution? How would you catch terrorists? Please also tell me how 9/11 could have been prevented with the security measures used at that time.

      Three of the terrorists had expired visas. Three of the pilots had visas that were NOT for pilot training, yet they trained in the US. There was a CIA report warning about Al Qaeda using planes as weapons. The FBI reported that a large number of Muslim males were taking flight lessons and again warned about possible terrorism. All the warnings were there. The government had every right to investigate these warnings yet they did nothing about it.

      Now can you please tell me which part of the Patriot Act would have stopped the terrorists from boarding the planes and crashing them into buildings?

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    30. Re:Allow me to be the first by k96822 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that you voted for Bush. I think you're just saying that to add credibility to your statements. The Republican party is about LOWERING taxes, not increasing them. Ironically, the Democratic party is the one fighting to RAISE taxes, as if that is a holy cause.

    31. Re:Allow me to be the first by miu · · Score: 1
      Do I get a chance to defend myself.

      Maybe. Although the laws you are being charged with breaking and details of the crime of which you are accused may be top secret or something.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    32. Re:Allow me to be the first by rcamera · · Score: 1

      good job. help vote the guy in, decide you don't like him, and bail. meanwhile, the rest of us have to continue to pay for your decision. they should make move to nyc so you can have your belongings checked every 10th time you get on the subway/ferry/train.

      --
      Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
    33. Re:Allow me to be the first by chumbucket5001 · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, most of congress hasn't read the blasted Patriot Act.

      So to answer your question: No, I have not read the Patriot Act. But the people who wrote it have and they know exactly how to use it.

      No big suprise that it has had it's life lengthened.

      George W Bush was quoted saying "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... ( Chuckles ) ( laughter ) ...just so long as I'm the dictator. ( Laughter )"

      He thinks it's funny! Something is only funny if both people laugh George.

      Link to quote: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00 /trans_12-18.htm

    34. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And if you think that the US is no longer a free and open society, remember that in many countries around the world, you would be hunted down, arrested, blah blah blah...

      Well, if you think that the US is still a free and open society, remember that in many countries around the world, you are still allowed a trial by jury, regardless of what you have been accused of.

    35. Re:Allow me to be the first by DogDaySunrise · · Score: 1

      For those who believe that 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear', I have four words...

      Full Body Cavity Search.

      Scares me, anyways...

    36. Re:Allow me to be the first by paranode · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with certain portions of the Patriot Act, to be sure, but it's all too easy for you to claim the Patriot Act does nothing to stop terrorism when we haven't had a single terrorist attack since 9/11 while other countries have. That may or may not be because of the Patriot Act, but you cannot say for certain that it is not working.

    37. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're saying that because bush has cased the american defecit to rise by several billion dollars?

      Of course 70% of statistics are made up :P

      Still, war costs money. Period.

    38. Re:Allow me to be the first by eclectic4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real fear (which is counter to freedom, I might add), is wondering when the definition of what you are "doing wrong" shifts. With all of these provisions now in place, how easy would it be to deem healthy dissent as a a terrorist activity? Proof of this has already been seen. When will attacks on policy become an attack against America, and our "national interests", whatever they may be?

      Freedom is largely a state of mind. While it can be a dangerous one in much of the world, I don't like seeing our country moving in that direction. I would rather live free under threat than safe under fear of oppression. Besides, if the terrorists hate freedom, then why haven't the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc..., countries that are arguably more free than the U.S., not been turned into parking lots by droves of suicide bombers? No, it's our policy and actions, and I don't want to be deemed unpatriotic at best, and a terrorist under prosecution at worst for "attacking" those policies, just as it's supposed to happen in a true, working democracy.

      That is my fear, the Patriot Act doesn't help, and it doesn't "feel" free, that's for sure.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    39. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here at slashdot, all anti-Conservative flamebait is modded high and considered "insightful" or "informative" or "funny."

    40. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case would you like to buy one of my dayglow orange beenies that prevent tiger attacks. No one who has worn one has been attacked by a tiger.

      I haven't figured out why the prevent tiger attacks but why take the risk of not wearing one.

    41. Re:Allow me to be the first by adnausium · · Score: 1

      You could'nt have said it much better than that. we need to continue to question the decision making of those who we let make our rules. Anyone claiming "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" or "If the're not guilty, why are they running?" should be scrutinized about how they determine what is right and wrong. who's to say...

      --
      Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
    42. Re:Allow me to be the first by demigod · · Score: 1
      Has anyone here has even read the Patriot Act?

      I have, have you?

      Come up with a better solution to deal with terrorism in a free and open society.

      The problem is intractable in any society. Take a look at Iraq, it's currently a police state occupied by 100s of thousands of troops, yet there are bombs going off every day.

      You can't stop someone who is willing to give thier own life to commit terrorist acts. It's too easy, regardless of laws. Unless of course you want to put everyone in prison.

      If you really want a solution, and you may no like it, here goes;

      • Try not to piss people off. When was the last time the Swiss had a terrorist attack on thier soil? Maybe being neutral is not such a bad thing. At least it would seem to limit the number of people willing to give thier life to terrorize you.
      • Ignore it. Imagine if the networks didn't interrupt normal programming for minor terrorist events. If it was treated just like the murders they report on each day. Sort of takes the wind out of the sails if you don't get a lot of press coverage.
      • Don't punish your own people, it's not thier fault. There is no reason to take rights away from Americans. Doing so may make more Timothy McVeigh's then it catches international terrorist. We have as many nuts in this country as any other, let's not piss them off either.

      ...if you think that the US is no longer a free and open society, remember that in many countries around the world, you would be hunted down, arrested and maybe even executed for expressing the thoughts that you've so thoughtfully shared in this forum..

      How do you know we won't? Don't forget the Patriot Act would make it leagal for us to all be secretly rounded up as terrorist suspects, given secret trial and secretly sentensed. Do I think it will happen. No, but it would now be legal (IANAL).

      Then again this Canadian didn't think anything would happen to him either.

      --
      "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
      Major Major
    43. Re:Allow me to be the first by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
      Dig your .sig!

      "We at the Ministry are terribly sorry, Mrs. Buttle..."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    44. Re:Allow me to be the first by mconeone · · Score: 1

      Yes, and while they're lowering taxes, they're putting the country in deep debt for a generation. But that doesn't mean anything to you, does it?

    45. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that we have a severe immigration problem. No one in a position to do anything about the problem will because it's a PC nightmare. Everyone's afraid of loosing votes by appearing insensitive to people who come here illegally. Politicians (almost exclusively liberals) won't even refer to aliens as "illegal". The new PC term is "undocumented citizen". This kind of touchy feely attitude makes me sick. I'd love to see the borders actually secured and protected but I seem to be in the minority on this issue.

      Both the CIA and FBI had some information but they were not able to collaborate with each other. FISA prevented this. Section 218 of the Patriot Act lifted this restriction.

      Also, I doubt that the tips and/or threats were taken as seriously as they should have been. I doubt that anyone considered that an attack of that scale would happen. Maybe if the warning signs were taken more seriously and the CIA and FBI were able to work together (sections 203 & 218) and they were able to tap the terrorist's electronic communications (sections 201, 206, 209, & 212) 9/11 could have been prevented. Ultimately, the agencies involved must want to cooperate and take all threats more seriously, but now, their hands are no longer tied as tightly as they once were.

      I understand your concern about being imprisoned without trail and I do believe that the situation could have been handled with more tact. Clearly the administration could be more communicative regarding this. I don't think that explaining why a person is being held would violate national security. However, I personally believe that terrorists don't deserve trials and that they can rot in a box until their death. Would a terrorist give you a trial?

      Now, please tell me what your solution is and how you would catch terrorists. Also, please name any innocent people wrongly imprisoned for terrorist acts.

    46. Re:Allow me to be the first by zCyl · · Score: 1

      Would a terrorist give you a trial?

      If my government is using the tactics of terrorists, then I have a serious problem with that. Why don't you?

    47. Re:Allow me to be the first by quanticle · · Score: 1

      That's like me saying that my tinfoil hat keeps meteors from hitting my house and my loved ones. No meteors have hit me, so my tinfoil hat must be working!!

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    48. Re:Allow me to be the first by Cainam · · Score: 1

      Has anyone here has even read the Patriot Act?

      A much better question is whether any of the people who voted for it ever bothered reading it.

    49. Re:Allow me to be the first by mcflaherty · · Score: 1

      I feel so wrong for voting as I did last year. Oh, well, that's why I'm making plans for Canada next year. :)

      Oh no, you've got to wait this one out with the rest of us... no running for you!

      --
      -- I am become sig, destroyer of posts.
    50. Re:Allow me to be the first by crabpeople · · Score: 1
      I think that anyone who voted for bush should not be let into the country, even for a visit. period. if they resist, shoot them.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    51. Re:Allow me to be the first by digitizit · · Score: 1

      What they don't seem to understand is that I neither need or want their damn "protection". The fact is that if someone is intent on doing these bad things, nothing is going to stop them. Certain people will continue to do bad things, no matter how many laws or regulations our beloved government puts into place. These people are criminals, and by definition criminals don't obey the laws. What makes anyone think that by punishing and restricting the masses that the bad few will stop being bad?

    52. Re:Allow me to be the first by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      Both the CIA and FBI had some information but they were not able to collaborate with each other

      You completely ignore the fact that both the CIA and FBI were not prevented from investigating the evidence they had on their own. Their cooperation would not have changed anything considering the fact that neither of them did a damn thing.

      I doubt that anyone considered that an attack of that scale would happen

      They did know it was going to be a large scale attack. All the warnings, including from several other countries, warned of a large scale attack.

      However, I personally believe that terrorists don't deserve trials and that they can rot in a box until their death. Would a terrorist give you a trial?

      Yes I would give a terrorist a trial. That is what this country is all about. If the accused is guilty then the trial will prove this. Otherwise I can just claim that you are a terrorist and the excutive branch of our government can then detain you without a trial until you "rot in a box".

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    53. Re:Allow me to be the first by mcflaherty · · Score: 1

      That's like me saying that my tinfoil hat keeps meteors from hitting my house and my loved ones. No meteors have hit me, so my tinfoil hat must be working!!

      Lucky for you then that I came along right as I did. Can I interest you in my anti-bear rock? Notice as we talk you've seen no bears. My rock is proven technology, and at a small cost to you, could be yours TODAY!

      --
      -- I am become sig, destroyer of posts.
    54. Re:Allow me to be the first by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      The point was that we could have caught the terrorists without the Patiot Act, and that since then we have not used it to catch terrorists, although it was used for other things, like investigating a night club. So, again, why do we need the Patriot Act?

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    55. Re:Allow me to be the first by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

      Remember, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.

      I know the parent post was a joke, but some people take this argument seriously and use it. All I have to say to them is, "Ok then. If that's the case, WHO decides what's right or wrong?" That usually ends the argument pretty quickly...

    56. Re:Allow me to be the first by demigod · · Score: 1
      if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

      Tell that to this guy.

      --
      "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
      Major Major
    57. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think that the US is a terrorist nation ?

    58. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Yes I have, and while it may be useful in some parts it definitely takes away some of our civil liberties, like the right to a trial."


      Say what? You get arrested and you are not going to get a fair trial? Citations please.
    59. Re:Allow me to be the first by paranode · · Score: 1

      Other than the controversial issues that are the only parts people focus on, it modified pretty archaic sections of the statutes that were written before PCs, the Internet, etc were widespread. Also the idea of increased intelligence sharing is important, since we've learned that perhaps that could have prevented 9/11 in the first place.

    60. Re:Allow me to be the first by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      I applied to the TSA (I think that's Transporation Security Administration, but who knows or cares anymore) last August and within 6 hours I received a rejection e-mail.

      So much for veterans' preference and experience (plus some military medals add a few more points). Evidently they keep a record of negative e-mails sent to the president.......

    61. Re:Allow me to be the first by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      Please explain why you voted for Bush the second time. I truely cannot fathom it. This is not a troll, I wish to understand.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    62. Re:Allow me to be the first by zerocommazero · · Score: 1

      I'm glad that our senators are listening to the people and not worried about their own asses. Great way to sell us out, bastards!!!!

    63. Re:Allow me to be the first by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      The corollary, of course, being if you are one of the Bush boys (George, Jeb and Ned) you are guilty (and let's not forget Karl Rove, natch) of EVERYTHING, you have nothing to fear.

      What's wrong with this picture????

    64. Re:Allow me to be the first by General+Fault · · Score: 1

      My argument against "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide" is one word. .
      The wiretap laws that the patriot act has wiped away were put there for a reason. It's just that most people have forgotten that reason.

      --
      No man is an island... But I wouldn't mind having a bigger moat.
    65. Re:Allow me to be the first by Radius9 · · Score: 1

      "Now, please tell me what your solution is and how you would catch terrorists. Also, please name any innocent people wrongly imprisoned for terrorist acts."

      I would love to name some innocent people wrongly imprisoned, but since that list of people who have been arrested is *SECRET*, and since they haven't had a trial, its impossible to know who the people are, much less which ones are innocent.

    66. Re:Allow me to be the first by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      The Patriot Act has done nothing to protect us from terrorists since its inception.

      Nothing? How many terrorist attacks have we had in the US since 911? NONE. Your listening to the conspiracists. The government has disclosed a number of incidents on how the Patriot act has stopped terrorist plots. Perhaps you forget about those? When they went to renew it, it was brought out in congress and the newspapers that "The Patriot Act has been used to bring charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half have been convicted. He also said it has been used to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia and Florida." So don't say it has never been used or has done no good. They may have saved you life or someone you know already. Nobody has contested these figures nor the statement so I presume it is true.

      As for the existing infrastructure you talked about, it wasn't there. That was done away with in 1993 when Clinton/Albright stripped the CIA. Then they passed rules (Gorelick) to prevent agencies from communicating with each other (Read the 911 report?). Some speculate the rule was to prevent the CIA from informing the FBI of the illegal activities of the Clinton administration, mostly to do with fund raising, amoung many other things. Gorelick claimed the rules were to preserve civil rights and civil liberties. Most people would be suspect of her motives since she is now a Democratic Congressman and her loyalties were clearly with the Clinton administration while she worked at the Justice Department.

    67. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple. Kerry. Fuckin' Kerry. He would not have altered the totalitarian movement of the US one iota and would have added a whole bunch of his secular-progressive nonsense. Lesser of two evils.

      Don't forget, the Dems, particularly Lieberman, created the Patriot Act. Bush was just too spineless to say no. I realize he was afraid of the Russian cold-war Nukes in the US, but they still haven't found the nukes, have they.

      The Patriot Act is no small thing, however. To answer the question posed previously, "why be concerned if you haven't done anything wrong?" Because what you are currently doing now that is okay might be defined as wrong later.

      It is only because I truly believe my first statement that I voted against Kerry. For those who trust that Bush won't abuse use the Patriot Act to abuse the US citizenry I say, I generally agree with you. However, Bush, and no other, has allowed and created both the precedent and the infrastructure for Hillary, if she takes power in 2008, to take care of "terrorists" once and for all. And, lest we all forget, conservative Christian groups, the ones that so support Bush, were declared terrorists under the Clinton administration by Janet Reno. This, to my knowledge, has never been rescinded.

      So, this is both why I voted for him and why I regret that I had to.

    68. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think everyone here should pick up and read a copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago. Then think about the "Patriot" Act.

    69. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do frickin' clueless people who miss OBVIOUS sarcasm get modded +5 insightful? Are all you modders retarded?

    70. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republican party is about LOWERING taxes, not increasing them.

      Lowering taxes is about the only conservative value that the current crop of Republicans still support. Otherwise, they spend money like crazy, side with big business, support a large government, start wars, wipe their asses with the constitution, protect individuals that perform acts of treason, and just about everything else they have accused "liberals" of doing.

    71. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I smell a troll, and I can't resist feeding it

      ...the Dems, particularly Lieberman, created the Patriot Act. Bush was just too spineless to say no.

      You, my friend, are an idiot. Oh, poor Georgie, so intimidated by those big, bad, Democrats, he was too much of a pussy to say 'No' to the Patriot Act. I call bullshit.

      However, Bush, and no other, has allowed and created both the precedent and the infrastructure for Hillary, if she takes power in 2008, to take care of "terrorists" once and for all.

      While it's pure folly to believe that, especially as soon as the next administration, there will magically be no more terrorism in the world, it's even more ridiculous to believe that Bush has done anything to eliminate it. If anything, the current administration has created a geopolitical situation that will ensure decacdes of continued terrorist attacks and a perpetual "war" on "terror" that will do nothing but further jeopardize our national security and deprive us of our civil rights.

      And, lest we all forget, conservative Christian groups, the ones that so support Bush, were declared terrorists under the Clinton administration by Janet Reno.

      Somehow, I doubt Branch Davidians were the deciding factor in the 2000 or 2004 elections. Conservative Christian groups declared "terrorists" by the Clinton administration?! Yes, that's certainly why James Dobson, Pat Robertson, et. al. have been shipped off to Gitmo en masse.

    72. Re:Allow me to be the first by toddestan · · Score: 1

      So, this is both why I voted for him and why I regret that I had to.

      Okay, we can all understand why you don't like Kerry. Why didn't you vote for Badnarik or [insert other 3rd party canidate here]? A vote for Bush or Kerry was just a vote for the same two party system that gives us lousy canidates like Bush and Kerry (and Gore and Clinton, etc.)

    73. Re:Allow me to be the first by k96822 · · Score: 1

      You're all twisted up -- lower taxes means more money for people to build their own businesses. More business means more revenue and jobs. I'm not saying there aren't pigs out there who horde it; I'm not naive. It's just that it is, in a capitalist society, business that fuels the economy. I'm not making judgments on that, it just is the way it is, and history has proven this again and again. Liberals just don't understand that things do not magically appear -- it takes hard work to make things happen.

    74. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You talk past me and call me names but you didn't refute a damn thing I said.

    75. Re:Allow me to be the first by k96822 · · Score: 1

      Alright, let's address those.

      They are spending money because we are at war. Like another poster said, you can't have a war and not spend money. They are at war because we have been attacked. And, think what you want about Iraq, it is a state that supports terrorism that we have been way too patient with since the Gulf war. We didn't start the war, 9/11 did. That is history too fresh to re-write.

      Side with big business -- you're right. I would like to see more reform from the current administration when it comes to unethical business practices. I suppose, though, this whole war thing has their attention just a bit diverted at the moment.

      Support large government: exactly wrong. The Republican party is about diminishing the government's role in life (notable exception, The Patriot Act, which only recently has me concerned since some of the provisions are going to be permanent). The Republican party didn't pass the law that lets PRIVATE business take away someone's land to build a WAL*MART. The Republican party doesn't want to expand the welfare state, they want to MAKE JOBS for them to work at. It is exactly 180 degrees different than what you perceive. You are being told something incorrect over-and-over again by liberals with hopes that, eventually, you'll believe it.

      Wipe their asses with the constitution -- again, 180 degrees wrong. The Republican party is now trying to appoint judges that will strictly interpret the constition. How can that be more clear?

      Protect individuals that perform acts of treason -- that is so rediculous, I'm starting to think your message is troll bait.

    76. Re:Allow me to be the first by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      I feel so wrong for voting as I did last year. Oh, well, that's why I'm making plans for Canada next year. :)

      I mean this in the kindest way possible:
      Stay in your own country and help fix the problem you helped create.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    77. Re:Allow me to be the first by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "could have prevented 9/11 in the first place."

      "Could have" is not a good enough reason to endorse an act like this, we had the resources to stop what happened on 9/11 but we didn't.

      That day, there were a lot of military training missions going on near new york, yet no one responded to 3 planes who had turned off their transponders...

      IT would be nice to know what happened in the flight control rooms around new york but unfortunately during the events of 9/11 all of that evidence was destroyed...

      Kinda makes you wonder if the reason the president didn't react when he heard about the first plane crash is because he knew there would be a second and was waiting for that?

    78. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, The Netherlands has been attacked, in the form of targeted murders such as the infamous Theo Van Gogh murder: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/1121169704676_117/?hub=TopStories

    79. Re:Allow me to be the first by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      not to mention that the control towers noted the suspect planes (they had their transponders turned off which is required for all aircraft) reported it and nothing was done by the military who were training for just this type of attack that day (9/11).

    80. Re:Allow me to be the first by doc+modulo · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are one brainwashed sheep, incredible. Don't watch so much TV.

      One suggestion: cut some of that TV time down and read this instead.

      --
      - -- Truth addict for life.
    81. Re:Allow me to be the first by Ravatar · · Score: 1

      Wow, people still think Iraq was in any way tied to the attacks of 9/11?

      Do us a favor and get informed, also in free e-book.

      During the dispute over the 2000 presidential election, Roberts was part of a team of Republican lawyers and former Supreme Court law clerks who may have assisted the Bush-Cheney campaign.

      The Republican party is trying to replace a moderate swing voter with a staunch conservative, one that assisted Bush in winning (or as some like to call it, stealing) the 2000 election.

      Sounds like your main news sources are Fox News and the Republican National Committee.

    82. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citizens of America,

      We are at war people! WAR! Forget about taxes, starving children, sweat shops, and the environment! Don't worry about your personal privacy, or any of your rights for that matter. We are the government, you can TRUST US. No folks, don't worry about the things above; all you need to worry about is two things:

      1. Terrorism (They could strike at any moment!!! They are at every street corner, they are your neighbor, your mom, dad, cat(?). Call this hotline to report them immediately: 1-800-IM-A-PATRIOT)

      2. Name Brand goods. (These are the things that are REALLY important in life! If you don't have them you're NOT cool, you don't want to be UNCOOL now, do you?)

      Remember folks, watch out for terrorists, and keep consuming!

      - The media companies^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGovernment

    83. Re:Allow me to be the first by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      If you want fact without excessive spin, Michael Moore is not the person to listen to. There are a number of intelligent voices on the left and the right, but they aren't as shrill as, say, Michael Moore or Ann Coulter.

    84. Re:Allow me to be the first by DimGeo · · Score: 1

      I would at least mod that interesting...

    85. Re:Allow me to be the first by HSpirit · · Score: 1

      please name any innocent people wrongly imprisoned for terrorist acts.
      There are several documented cases of innocent men suspected of being IRA terrorists being wrongly convicted and imprisoned in the United Kingdom.

      Yes, they didn't have the "anti-terror" laws there then that they do now, and this is the point - if we can wrongly convict innocent people suspected of terrorism for decades with our normal checks and balances, imagine how easy it would be to do so with our new "anti-terror" laws which remove many of these checks and balances from the process.

      Innocent people do get arrested, do get charged, do go to trial and do get convicted. It happens. There's no way to guarantee it won't happen.

      The only thing we can do to address this is to make the system open, transparent and subject to independent, external review. Unfortunately the "anti-terror" laws enacted in the US, UK, Australia and many other places have had the opposite effect - they have enacted a parallel system of justice which is closed, opaque and has very little capacity for review of executive decisions by either courts or media.

    86. Re:Allow me to be the first by paranode · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Been watching Fahrenheit 9/11 huh? What do all the tinfoil hatters expect the president to have done? Start panicking in front of a bunch of children?

      Anyways the CIA and the FBI were not sharing information before 9/11 and that's a real problem when the government is not talking to the government. Most of the Patriot Act has nothing to do with citizens' privacy issues, and is not evil terrible Big Brother stuff. There is some bad stuff in there and that's the only thing that gets attention. That's what needs to be striken, IMO. I don't think the whole thing is a total loss.

    87. Re:Allow me to be the first by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      The government has disclosed a number of incidents on how the Patriot act has stopped terrorist plots. Perhaps you forget about those?

      Oh really? Please name them. You'll be surprised when you actually do the research and find out that they have apprehended and convicted exactly 0 terrorists using the Patriot Act.

      The Patriot Act has been used to bring charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half have been convicted

      Did you notice how it says 400 suspects and not 400 terrorists. There is a reason for that.

      He also said it has been used to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia and Florida

      That's clearly bogus since it has never even been shown that terrorist cells existed in anything more than a temporary capacity within the US. This is tin foil hat stuff.

      As for the existing infrastructure you talked about, it wasn't there

      So I guess we can give the entire government a free pass even though the CIA, NSA, FBI, and White House all knew about terrorist attacks in advance. We should blame Clinton for every single one of those agencies not doing their job. That's horseshit and you know it.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    88. Re:Allow me to be the first by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      Oh really? Please name them. You'll be surprised when you actually do the research and find out that they have apprehended and convicted exactly 0 terrorists using the Patriot Act.

      I did do my research and those numbers were given in the discussion for renewing the act. I also found out that the ACLU has done a lot of lawsuits trying to find wrongdoing and has fell flat on their face. Even to do with the library stuff.

      Did you notice how it says 400 suspects and not 400 terrorists. There is a reason for that.

      Nope, didn't notice, why did you? The "reason" is that they are following legal protocol and you should know that. Everyone is a suspect until they are convicted. What you are saying is like they have brought charges against X suspects and not X murderers in a discussion about arresting murderers. I would expect you to know this. You do remember the part where they say you are innocent until proven guilty, don't you? Maybe you would prefer "They brought charges against 400 Terrorists and convicted 200 of them."? What about those 200 innocent people? Why do you insist on calling them terrorists? Would you like to be refered to as a Rapist if they arrest you for rape? 'nuff said I hope.

      That's clearly bogus since it has never even been shown that terrorist cells existed in anything more than a temporary capacity within the US. This is tin foil hat stuff.

      What the hell are you talking about? You just contradicted yourself. You admit that they exist and then say that is bogus? Well here, there are many many examples that you obviously have no clue about, however I'll show one of the ones from Oregon - here . What do you mean about a "tin foil hat"? You think somehow that I think the Government is listening in on us all? I have said nothing of the sort. I have a feeling you were Trolling, maybe?

      So I guess we can give the entire government a free pass even though the CIA, NSA, FBI, and White House all knew about terrorist attacks in advance. We should blame Clinton for every single one of those agencies not doing their job. That's horseshit and you know it.

      It isn't horseshit and you should know it. You cannot spend 8 years destroying time tested intellegence (hundreds of years) techniques and then right after leaving office blame all the bad stuff on the new guy. Maybe you forgot that originally they were going to do 9/11/01 on 9/11/00 - when Billy boy was STILL in office. Then who would you blame? Why should all the blame shift now to Bush? It still hasn't been established that they "knew" the attack was coming any more than they "knew" back in 2000, 1999 or 1998... on back. Bin Laden had been making those threats for years, indeed do you remember he tried to blow up the WTC in 1993? That was the first time. Clinton SHOULD have increased intelligence, instead he weakened it. He also didn't follow through on the Gulf War promises that were made. For that matter, Clinton even released convicted terrorists from Federal Prison before he left office. Even though Clinton may be to blame, I don't think we should arrest him or tar and feather him for it. I think he did what he thought was best, just as I think Bush does what he thinks is best. A lot of this stuff is designed to get a rise out of people - in case you didn't know. It is called politics.

      Bottom line is that if you have a better way of doing this stuff, don't be shy. You have representatives that you can phone, write and even meet with. Approach them respectfully and if it makes sense they will persue it. Even if your representatives are of the opposite party that you are, they are people too in spite of what you might think. They really do put their pants on the same way you do and they really do care with a very few exceptions. Otherwise from what I see out there, the Patriot act is working and hasn't done bad stuff. There also seems to be sufficient oversight. Congress agrees and they passed it again with very good support.

    89. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say they hate our freedoms is to put it in terms that are too general. It would be more accurate to say that they hate our culture; and or parts of it. First & formost they hate much of American pop culture: Hollywood; pop music & pr0n.

      They also particular lothe our individual freedoms based on the Bill of Rights, specifically freedoms of speech, press, and religion, to bear arms, the rights of the accused; and the right(s) to due process & equal protection, & redress of greviences.

      In a nutshell, they hate the right of self-determination by individuals in a Democracy; they would much prefer rule by a few mullahs in a theocracy; where there is no freedom to question the mullah's interpretations of scripture; and the mullahs decree who 'gets the gold' by deciding who will get the juicy government contracts!

    90. Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bzzzzt. Wrong. You see, those countries I listed previously have MORE of those things YOU list, and yet they aren't being targeted. You are eating a line of shit, hand over fist. They don't hate freedom. They hate what we have done with ours, simply as that.

      They hate our agression, they hate our unwarranted attacks, they hate our unwielding support for Isreal no matter how terror driven their policy is, they hate - etc... they don't hate freedom dumbass. Like I said, if they did, they would send droves of suicide bombers to countries that have MORE freedoms than the US, namely the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, and many others. You really need to do some reasearch my friend.

    91. Re:Allow me to be the first by k96822 · · Score: 1

      OMG, that is the funniest thing I've read in a while. Calling me brainwashed sheep and then referencing Michael Moore. Somebody mod this guy +5 Funny!

    92. Re:Allow me to be the first by k96822 · · Score: 1

      It isn't a difficult connection to make. We were attacked by terrorists. Iraq sponsors terrorism. We attack Iraq. The reason it is Iraq and not, say, Syria, is because Iraq has already been warned and warned since the golf war to cooperate. They didn't. There it is -- how much more plain can it be?

    93. Re:Allow me to be the first by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      What the hell are you talking about? You just contradicted yourself. You admit that they exist and then say that is bogus? Well here, there are many many examples that you obviously have no clue about, however I'll show one of the ones from Oregon - here

      What are you talking about? I never mentioned terror cells existing in the US. In fact the article you refernce deals with Americans that went to Afghanistan, not terror cells hiding within the US. So what was your point, that you fear the most rediculous stories your government tells you?

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    94. Re:Allow me to be the first by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      What are you talking about? I never mentioned terror cells existing in the US. In fact the article you refernce deals with Americans that went to Afghanistan, not terror cells hiding within the US. So what was your point, that you fear the most rediculous stories your government tells you?

      Not sure anymore without looking at it all over again. This one was a week old on Thursday! Since then I have purchased a plane, met about 300 people, read 2 electronic journals and read a lot of e-mail. Amoung many other things. Maybe you were too busy to respond?

      Seems to me that you said something about there not being any terrorist cells found. I presumed in the US since we are talking about the patriot act. I haven't thought about the Patriot act as it would pertain to someone going abroad. I sure don't remember it coming up in the hearings in an unusual manner. Their privacy would be protected as if they were here as well. You would still need to get a federal judge to go along with it and that isn't easy to do. In short, I don't see how an abuse would occur this way either. Congress has had time to think about it so it isn't "in the middle of the night" like some cried about last time. Studies have been done, I think it is much ado about nothing.

  2. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new republican overlords

    1. Re:obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The sad thing is, I don't see how losing privacy is ANYWHERE defined by the ideals of republicans. I simply don't understand how so many people are so stupid in beliving that this will help, let alone rally behind it and its 'republican' adgenda. If someone could explain how this works in being a republican, please tell me.

    2. Re:obligatory by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1
      The issue is not specifically a republican one now. It's an issue of greed, corruption, and basic anti-social behavior that is driving this agenda. The republican party has been taken over by a bunch of thugs, so it does not really represent the real conservatives (who actually value privacy) any more. The democratic party is just as bad, their "officials" being either too stupid (or afraid) to stand up to the thugs, or they have joined the thugs.

      However, in both parties, there are a few (very few) exceptions. Those few are the ones that will actually be reelected in the midterms and 2008, the rest will be canned.

      [tin-foil-hat]
      This is provided we actually have legitimate elections.
      [/tin-foil-hat]

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
  3. ::sigh:: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bye-Bye, Freedom. /FP?

    1. Re:::sigh:: by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1, Interesting


      You're a little late with that - freedom went out the door, oh, probably a hundred years ago when Lincoln became dictator. One could probably pick an earlier time, such as when John Adams revoked habeous corpus during Shay's Rebellion (if I got the right Adams).

      It doesn't concern me any more. In due time, history shows, all empires get their comeuppance.

      Your job is simply to avoid getting squashed in the comeuppance. Concentrate on that, not on trying to change history or primate human nature (unless you're working on nanotech.)

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    2. Re:::sigh:: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup roll over and stick all fours into the air, that's the attitude!

  4. It's for the children! by 00Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gotta love the excuses that cost us our freedoms...

    1. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't you know how fundamental a right it is check out communist literature anonymously from public libraries? Our right to breathe will be next!

    2. Re:It's for the children! by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the definition of "something wrong" will be drawn ever more widely by right wingnuts.

    3. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see you protect the children from attacks where terrorists throw library books at the children they know have weak hearts.

    4. Re:It's for the children! by jZnat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Technically, America is the bastard child of England, so it's "for the parents".

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    5. Re:It's for the children! by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, yes, it is a fundamental right.

      It is a municipality's right to run a public library, in any way they and their voters choose. If the voters of Podunk want to run a library that distributes translations of the Canterbury Tales in Swedish, that's their right.

      It's one of those federal-interference-in-local-matters issues, commonly called "states' rights", that Republicans once got their panties in a wad over but have now forgotten about.

    6. Re:It's for the children! by bryan8m · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First we lose these rights, then those, then the ones over there that we take for granted today. We must break out of the sequence!

    7. Re:It's for the children! by kcb93x · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is...by this law, we may never hear about such a case. How can we complain about (and mention) specific abuses when we have NO proof of such incidents taking place?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:It's for the children! by tehlinux · · Score: 5, Funny

      Those damn terrorists will stop at nothing to rob us of our freedoms. The terrorists came up with the patriot act, right?

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    9. Re:It's for the children! by bryan8m · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I care more about my freedoms and privacy rights than I do the FBI's power to perform extensive wire taps and searches without carefully considered warrants.

    10. Re:It's for the children! by brsmith4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Link I'll stay silent, but here's just one of many many links.

    11. Re:It's for the children! by ltbarcly · · Score: 5, Informative

      However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.

      The first rule of Patriot Act is don't talk about Patriot Act.

      Seriously though, the nasty thing about this stuff is that it all goes to an oversight court, the dealings of which are all secret.

      For example, when the ACLU sued the government related to these laws, they couldn't even talk about the trial in public, not because it was ongoing, but because it was classified.

      So no, you don't hear about the abuses, because they are illegal to talk about, as that would be revealing a secret.

      In other news, the government is arresting and holding american citizens on american soil and declairing that they can keep them in jail forever without trial. Not scary at all, keep it moving, nothing to see here.

    12. Re:It's for the children! by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.

      And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?

      For starters, here's an obvious case: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8629443/>Jose Pidilla. He is an American citizen, who has been held for 4 years (since 2001). The government says he's a terrorist, but they've never proved it. The government was told to either prove he was a terrorist in a trail or to let him go in 90 days. That was way more than 90 days ago, and he's still being held. The government has appealed that ruling, saying they don't have to prove anything and can hold him forever.

      So there's one case: An American citizen, held by his own government, with no way to prove his innocence and the government refuses to prove his guilt. His lawyer has stood before the Appeals Court and literally asked that his client be put on trial.

      So how would you, if you were an American citizen, and you were in jail for 4 years (and it'll go on longer), waiting and hoping "that the courts would take the opportunity to sort it out"?

      There was another case, the name of which I cannot remember, where a court clerk accidently released the wrong documents and it was discovered there was a John Doe who had been held for months. Nobody knew his name, nobody knew the charges, he had not been given a lawyer, and nobody was notified he was being held. The ACLU tried to get permission to speak to him and represent him. I don't remember for sure, but last I heard, I think they were denied -- so we have a John Doe who may or may not be a citizen, being held without anyone knowing who it is and without any of his family having any idea what has happened to him.

      The PATRIOT act is the same thing as the House Un-American Activities Committee. Whenever you hear any politician stumping for something that has such an "all-American" name that there is no way any reasonable American could stand against it, then you know it means nothing but trouble for us. Anytime someone has to wrap a group or law in the flag so they can say anyone opposing it is unpatriotic does not have protecting freedom and the Constitution in mind.

      For anyone watching the news, and just keeping up with the headlines, the cases above would have been clear. The PATRIOT act has, and will be used to subvert the Constitution. Do you *really* believe you can give the government that much power and nobody in charge will use it?

    13. Re:It's for the children! by brsmith4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ah, you know what? I think we need more links:

      1.
      2.
      3.
      4.
      5. A rebuttal for some sense of "objectivity", whatever that means.

    14. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That poor pipe bomber...
      That poor meth dealer...

      Give me a break, these arent abuses. These are just side-benefits.

    15. Re:It's for the children! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1, Informative

      "However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent."

      Actually, no, they don't.

      Much of the Guantanamo criticism is related to these laws used to snatch people off the street and hold them without charge - including actual US citizens. And while the courts HAVE stomped on the Feds in a number of specific cases, there has been no real attempt by the courts to control the Feds by declaring much of this stuff unconstitutional.

      Also, there have been articles in the press about a number of ordinary criminal cases - and even cases where there was no criminal intent at all - which have nothing to do with terrorism where these laws were inappropriately applied.

      OTOH, this has been the trend for decades now, so it's no surprise to me that law enforcement is striving for more and more heavy-handed power. This is the nature of law enforcement (and the state itself), as any one who has done time can tell you, or anyone who has ever read any history or real-life stories about law enforcement.

      Cops are assholes. Period. It has nothing to do with "a few rotten apples in the barrel" - the barrel itself is riddled with maggots. Always has been, always will be - until we Transhumans run a nanotech broom handle up their asses.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    16. Re:It's for the children! by DrMrLordX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Republican party's interest in "state's rights" has been rather arbitrary and limited for years. They will fight empowering the federal government when it suits their constituents. They will empower the government when it suits their constituents. Replace 'constituents' with 'campaign contributors' as you please.

    17. Re:It's for the children! by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      If you're of the opinion that the current Administration aided in the "terrorist" attacks, then you are right. The terrorists did come up with the Patriot Act.

    18. Re:It's for the children! by HermanAB · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yup, we also had a Canadian Citizen(!) being deported from the USA to Syria, where he could be tortured until he confessed to whatever-the-fuck the US wanted him to confess to: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/10/16/arar021016

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    19. Re:It's for the children! by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      No matter how ugly PATRIOT, RICO, or the DEA get, they really aren't much compared to the old FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. They also pale in comparison to the abuses meted out in the past(and, sadly, sometimes in the present) by various state and local police officers, prison guards, etc.

      We've traded sloppy, senseless abuses and a megalomaniacal FBI director for codified, potentially-abusive law.

      And don't get me started on Anthony Comstock.

    20. Re:It's for the children! by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you say.

      The gov has yet to present proof. At this point, all that happened was that they declared him (a US citizen) an enemy combatent. According to the PATRIOT act, that gives them the authority to hold him forever, without even having to prove he is an enemy combatant.

      The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me.

      It's not just about his rights -- it's about protecting the rights of ALL citizens equally, so the gov can't do to him, you, or me, without following the law.

    21. Re:It's for the children! by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't bother you that these people were charged with having WMD when they most certainly did not have anything of the sort? Saddam didn't even have WMD, but he had stuff much worse than a pipe bomb or meth... like real missiles.

    22. Re:It's for the children! by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Timothy McVeigh was a real terrorist who was way worse than Padilla, and yet McVeigh got a fair trail. Evidence was presented in a court, he was convicted and executed. What makes Padilla an "enemy combatant" when McVeigh was just a criminal?

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    23. Re:It's for the children! by complete+loony · · Score: 2, Informative

      We also have David Hicks, an Australian being held without trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba since he was picked up in afganistan in 2001.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    24. Re:It's for the children! by brsmith4 · · Score: 0, Troll

      People with your mentality often have skeletons of their own in the closet, Mr. Rove.

    25. Re:It's for the children! by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      Lets see

      Gangbanger
      Turned Muslim
      Trained In Pakistan
      Flying back to US

      Yup . . he's probably going to help old ladies across the street and help the homeless

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    26. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't care.

      He won't care until something like that happens to him. There are those who realize that we have to protect everyone's rights or all our rights are in danger and those who don't.

      Anyone who can say something as stupid as he did is stupid enough to fall into the latter category.

    27. Re:It's for the children! by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Tim wasn't part of a larger war - just a loose cannon.

    28. Re:It's for the children! by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      But unless they prove anything, none of that shit even matters. Put him on trial or release him.

    29. Re:It's for the children! by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 1

      And the proof of it?

      Or do you care if a citizen gets a fair trial anyomre? If they can throw him in without a trial, they can do the same to you.

    30. Re:It's for the children! by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jose is an enemy combatant

      And how do you know? Because the government told you so? I don't normally consider myself a tinfoil hat person, but I find that attitude very scary. I have always considered government transparency to be the most important thing in any democratic system.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    31. Re:It's for the children! by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You seem awfully confident of that. After all, there's no proof that McVeigh wasn't part of a larger "war", just as there's no proof Padilla wasn't an "enemy combatant." We know his motives; you have, of course, heard of Waco? The question I would ask of those who support Padilla's detention is much more germane: where is the proof against him?

      Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that it's okay to hold "enemy combatants" without proof. If that's the case, what is the process for determining who is an "enemy combatant?" Padilla was not captured in a combatant capacity on a battlefield; he was detained in an airport upon arrival. Do you have sufficient faith in our government to trust some elected official's secret say-so to determine who is detained without due process?

    32. Re:It's for the children! by TIMxPx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure that the fact that there are reported or even proven abuses of a law is enough to condemn that law. Perhaps it needs to be modified, or just enforced properly. Look at traffic laws -- they can be enforced at the whim of an individual and there is very little oversight. That can cost the affected people freedoms and money. Yet, if we didn't have traffic laws, everyone who travels on roadways would suffer. I'm not trying to justify utilitarianism, but i am saying that we need laws on monitoring potential threats that permit action by law enforcement agencies, or we may all lose money and freedom. If the law has not been properly enforced, we have courts to sort that out. If the law proves to be truly harmful or vastly unpopular, it can be repealed, modified, or provided with a sunset clause. I think that a combination of these things is ongoing, and i encourage people to write, call, email representatives and senators with specific complaints or ideas. We may have very little touch with or control over our government, but we can do our best to bring specific issues to the attention of citizens, groups, and elected officials. It just isn't enough to say that since people have filed complaints, a law must be bad, as seen in the example of traffic laws. Remember, the very fact that we have specific laws to address these issues, as passed by elected representatives, and that we can discuss these things, and that court cases are being heard, means that our system of government is functioning as it always did (hey, life will never be perfect).

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world: That averages about 660,000,000 of each kind.
    33. Re:It's for the children! by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Tim wasn't part of a larger war - just a loose cannon.

      And that matters because?

    34. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so now you think there's a right to be a terrorist?

    35. Re:It's for the children! by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      It makes Tim's act a simple crime rather than an act of war.

    36. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no evidence he's any more of an enemy combatant than you are.

      And if you think there's evidence, why don't you think the evidence is good enough to convict the guy and send him away?

      So your choices are:
      1) There's no evidence
      2) There's imaginary/forged evidence that wouldn't stand up in court

      Frankly I think he's probably guilty anyway. It would be nice to charge him with a crime or something then, wouldn't it? Isn't that usually the next step?

    37. Re:It's for the children! by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Never mind that guy. We have our own garbage to deal with. Look at Earnst Zundel. He's been in jail for over two years without standing trial.

      We're no better than America, make no mistake about it. We have a dark, tainted history of our own to contend with.

      Not that I'm ashamed to be Canadian, but some of our past and present is to be ashamed about.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    38. Re:It's for the children! by Ravatar · · Score: 1

      This isn't a war, horray for being a victim of media spin.

    39. Re:It's for the children! by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What war? There is no declared war.

      If there is a war, then declare war. The people who are soldiers against you in that war that you capture are prisoners of war. If people you are fighting against are not following the rules of war, by not wearing proper uniform, etc. like most(all) terrorists, then they aren't soldiers: they are just criminals. You arrest them with the regular laws of the jurisdiction at hand; just like McVeigh, as was used as an example.

      You seem to be suggesting an Orwellian world where we're always at "war," and not with any particular enemy. In this case a war on terrorism, which is a tactic. The government is fighting a "war" against a tactic which has been used for centuries. That is not acceptable.

    40. Re:It's for the children! by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      Since he's been sitting in the brig for some time now, I'd say some of that shit must matter...

    41. Re:It's for the children! by rainman_bc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cops are assholes. Period.

      In Canada, the head of the RCMP complained about our "annoying" constitution, and how much easier it was before we had that pesky Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

      You have it right on the money. Cops want as much power as possible.

      Problem is that power corrupts. Without checks and balances we're doomed.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    42. Re:It's for the children! by bVork · · Score: 1

      Argumentum ad baculum. Thank you, play again.

    43. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      No one says states' rights are absolute. If a state wants to reenact slavery, should that right be respected? I hardly call exercising discretion arbitrary. I also have a hard time believing that campaign contributors are influencing Republicans in Congress to get the names of people who demonstrate certain reading habits.

    44. Re:It's for the children! by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      It's a freakin' war -- maybe you haven't heard of this concept called "asymmetrical war?" Don't expect to find a front line...

    45. Re:It's for the children! by Ravatar · · Score: 1

      Gangbanger
      Turned Catholic
      Trained in Rome
      Flying back to US

      Is this guy any less likely to be a terrorist than the first one? Or are you generalizing the Muslim faith as a bunch of hate mongering terrorists. So much for tolerance.

    46. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with the PATRIOT Act? There are no laws saying libraries can not provide questionable literature or that individuals can not read it. The catch is if they check out books on bomb-making and Islam, they should not have the expectation of anonymity.

    47. Re:It's for the children! by Carnage+Pants · · Score: 2

      "The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me."

      This here proves exactly why the PATRIOT Act is absolutely out of control. Since when does a country with the freedoms we have lock up citizens simply on a whim?

    48. Re:It's for the children! by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the definition of "something wrong" will be drawn ever more widely by right wingnuts.

      This isn't limited to the right. The left are just as likely to pass laws limiting freedoms as the right are, they'll just have a different set of criteria for choosing the laws. Both left and right are equally interesting in telling everyone else what to do and how to live their lives.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    49. Re:It's for the children! by Caine · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the voters of Podunk want to run a library that distributes translations of the Canterbury Tales in Swedish, that's their right.

      This might shock you, but where I live this have already started to happen. The public libraries are spreading their filthy swedish propaganda; almost all the books are in swedish now. And there's nothing the government can do to stop it. That is, without the Patriot Act. So support the Patriot Act and free us from the swedish menace!

      ...Hm. Oh wait. I live in Sweden. Nevermind...

    50. Re:It's for the children! by EzInKy · · Score: 1


      Feel free to let him go. I know I like dirty bombs going off in my neighborhood.

      They aren't saying "let him go," they are saying to give him a fair trial as specified in the Bill Of Rights.

      Amendment V

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      Amendment VI

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    51. Re:It's for the children! by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Whether you think it a war or not, the Constitution doesn't allow this sort of treatment of American citizens. In case you've forgotten (much like our current Congress has), the Constitution trumps ALL OTHER LAW, ALWAYS. There is no greater law in the land. The Patriot Act can never, under any circumstances, supercede the Constitution of these United States.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    52. Re:It's for the children! by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It makes Tim's act a simple crime rather than an act of war.

      Um...I don't know where you get your definitions from...but killing over 100 people sounds like an act of war to me.

      Plus, if the difference between a getting a trial in the U.S. and not getting a trial is based on a word with a very loose definition (war) something is wrong.

      NO U.S. citizen (unless maybe they are found on a battle field in the middle east fighting our troops) should not get a fair (as can be) trial.

      Of course, if you disagree, you are in good company.

    53. Re:It's for the children! by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Prove it. Oh, yeah, nobody has, and the government keeps saying that it doesn't have to. That is insane.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    54. Re:It's for the children! by dargon · · Score: 1

      Uhm, Zundel is nolonger in prison, he's been deported to Germany.

    55. Re:It's for the children! by demachina · · Score: 1

      In one of the sound bites I saw from the debate a blond lady Congressman whose name I didn't catch said, to paraphrase, "The Patriot act isn't about law abiding citizens, its about catching terrorists and she didn't want terrorists to have any rights.

      She obviously didn't grasp the concept that she was in fact striping the rights of all citizens law abiding and terrorist alike, and was laying the groundwork for someone to be falsely accused of being a terrorist, disappeared, tortured and killed.

      The problem with the House is they are pretty much always up for election so they tend to always pander to the people that will will always elect them in the next election. They know they will lose votes voting against the Patriotic act.

      The Senate will probably be a little more delibrative and rational but the best you can hope for are a couple minor improvements. With 55 seats the Republican's can push it through unless the Democrats fillibuster, which they wont, because if they did the Republicans would try the nuclear option in a heart beat.

      --
      @de_machina
    56. Re:It's for the children! by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      I've never, EVER head of the concept of asymmetrical war. I've heard of asymmetric warfare, so I'd imagine an asymmetrical war is a war where asymmetric warfare is used. I don't see how this applies to this situation, because there is no war at hand in which assymetric warfare could be used. I see only criminals who use what, I guess, could be called asymmetric warfare(terrorism). These people are to be arrested and charged with the crimes which they have committed. But go ahead and give me your view of this "concept" of "asymmetrical war."

    57. Re:It's for the children! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1
      The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

      No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
      No, this is not a battlefield. Antietam was a battlefield (imagine a single day where nearly 0.1% of the people in this country are killed or wounded). And even in the case of open rebellion against the government of the United States, Congress had to specifically suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus before anything like this happened, so sayeth the Supreme Court.

      There is war in Afghanistan and there is war in Iraq. However, the United States has not been invaded, Washington has not been burned. There is no rebellion, there are no soldiers in the streets, nobody is conducting door-to-door searches. The only people evacuating in this country are fleeing from hurricanes, not from hostile forces. If any of the Four Horsemen are visiting this country now or has visited at any time in the past 50 years, War is not it. If anything, calling the United States today a "battlefield" is an insult to those US soldiers currently in Afghanistan or Iraq that are in a real battlefield.

      Until any of this happens, the United States Government has a constitutional obligation to grant him his trial.

      And no, "threat of invasion/rebellion" (real or imagined) is not a valid reason to suspend habeas corpus (which is exactly what has happened here, in my opinion). That very situation was discussed in the constitution when the states were reserved the right to raise armies and prosecute wars without the prior consent of Congress. But there is no mention of exceptions being made for being "in such imminent Danger" when it comes to the rights and liberties of the citizenry.

      "I see no issue holding an enemy combatant until the war is over."

      You're misinterpreting. That "until the war is over," describes not when the prisoners are released, but repatriated. This man, however, is a citizen of the United States, he's already home. Instead, based on what he has been accused of, he should be charged with treason. If he is guilty, he will be held in a prison, probably for well beyond this "war" will be "over." Nothing would be lost.
    58. Re:It's for the children! by arh9623 · · Score: 1

      oh, how I wish I had a mod point.

    59. Re:It's for the children! by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be lovely if the 17th amendment would be repealed. Then we might actually get something fixed. Then it wouldn't matter nearly as much what foolish thing the Representatives were pushed into doing since you'd have the Senate to hold them back (and vice versa). Another check and balance gone, another pile of obvious reasons as to why we should never have removed it.

    60. Re:It's for the children! by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Feel free to let him go. I know I like dirty bombs going off in my neighborhood.

      I happen to have evidence that you are a child pornographer. It is secret evidence, however, and I will not charge you with a specific crime or even let you know what we claim to know about you. Do you think parents want perverts like you roaming the streets their children play on? Of course not. You need to be held indefinitely.

      I'm sure some whiner will claim that this is unfair and that you should be let go, but I know I do not want child pornographers getting off in my neighborhood.

      See how that works? No evidence needed :)

      Finkployd

    61. Re:It's for the children! by Weezul · · Score: 3, Insightful

      States rights just means undoing the good stuff the ACLU did, i.e.
      1) Being able to persecute minority religions (prior to the ACLU it was actually illegal to be of the wrong religion in many places).
      2) Outlawing abortion.
      3) Eliminating enviromental legislation.
      4) Keeping black people from voting.
      etc.
      Of course, few strict constructionist judges ever notice that the war on drugs is clearly unconstitutional too.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    62. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court.

      John Roberts, nominated for the Supreme Court this week, views otherwise. He sat on a panel of judges last Friday that upheld Bush's ability to declare anyone--citizen or otherwise--an enemy combatant. That means anyone may be held indefinitely, rendered to other countries for torture, or tried by secret military tribunals. Story about the decision here.

      So I wouldn't be counting on the Supreme Court to help if Roberts is confirmed.

    63. Re:It's for the children! by scatters · · Score: 1

      Hey - we Brits disowned you kids a long time ago and stopped sending you your weekly allowance.

      --
      A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
    64. Re:It's for the children! by pcmanjon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -- Benjamin Franklin

    65. Re:It's for the children! by aaronl · · Score: 1

      It a law was written with potential for abuse, then the law shouldn't be law. Most traffic laws are quite sane and hard to abuse. Failure to signal, speeding, failure to stop, etc. If the law says something of the likes of "officer's discretion", then we have a problem. There shouldn't be any form of "discretion" involved.

      You either broke a law, or you did not break the law. If they think you broke the law, they arrest you, charge you, and try you. If they cannot prove you broke the law, or you can prove that you did not, then they have to let you go and they can't try you again.

      Your example is an officer choosing to not charge you for a law they witnessed you breaking. This is different from a law that calls for "an officer's discretion".

      Likewise, a law that attempts to circumvent Constitutional guarantees is just outright not a valid law. There *is* no discussion on it, since by it's very nature, that law is illegal and unconstitutional. The Federal government decided to blatently ignore the Constitution with the PATRIOT Act. That law clearly and intentionally attempts to bypass protections in the Bill of Rights.

      We don't need laws "monitoring potential threats" at all! You don't need laws to do that, we've been doing that for centuries. People in black suits or blue uniforms, going around, listening and talking and watching. If they notice something suspicious, they investigate further. If a law is being broken, they intervene, arrest you, and charge you. Then you stand trial.

      The problem is when the listening and watching invade your privacy. We already have laws that allow law enforcement to probe deeper than normally allowed, but they need to have justification and court approval, lest the evidence be inadmissable.

      We shouldn't have the courts sorting things out; they're for taking the guy that you're rather sure broke the law, and letting a jury decide if you really did. You have to play the game of extremes here, because eventually someone will try them out. Under your system, every single person can be arrested and charged with a crime. Then the courts can decide if they should've been charged. This is completely and totally unacceptable!

      Personally, I wish people would get off their asses and toss out every single politician that voted in favor of these laws. This is not something that we should be playing games with.

      Since you mention things functioning as they always did, you should really pay more attention. It does *not* function the way it always did. Read the Constitution and amendments. All those amendments mean "We changed the way it worked. Now it doesn't work how it always did." I suggest that you pay specific attention to amendment 17.

    66. Re:It's for the children! by Urgru · · Score: 1

      You do realize that declaration of enemy combatant status has nothing whatsoever to do with the PATRIOT Act, right?

      PATRIOT, however one may feel about it, concerns itself with observation and information gathering - pin registers, wiretaps, compulsion to disclose records, and so on.

      It doesn't authorize the government to hold enemy combatants. In fact, the PATRIOT Act doesn't contain the word "enemy." It also doesn't contain the word "combatant." Don't believe me? Check for yourself.

      --
      --- "DNA helicase kicks more ass than a barrel of highly trained ninja monkeys. Never forget that." - N. Howard
    67. Re:It's for the children! by Frogbert · · Score: 2, Informative

      And while where at it, America has had an Australian citizen extrodited to America for pirating software... in Australia!

    68. Re:It's for the children! by Capsaicin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um...I don't know where you get your definitions from...but killing over 100 people sounds like an act of war to me.

      No an act of war, by the most traditional definition, is something one nation (or the sovereign of a nation) does to another. The notion of civil war, where there are parties with contending claims to be the sovereign within a nation complicates matters a little, but basically war is not something an individual (or group of individuals without a claim to nationhood) can conduct. So no, what Tim did was not an act of war, it was an act of mass murder.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    69. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only state the so called republicans care about is just that, the republican state. Sad that the true republicans can't see their party is being distorted by fundamentalists.

    70. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, like not wanting to get blown up!

    71. Re:It's for the children! by Splab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The name....

    72. Re:It's for the children! by hdparm · · Score: 1

      ...says Anonymous Coward...

    73. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There was a report on German TV last night about this kind of thing. The CIA kidnapping some guy in Italy and flying him to Ramstein Base in Germany. From there to bases in Middle East countries where the local laws allow them to be torutred. The Italians are trying to charge 12 CIA agents, but the pussy germans are convieniently ignoring these kidnapping crimes partially commited on german soil.

      What is worse is this: http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Ful l_Story/did-sg46g7Ks0cvBEsg7OWirIStPSk.asp

      US INVESTIGATORS, including CIA agents, will be allowed interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy, under an agreement signed between Ireland and the US last week. Read the article, it gets worse.

      I am really pissed off now. I am ashamed of what my country is tunring into. Blair is Bush's Poodle and Bertie(Irish PM) is Bush's bitch.

    74. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stopped sending you your weekly allowance
      Huh? Wasn't the reason why the kids ran away because the parents were using them as child labour and taking part of the kid's income without giving them adult priviledges?

    75. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact is there EVER a difference somewhere where everyone is equal under the law?

    76. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhh... Why go ahead a disturb this ignorant circle jerk.

      What frightens me is that the people commenting here are actually pretty intelligent. But they are blinded by ideology.

      Like you said, the Patriot Act has nothing to do with Jose Padilla being held in prison. Jeez.

      Also, freedoms are great, but they are only useful if one is... you know... alive to experience them. Something tells me that the first bomb to go off near one of these commentators and a reality check will come to them.

    77. Re:It's for the children! by bokutoe · · Score: 0

      Right, because that follows from what he said...

    78. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could they reenact slavery? Don't we have a constitutional amendment explicitly banning it?

    79. Re:It's for the children! by AnonymouseClown · · Score: 2, Interesting

      so true, i've said for years i'm more "terrified" of the continuous removal of so-called human rights than i am of "terrorists".

    80. Re:It's for the children! by dalutong · · Score: 2, Funny

      This might shock you, but where I live this have already started to happen. The public libraries are spreading their filthy swedish propaganda; almost all the books are in swedish now. And there's nothing the government can do to stop it. That is, without the Patriot Act. So support the Patriot Act and free us from the swedish menace!


      You think that's bad? In my town (pop. 832) our entire collection is worthless. I just moved here, but I keep hearing, "Other than the kiddie's books, the whole collection is in Greek."

      I haven't actually been in the library yet, but I walk by it everyday. One day I heard someone complaining on their way out, "Who is this shake-a-spear, some African tribal king? Why the hell do I want tribal books in my library? Do I speak African? Do I run around showing the world my bum? It's ungodly!"

      Another person said, "Poll-eye-ticks? That's disgusting. Why would I want to read about eye ticks?"

      Though, come to think of it, I don't even know if anyone in this town could differentiate Greek from any other language if they tried...

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    81. Re:It's for the children! by Boronx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's funny, because slavery is the original "States Rights" issue that got conservatives so excersized in the first place.

    82. Re:It's for the children! by bokutoe · · Score: 0

      I feel this is an appopriate moment for the obligatory Benjamin Franklin quote:

      "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

    83. Re:It's for the children! by bokutoe · · Score: 0

      Indeed, they should continue to hold this man until the "War on Terror" is over. If that's the case, he'd better start get comfortable in that cell, 'cause he won't be going anywhere or getting a trial anytime soon.

    84. Re:It's for the children! by nogginthenog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Welcome to Nazi Germany!

    85. Re:It's for the children! by bokutoe · · Score: 0

      I suppose we shouldn't consider our military operations in Iraq a war then, since after all... it isn't an "officially declared war"

      Try again.

    86. Re:It's for the children! by bokutoe · · Score: 0

      And yet it has : / It truly saddens me that "patriots" in our country nod their heads as the government our founding fathers envisioned is being superceded by the current administration that apparently believes the Constitution can justifiably be ignored... all in the name of security.

      Benjamin Franklin must be rolling in his grave right now!

    87. Re:It's for the children! by jrockway · · Score: 1

      Excuse me?

      > check out books on bomb-making and Islam, they should not have the expectation of anonymity

      Why exactly not?

      --
      My other car is first.
    88. Re:It's for the children! by Olix · · Score: 1

      Hey, everyone abused their kids in those days. It was the fashionable thing to do.

    89. Re:It's for the children! by bokutoe · · Score: 0

      Ironically, the Four Horseman have not only visited in the past 50 years, they live here. And they hold some of the most powerful seats in government.

      Go figure, eh?

    90. Re:It's for the children! by Olix · · Score: 1

      thats like... the third time I have seen that quote on this article.

    91. Re:It's for the children! by SupaKoopa · · Score: 1

      Maybe you haven't heard of this document called the constitution. It says that for us to be at "war," Congress must vote in favor of declaring war. Don't worry, every president since Truman has conveniently forgotten this, too.

    92. Re:It's for the children! by tokabola · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've tried to tell people about the American citizens being held without due process, but most people simply refuse to believe it. I've even given examples, they claim I got the info from some radical newspaper or website and it's not true - even when I can point to legitimate newspapers and magazines they won't believe.

      The current powers, of which the Bush administration is just a part, have realized a sad (to me) truth about the American People. The majority of us will happily settle for the illusion of freedom, eagerly believe any lies told us that support that belief, and disbelieve any truths that threaten that illusion.

      We don't really care how screwed up things are as long as we can justify our belief that nothing is wrong (and therefore we don't actually need to do anything about it).

      Complacency is easy, cheap, and doesn't cut into our beer and TV time.

      The "land of the free, and the home of the brave", is not here in America. Here is the land of the sheeple, and the home of cowards afraid to face any unpleasant truth.

      While there are many who are true patriots in this country, most don't actually do anything more than vote, if that. The vast majority has never written their congressmen and senators. Hell, most don't even know who their representatives are.

      We complain that voting has become a question of the "lesser of two evils", but wouldn't vote for a truly good candidate if he/she wasn't the official Democratic or Republican candidate. Often, in the two main parties, the best choices are weeded out during the primaries, removed from the ballots not by the will of the people, but by the whim of the party elite.

      Tommy

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    93. Re:It's for the children! by Olix · · Score: 1

      But we don't have to worry about bombs because we spend 15 hours a day in front of a computer in a nice, safe basement.

    94. Re:It's for the children! by mrmeval · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Replace republican with democrat as you please.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    95. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The powers not delegated to the federal government are explicitly reserved to the states in the Constitution. Protecting life and liberty is a power delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Therefore, it has an overriding interest if a state chooses not to protect someone's liberty (i.e. allow slavery).

    96. Re:It's for the children! by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When i would watch tv with my Grandfather in the 70's we would sometimes see marches against the military.I thought for sure that he would be furious(Fought two wars,Twenty year U.S.A.F)But I will never forget what he said"We fought for everyones freedom,Even those i don't agree with". The problem with the whole "You have nothing to fear if you are not doing anything wrong"is that once you've gotten rid of the "bad people" how long before someone decides that YOU are bad or wrong? Power will always be abused-The reason we protect the "lower ones on the food chain" is the same reason i would argue for your rights-So that there are checks to power,Especially with a hot button word like terrorist being thrown around. If tomorrow they accused you,How would you PROVE them wrong?You have been dragged to gitmo,You don't have any rights,No Laywer,No court date,Etc.How would you prove them wrong?That is why we need checks because in any system run by humans mistakes WILL be made,It's just a question of when.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    97. Re:It's for the children! by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Let me tell you something about OverlordQ

      He is a proven

      Gangbanger
      Confirmed Muslim
      Has been trained in Pakistan
      And has flown back to the US
      He is also a rampant kiddy fiddler
      Fiddles his taxes
      Is mean to kittens

      Do you want this menace walking your streets or should we lock him up ?

    98. Re:It's for the children! by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "It a law was written with potential for abuse, then the law shouldn't be law."

      I very much doubt there would be any laws at all left if that standard was applied.

    99. Re:It's for the children! by kbielefe · · Score: 5, Informative
      I might be inclined to believe your analysis if you got your facts straight. The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with the authority to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant and hold him or her as a prisoner of war. That authority comes from the war powers invoked in Public Law 107-40. Individual cases are subject to oversight both by the Supreme Court and by Congress.

      I suppose you also believe that the USA PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to perform a mass library record search without the approval of a judge. Libraries aren't even mentioned in the entire text of the law, and the language people blow out of proportion would only allow the search of a single person's records on approval of a federal judge with respect to a specific ongoing investigation. Please try to verify things you read on Slashdot before passing it on, including what I just said.

      Not that I disagree with you that things could quickly get out of hand. I assume because you feel so strongly on the matter that you have contacted your Congressman to support H.R. 1076: Detention of Enemy Combatants Act , which acknowledges the need to detain enemy combatants who are U.S. citizens, but enacts specific requirements on the duration, conditions, and judicial review of such detentions.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    100. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      By listening to the people it is happening to.

      Or do you think they'll disappear, never to be heard from again?

    101. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ok, I'm going to let you in on a secret.

      We don't listen to you because you are a talker, interested in sounding like you have some "inside" knowledge, that somehow came from your superior insight.

      But you don't. What you do have is a flair for dramatically overstating a position, spouting rhetoric, and essentially wasting time with your gasbag antics.

      Stop LYING about what's happening (and by that I mean INTENTIONALLY exaggerating for effect) because it makes you look silly.

    102. Re:It's for the children! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I want to know why a public trial was good enough for the nazi's.Are terrorists so much more "Scary" that they don't even deserve what the nazis got?We have public trials for a reason-It's called a fair trial.If they are truly terrorists then I'm sure they have enough to try them without compromising national security. Even Osama deserves a public trial and a defense.Without those basic rights we are no better or more civilized than them.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    103. Re:It's for the children! by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      skip the first 5 and it'd be close

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    104. Re:It's for the children! by will_die · · Score: 1

      The case of Abdullah al-Muhajir(aka Jose Padilla) is a wierd one but does not fall under any part of the US PATRIOT ACT, it all has do with article 4.1.2 of the Third Geneva Convention.
      With each order of a judge saying he should be charged or freed you have had the appeals court say that is not the case. Then to top it off his lawyer has made a bunch of mistakes in paperwork and process including filing in the wrong location with forced to supreme court to kick it back, adding more delays.
      Finally making its way through the court systems and a decision on his status should be make.

    105. Re:It's for the children! by tokabola · · Score: 1

      Actually, Tim was a member of a "militia", a militant group which denies the autority of the US government and has been officially designated as subversive and terrorist in nature. But they're christians, so that's all right

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    106. Re:It's for the children! by will_die · · Score: 1

      The case of Abdullah al-Muhajir(aka Jose Padilla) does not fall under any part of the US PATRIOT ACT, it all has do with article 4.1.2 of the Third Geneva Convention.

    107. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Is this guy any less likely to be a terrorist than the first one?"

      Yes.

      "Or are you generalizing the Muslim faith as a bunch of hate mongering terrorists. So much for tolerance."

      KORAN commands to kill infidels:

      Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

      On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

      Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

      I'M not generalizing anything, simply stating what is outlined in their (hehe) holy text.

      You can shut the fuck up now.

    108. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Or do you care if a citizen gets a fair trial anyomre? If they can throw him in without a trial, they can do the same to you"

      And how do you come to this conclusion? I mean it sounds great, but apart from the logical fallacy you've succumbed to, what do you have to support your position.

      Chicken littles everywhere, thinking they're insightful because their echo-chamber blog friends tell them so.

    109. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What makes you competent to judge that? What do you REALLY know about what's going on?

      I hate you arrogant know it all fuckers who think that you're qualified to comment on everything under the sun.

      You're a NOBODY who knows essentially NOTHING about what is going on, and you think that you have insight.

      The only possible reason for that is incredible arrogance.

    110. Re:It's for the children! by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Well, you could blow the whistle... By that I mean, if you think you've been tapped, call a friend and have him place his handset under a pillow, then make a very LOUD noise down the phone. One of those compressed-air sirens should work nicely. Run it for a minute or two while looking up and down the street for an unmarked van with a guy outside it, staggering about holding his ears...

    111. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I love that you got modded insightful, despite the fact that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

      If you bothered to actually learn about it ( you haven't, so don't lie we can tell from you post) you would realize enemy combatant status and has nothing to do with the PATRIOT act.

      But god forbid you actually INFORM yourself.

      How do morons like you get modded insightful?

      Oh, right by other morons. If you agree with parent, and find yourself cursing me, you are one of those morons.

    112. Re:It's for the children! by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      i sometimes think back to what osama bin laden said a couple of years before the 9/11 attacks.
      he stated that al-quaida did not have the resources to tear america apart, but that it still would happen.
      guess how?
      http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/osamabi nla189671.html
      another insightful quote:
      http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/osamabi nla189673.html

      note: i cannot comfirm the authenticy of these quotes, but i have read them before on other sites, so it seems likely

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    113. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      FINALLY!

      Someone who adresses the REAL point.

      If you want to be concerned about something, be concerned that there is no way to hold anyone accountable in these situations.

      And despite what you people think, the situation has been that way for decades.

      It's not PATRIOT, it's certainly not neo-cons, it's the total lack of accountablity in government that you should be ranting about.

      And both sides suffer from it, so save your childish rhetoric, it serves no purpose and only makes things worse.

    114. Re:It's for the children! by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Except it was us sending you allowance... More like us kids skipped out on the bill we had been paying for you at your nursing home (what with your tired political, outdated political system and all).

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    115. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that it's okay to hold "enemy combatants" without proof."

      Yes

      "If that's the case, what is the process for determining who is an "enemy combatant?"

      Ok, so I would ask you, why would you feel the need to comment when you admit YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

      Don't you think you should have researched the subject before formulating an opinion, or is this indicative of how you come to decisions generally?

    116. Re:It's for the children! by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      " No one says states' rights are absolute. If a state wants to reenact slavery, should that right be respected?"

      States rights are garunteed in the constitution. Barring a restriction on slavery in the constitution then yes states have the right to reenact slavery; too bad there is such a restriction. The real problem is the commerce clause: for example (and it has gotten much worse since this case) the federal government can prevent you from growing corn on your land to feed your animals because it affects national commerce in that you lower the demand for corn! This is rediculous as under this line of reasoning anything can be held as a federal issue under the commerce clause except things explicitly stated to be state matters.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    117. Re:It's for the children! by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Wow that "catch" conviently identifies just about every reporter doing research on terrorism--let's hope for their sake they don't bring into question the merits of the war on terror.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    118. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      I assume you know the nazis weren't tried by the US. Not sure what they have to do with this at all, apart from the easy shock value of bringing them up.

      "If they are truly terrorists then I'm sure they have enough to try them without compromising national security."

      Ok, scenario 1. "Terrorist" goes on trial, operative is called to testify (which you cannot do anonymously) operative, which was previously VERY useful is now USELESS. Assuming they have enough evidence without the operative is just that, an assumption. I would say with near certainty you're wrong, because traditional methods of evidence gathering are ineffective.

      THINK please. It helps you avoid sounding ignorant when you talk.

    119. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is reall bullshit... Even if you haven't done anything wrong any power can simply find any lame excuse to throw you in jail simply to make sure there's no obstacle to their plans.

      When someone or a group wants to take power there is no "innocent" in the game. They arrest you without a warrant, take you to a prison without notifying any relative, don't give you a lawyer, torture you and after a few days of no water, always on lights, standing still with arms up, guards pissing on you and taking pictures of simulated sexual acts you *WILL CONFESS* anything.

      Afraid? Yes, be very afraid.

    120. Re:It's for the children! by laird · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "No an act of war, by the most traditional definition, is something one nation (or the sovereign of a nation) does to another. ... So no, what Tim did was not an act of war, it was an act of mass murder."

      By this definition, 9/11 was not an act of war either, since both those terrorist and McVeigh were in organized terrorist groups, but neither were "nations". Personally, I agree -- declaring a "war on terrorism" is as stupid as declaring a "war on inflation" or "war on poverty". It's meaningless to declare war on a vague concent rather than a defined enemy.

      But if you're suggesting that right-wing militia and McVeigh's blowing up a building was "mass murder" while Al Queda's blowing up the WTC was "war" I'd be curious to know what the difference is.

    121. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Um...I don't know where you get your definitions from...but killing over 100 people sounds like an act of war to me."

      Well now I know never to take any of your posts seriously.

    122. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Reading such books is constitutionally guaranteed. Anonymity is not.

    123. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Where is the damage being done by not having anonymity? Political dissidents are not being harassed. People are still free to read whatever they want.

    124. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      That's the point. States' rights are at the discretion of the Federal government.

    125. Re:It's for the children! by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So lets go ahead and let the government build a huge oppressive framework so long as they aren't currently using the incomplete framework? That's right up there with selling Japan massive amounts of raw materials before WWII...wait I'm on Slashdot: that's like the rebels waiting on the second deathstar to be completed before their attack... but wait, it was operational.

      Now look, I'm no privacy crusader. I just want the government and the people on equal terms. The government in my opinion currently gets a lot more privacy rights than individuals. If for every bit of privacy they took away from us they simultaneously lost an equal percentage of thier own privacy I wouldn't give a damn--how you measure such things is another question entirely.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    126. Re:It's for the children! by c4miles · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36

      "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22:20

      "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18

      Likewise, just quoting from a (hehe) holy text.

      You can shut the fuck up now.

      Ditto.
    127. Re:It's for the children! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Both left and right are equally interesting in telling everyone else what to do and how to live their lives.

      More generally, all politicians are in politics because they're either interested in telling everyone else what to do (hunger for power) or because they have an agenda to promote (need for power) or a combination of these two.

      That's the problem of power: power goes to the people who want it, but they are the last people who should have it, since they are the ones most likely to abuse it to gain more power. I'm not sure if there's a solution to this.

      --

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

    128. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely said Tommy. It's good to know there are some people out there who actually realise what is going on.

    129. Re:It's for the children! by hburch · · Score: 1
      Democrats do not, as a rule, go around claiming that large budgets (with the taxes to pay for it) and a weak federal government are terrible in all cases.

      In contrast, the Republicans claim that large budgets and strong federal governments are bad, bad, badity, bad. Then, when they have majorities, they proceed to produce large budgets (and cut taxes anyway) and strengthen the federal government.

      If the Republicans demonstrated that they believed what they preach, they would have more of my respect. As it is, they appear hypocrites to me.

    130. Re:It's for the children! by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reading such books is constitutionally guaranteed. Anonymity is not.

      In bad old Soviet Russia, you could go and pee on Lenin's statue while shouting "This is what I think of communism ! Lenin, drink my urine ! Down with Stalin !". You would be executed or sent to Siberia for it, but you could do it.

      What I'm getting to is that having a right to do something means that you don't suffer negative consequences for doing it. If you do suffer said consequences, your "right" is no more right than our hypothethical russians right to pee on Lenin. And the only way to ensure that there's no negative consequences (such as being noted as potential terrorist by your government) is to make it both possible and legal to use these rights anonymously.

      --

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

    131. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're a cunt. I'd list reasons, but I don't want yoo to pop wood.

    132. Re:It's for the children! by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Actually, the democrats used to, a few decades back. The reason they don't now is that they've lost their focus completely, and don't stand for anything anymore. This is kinda the normal cycle for the party, or actually any party. The party loses all meaning, then another party gains dominance, then that party loses meaning, and another (perhaps democrats again, we americans like the word so much that a lot of popular movements have hijacked it) with an actual purpose rises.

      If you listen very carefully to the mumblings of various democrats, you'll notice they're still self-serving hypocrites too. But since the party is dead as far as agenda goes, they're a bunch of individual self-serving hypocrites, and thus much harder to hate than the more organized self-serving hypocracy on the other end. That's ok, though, I have enough disgust and sarcasm for them all. Except Swartzenegger(sp), every time i try to criticise him, i burst into laughter for some reason.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    133. Re:It's for the children! by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Also, he forgot to use the (/tinfoilhat) command to close his post.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    134. Re:It's for the children! by Pollardito · · Score: 2, Informative
      By listening to the people it is happening to. Or do you think they'll disappear, never to be heard from again?
      parts of it are specifically designed to prevent the people that are being investigated from knowing that they're a target, therefore they'd have no way to know that they even have something to complain about : from EFF's analysis of the Patriot Act:
      PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.
      so if you don't know it's happening to you, then who is going to complain? will it be your ISP who has had to cough up your records, or maybe the judge that is asked to approve the order? NSL's require no judge and the people compelled to turn over your information are prohibited from talking about it with anyone. apparently even outside observers that want to challenge the law can only do so privately. from ACLU's challenge of the National Security Letter:
      The ACLU's legal challenge argues that the amended law violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it does not impose adequate safeguards on the FBI's authority to force disclosure of sensitive and constitutionally protected information. The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of the statute's gag provision, which prohibits anyone who receives an NSL from disclosing even the mere fact that the FBI has sought information. Because of the gag provision, the ACLU was forced to file the case under seal; it was three weeks before the ACLU could announce that it had challenged the law. The government continues to insist that the gag provision prohibits the ISP plaintiff from disclosing its name.
      so i'm not sure what venue you expect a complaint to be heard in, but it looks like they've closed lots of them off
    135. Re:It's for the children! by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall something about your soul being damned to hell for eternity if your fighting does not take place in the frame of a holy war expressly approved by god, though. So the religion has also bred a lot of people really, really careful about what cause they commit to. Cashus Clay used Islam to dodge the draft, i think, on the reasoning that god commanded him, effectively, to be a pacifist.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    136. Re:It's for the children! by magpie · · Score: 1

      For love of god please do!

    137. Re:It's for the children! by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1
      They aren't even fundamentalists. If these people were really religious, they would not be bombing people all over the world (thou shalt not kill; love thy neighbor, etc...). This applies to democrats too.

      These people are nothing but a bunch of crooks.

      Disclaimer: I am assuming that you were referring to religious fundamentalists.

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    138. Re:It's for the children! by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      The clause on treason in the constitution-- if you attack american citizens, you retain your citizenship, you're just a criminal. If you serve in the military of another country, you revoke your citizenship and open yourself to a charge of treason. If you serve in a freelance military-type unit like al quaeda that disclaims any nationality, then you're doubly screwed, because you've lost the protection of your American citizenship without gaining the protection of citizenship in another country, and we can pretty much do to you what we want legally. Being a fairly honor-bound and group-oriented person myself, I entirely approve of this policy, but that's irrelevant, as it's the way it is either way. Anyhow, that's the difference.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    139. Re:It's for the children! by Presidential · · Score: 1
      Replace republican with democrat as you please.


      Hey, didn't we try that last election?
      --
      Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
    140. Re:It's for the children! by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we need verification that the guy has fulfilled one of the (few) constitutionally outlined conditions for revocation of citizenship (basically, serving in a foreign military or swearing allegiance to a foreign government). If that's established, though, the government isn't violating any of his constitutional protections, because he hasn't got any (unless the foreign government he swore to is recognized as legit by the US, in which case he's protected by treaty.)

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    141. Re:It's for the children! by JudicatorX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom from fear, I think that's three out of four right there. Plus the right to privacy, and the right be presumed innocent. that's just off the top of my head...

      --
      "It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
    142. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, which freedoms were those?

    143. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not the only case. The same 'Rumsfeld processing' happened in Sweden, Italy and some other countries. The NYtimes had an article on these practices a while back: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/053105Y.shtml

    144. Re:It's for the children! by isa-kuruption · · Score: 1

      Of course, you forget to mention Jose Padilla pleads guilty. Because, after all, that would not allow you to prove your point.

    145. Re:It's for the children! by Taevin · · Score: 1

      If you can show me in the Constitution of the United States of America where it says anonymity in your own country is NOT a right, then absolutely. Otherwise, you're just a moron and it's morons like you that don't care about our rights (those rights not specifically given to the government by the Constitution belong to the people) that will be the downfall of the freedoms we enjoy that have made us the country we are.

    146. Re:It's for the children! by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      If they could prove that he was involved with anything, they would have done it by now. They don't want to put him on trial because they know they would lose. Your government is blatantly violating its own laws and you're calling someone who complains about it arrogant?!?

      Wake up, fool.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    147. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By this definition, 9/11 was not an act of war either

      Who said it was? It was terrorism. Al-qaida is not a nation, it's a terrorist network towards which a mad regime was sympathetic.

    148. Re:It's for the children! by Taevin · · Score: 1

      Assuming those are true, it's pretty scary that the numero uno terrorist-man understands our freedoms better than our own governemnt.

    149. Re:It's for the children! by wpiman · · Score: 1
      The right to privacy? Where did that one come from? I recall that a soldier cannot just shack up at my house, and that my belongings cannot be searched without a warrant- but what ammendment says I have a right to privacy?

      How convenient too that a wave of attacks occur JUST as congress is voting to renew the Patriot act.

    150. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scary thing about these 'mistakes' is that bright people, many with law degrees, who should know better actually defend the inexcusable, and dig a bigger hole. There is a good reason why goverment and the judicial system should be seperate. The good bit, is once merged, lawyers and real judges will no longer be needed. This model has worked well in African countries.

    151. Re:It's for the children! by smchris · · Score: 1

      Sure, with the stroke of a pen Bush could have you shackled in a barrel in the sun with the Barney Song piped in at a 140 DB for the rest of your life, however long that might be, without access to a lawyer. But that would be because you hate our freedom.

      Big Brother loves you. Big Brother would never make a mistake. It would break Big Brother's heart. And when they torture the guy next door he will never, ever mention your name. If he did, Big Brother in his wisdom would know that he is stupidly slinging mud on your outstanding reputation. Always. Go to sleep now.

      Brazil........How I love you, how I love you.

    152. Re:It's for the children! by bamberg · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Constitution doesn't grant rights; it recognizes them and proscribes limits to government actions accordingly. The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn't explicitly list every right that people have so they provided the Ninth Amendment, which states:

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      More info here.

    153. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a quote from Hitlers' rule book. I can't find the freaking thing... sorta along the lines of: "the population will suffer any indignation, any loss of liberty or freedom if the majority can be convinced that it's being done for the sake of the children"

      The left is just slobbering to use these laws to push their own agenda (that's when the real WMD's come out). The US won the war by destroying a city every 4 days, I wonder how long the president would hold out for an unconditional surrender.

    154. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then to top it off his lawyer has made a bunch of mistakes in paperwork and process including filing in the wrong location with forced to supreme court to kick it back, adding more delays.
      Finally making its way through the court systems and a decision on his status should be make.


      my god what a crime! they should jail his lawyer too!

    155. Re:It's for the children! by ThreeE · · Score: 1

      If you google "asymmetrical war" you get over half a million hits. So, perhaps you should do some reading.

    156. Re:It's for the children! by ThreeE · · Score: 1
      Washington has not been burned.

      Tell that to lower Manhattan.

    157. Re:It's for the children! by aaronl · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree with you; unfortunately I did not think my wording through all that well. I guess I shouldn't write laws! ;-)

      I hope I still got the point across that something like PATRIOT has obvious and terrible potential for abuse. This is similar to any kind of open-ended law that calls for some government agent's discretion. Take, for example, the obscenity wording in the FCC charter. It isn't clearly defined, so there is potential for abuse.

      So, while you're right that most laws can be abused... and getting past my unfortunate wording, I would not mind seeing most current laws going away. That's not to say I don't want any laws, which would be silly. I just want to see most laws happening on a local level instead of our current "That law really should be local, so we're going to be making it a Federal law.".

    158. Re:It's for the children! by bamberg · · Score: 1

      ifwm's ignorance about Christianity is surprising given that we've just seen the conviction of Christian terrorist Eric Rudolph.

      Perhaps he should follow the advice of the Bible as given in Matthew 7:3: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    159. Re:It's for the children! by caluml · · Score: 1
      The problem with the whole "You have nothing to fear if you are not doing anything wrong"is that once you've gotten rid of the "bad people" how long before someone decides that YOU are bad or wrong?

      See the scarily arbitrary ASBOs in the UK.

    160. Re:It's for the children! by bentcd · · Score: 1

      Chances are your government understands it perfectly well. It's the voters that donÃ't.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    161. Re:It's for the children! by caluml · · Score: 1
      it's the total lack of accountablity in government that you should be ranting about.

      "Erm, it's the interests of national security, but we can't tell you why, or your lawyer. Trust us."

    162. Re:It's for the children! by bentcd · · Score: 1

      The best part, I think, was when they took one of the US citizens they held illegally and demanded that he renounce his US citizenship in order to secure his release.
      If I were a US citizen, that would terrify me, but since I'm not, it really cracks me up :-)

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    163. Re:It's for the children! by JudicatorX · · Score: 2, Informative

      These (article 12). Please realize that everyone does not live in the USA...

      --
      "It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
    164. Re:It's for the children! by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      Possibly they don't want to put him on trial because the information they have on him would have to be released in open court and possibly burn an existing intelligence operation.

      In WWII England cracked Enigma, and *knew* when certain places were targeted for bombing. They did nothing to warn the occupants since this would have alerted the Nazis to the fact that their communications were no longer secure.

      I don't know that this is the case with Padilla, but neither do you.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    165. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in order to get these cases talked about you must hire Karl Rove as your spoke's man he is good at leaking secrets.

    166. Re:It's for the children! by Arjuna01 · · Score: 1

      "less of two evils"

      When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil.

      --
      "Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips
    167. Re:It's for the children! by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      The left are just as likely to pass laws limiting freedoms as the right are, they'll just have a different set of criteria for choosing the laws.

      I'll grant you that. It's just that it is the Right's brand of bullshit that is prevalent these days. I wouldn't mind seeing that whole lot in Congress tarred and feathered and then escorted to the nearest set of train tracks.

    168. Re:It's for the children! by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      Yea - "fluffy" language in laws tends to open up large avenues for abuse. Don't know just how "fluffy" USA PATRIOT is though - anyone else have an idea?

    169. Re:It's for the children! by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that we can't charge enemy combatants now, but during WWII we were able to charge traitors and even a group of Germans Spies that made their way to America.

      He is an American citizen. He is alleged to have committed an act of terrorism. Charge him. What is wrong with that?

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    170. Re:It's for the children! by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      That doesn't matter one whit. The man is a US citizen and as such is entitled to his rights under the US constitution. If they have to lose an intelligence operation to convict him, that's too bad. Either charge him or let him go.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    171. Re:It's for the children! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Tell that to lower Manhattan."

      That's all you have to defend your stance? A single event from four years ago? No, war is when something like that happens every week. War is when something like that happens so regularly that it's barely even newsworthy. In war, 3000 lives is little more than a drop in the bucket.

      Where is your response to Ex Parte Merryman? Where is your response to the constitutional definition of treason and the power of the federal courts to try such cases? Where is your resoponse to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? All you have is an attempt at scare-mongering that pales in comparison with historical example? You're comparing the destruction of a few blocks in a single borough and trying to equate it to the razing of Atlanta and trying to say the former justifies acts that were unacceptable even in the wake of the latter?

    172. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you forget to mention Jose Padilla pleads guilty. Because, after all, that would not allow you to prove your point.

      "Jose Padilla" is mentioned once in that article to describe his laywer. His laywer is talking about Zacarias Moussaoui.

      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say that you linked the wrong article. Please link the correct one now.

    173. Re:It's for the children! by Orgazmus · · Score: 1

      And we have a winner!
      Stand up and receive your price sir.
      *silenced rifle shot sound from the back of the audience*

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    174. Re:It's for the children! by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      What logical fallacy? Right at this moment, the government is holding a US citizen without charge and thinks that it has every right to do so, yet there is no law anywhere that gives them this power. You think that we should all accept the government's assertions about this man without seeing any evidence to back it up whatsoever. Now, what is to keep them from doing the same to anyone if they can do it to him?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    175. Re:It's for the children! by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      How is it that John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" who was captured, fighting in Afghanistan, against America, somehow wasn't an enemy combatant as was tried? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    176. Re:It's for the children! by sexybomber · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Simple. Timmy's skin was white. Padilla's is brown.

    177. Re:It's for the children! by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Can you even read the headline of the article you linked to? Here, I'll help - "Moussaoui Pleads Guilty to Sept. 11 Plot". The only mention of Padilla in this article is in reference to his lawyer.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    178. Re:It's for the children! by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      Except that article links to a story about Zacarias Moussaoui, not Jose Padilla aka Abdullah al-Muhajir.
      Totally different person.
      Jose Padilla has yet to even be charged with a crime, let alone appeared before a judge.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    179. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What good fortune for those in power that people do not think

      - Adolf Hitler, as quoted by Joachim Fest.

    180. Re:It's for the children! by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >Ok, scenario 1. "Terrorist" goes on trial, operative is called to testify (which you cannot do anonymously) operative, which was previously VERY useful is now USELESS.

      So what? Our government is not free to do whatever it wants with its citizens simply because it has decided that we are "at war" with an abstract concept. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that your rights are null and void at the whim of the executive branch.

      >THINK please. It helps you avoid sounding ignorant when you talk.

      You must not be doing it right, because you sound plenty ignorant.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    181. Re:It's for the children! by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      I agree wholeheartedly with all of your comments, I just wanted to point out one slip you made at the end: It's not just about his rights -- it's about protecting the rights of ALL citizens equally, so the gov can't do to him, you, or me, without following the law.

      Unfortunately, thanks to things such as the PATRIOT ACT, the government technically is following the law in these cases. The gestapo-like, right-crushing law that should never exist. Sorry to be pedantic, I know what you meant by your sentence, but in these cases mincing words becomes important.
      I think it may be better put as "It's not just about his rights -- it's about protecting the rights of ALL citizens equally, so the gov can't do [this] to him, you, or me, without [due process and honoring a citizen's constitutionally guaranteed rights].

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    182. Re:It's for the children! by fair_n_hite_451 · · Score: 1

      ...and charged for the hate crimes he was being held in jail for here.

      --
      Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
      "I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
    183. Re:It's for the children! by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      Ben's principle is well known around here on Slashdot as
      "Do you want your computer secure xor convenient?"

      Societies, same thing. Providers of security want to make their own jobs easier.

      But a free society is best sustained by security measures that the security forces will predictably find inconvenient.

      And the wonderful convenience of our free society will inevitably make it more vulnerable.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    184. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      States don't have rights. People have rights. States have powers. Look it up!

    185. Re:It's for the children! by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

      A terrorist can kill hundreds or thousands. It takes a congressman to strip the rights and freedoms from millions.

    186. Re:It's for the children! by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      He's a citizen who has engaged in military training with an enemy of the US and returned to the country in order to wage war against it.

      Technically under the Geneva Convention, as an unlawful combatant who wears no uniform, he could be summarily executed as a spy. The situation is far more complex than you make it out to be.

      I don't know all the facts, but neither do you. I do know that the US is at war, something that a lot of people seem to want to willfully ignore.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    187. Re:It's for the children! by __aaijsn7246 · · Score: 1

      You are quite correct about the war on drugs. Thanks for pointing it out, as it doesn't get mentioned enough on Slashdot.

    188. Re:It's for the children! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      The Fifth Amendment mentions persons, not citizens. The Sixth Amendment speaks of the accused, not citizens. So why do constitutional protections apply only to citizens?

    189. Re:It's for the children! by Ztream · · Score: 1

      Oh please.
      I recently finished reading the Quoran/Koran, and though there are scary places where the things you mention are preached, there are other places that urge you to *respect* people of other religions (probably depending on what opinions Muhammed had use for at the moment - I'm not religious.)

      But if you want to play that game, there are a ton of hateful, xenofobic references in the Bible too.
      There's also a message of love that a damn lot of christians seem to have completely missed. The point here is that a religion is as much defined by its scriptures as by the culture that forms around it.

    190. Re:It's for the children! by tombeard · · Score: 1

      Yea, after conviction in an Open court of Law!

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    191. Re:It's for the children! by schon · · Score: 1

      operative is called to testify (which you cannot do anonymously) operative, which was previously VERY useful is now USELESS. Assuming they have enough evidence without the operative is just that, an assumption.

      So you're defending the assumption that the state's desire to keep secrets trumps an individual's right to a fair trial.

      Congratulations, you have officialy endorsed fascism.

    192. Re:It's for the children! by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >He's a citizen who has engaged in military training with an enemy of the US and returned to the country in order to wage war against it.

      Says who?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    193. Re:It's for the children! by Taevin · · Score: 1
      Of course it doesn't actually say "enemy." What it DOES do is make radical changes to The Immigration and Nationality Act. See "SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW":

      ''(6) LIMITATION ON INDEFINITE DETENTION.--An alien detained solely under paragraph (1) who has not been removed under section 241(a)(1)(A), and whose removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future, may be detained for additional periods of up to six months only if the release of the alien will threaten the national security of the United States or the safety of the community or any person.
      Or, in other words, "we can hold you as long as we feel you are a threat." Then of course there is this little gem: "Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision." That is to say 'except under the most narrow of terms that we control, there is no judicial review to our actions.'

      And last but certainly not least, "There shall be no right of appeal in such proceedings to any other circuit court of appeals." This applies to anything beyond the rules for appeal defined earlier in the document.

      So, to sum up, they can hold you as long as they want, there is limited review, and they take away most of your right to appealing your detainment (I think you can appeal directly to the Attorney General every 6 months - but of course he has absolute authority to deny it).

      Oh but I forgot, our government never tries to deceive us so of course a simple search for "enemy" is sufficient review of their actions.
    194. Re:It's for the children! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Should be make? I guess compiling the evidence is more involved than we thought. :-)

    195. Re:It's for the children! by Redwing · · Score: 1

      Everyone deserves liberty and security
      -The Declaration of Independence (paraphrased)

      --
      Raisinettes are my raison d'etre
    196. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, they didn't come up with the act - they just provided the motivation for such a knee-jerk reaction, they left the details to the esteemed US leaders and representatives, apparently with quite successful results.

    197. Re:It's for the children! by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      Says the people whose job it is to know. What possible gain would there be to imprison him for no reason at all? His imprisonment has been media fodder against the administration for a while now, I doubt they'd williingly suffer the criticism unless they felt they had some reason for incarcerating him. It's not that I automatically trust the government, that would be stupid. However, I don't automatically distrust the government either, which woul be just as stupid.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    198. Re:It's for the children! by glsunder · · Score: 1

      The problem is, there's a lot of people who wont be able to understand this.

      Bush Sr claimed be surprised that 1/2 of the american population was below average intelligence. Bush Jr relied on it.

    199. Re:It's for the children! by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      That authority comes from the war powers invoked in Public Law 107-40 [gpo.gov]. Individual cases are subject to oversight both by the Supreme Court and by Congress.

      Was there a declaration of war? I am not clear at all on that.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    200. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, but I have a hard time remembering any instances when any enormous departments with huuuuge budgets did anything good.

      Especially in recent memory :(

    201. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were around in the 40's you'd probably say the same thing about Jewish people forced to wear their Star of David --- right until they started being killed, that is.

      Your argument holds no merit - because they are not doing anything now does not mean they will continue to act the same way in the future.

      And furthermore, I think the real point of this is why the heck do they need access to something like my reading list, anyway?

      A teacher once told me that the best way to defuse someone's argument is to read and listen to what they have to say. Do that now and if someone's watching - they'll lump you with the bad guys? No thanks.

    202. Re:It's for the children! by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      I'M not generalizing anything, simply stating what is outlined in their (hehe) holy text.

      You do not want to play 'war of the bibles', they're both really fucking bad when interpreted so literally (dare I say, in a fundamentalist light).

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    203. Re:It's for the children! by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So, what essential liberty did I give up?
      1. The freedom of suspicion from the gov.
      2. The freedom of not having somebody listen to your, your children, or your grandchildren's phone conversations, business, or home life.
      3. The freedom of having a future gov. be able to contrive information from half truths to be able to convict you of nothing.
      4. The ability to monitor our gov.
      5. The right of standing trial of the crimes that you are accused of.
      6. The right to see a lawyer.

      Nazism, and Communism did not start with we are here to beat you, imprision you, and murder you. They started with "this is for your safety. All of this is for you to prevent future harm from (capitalists|jews|terrorists)".
      Sadly, those that downplay all these arguments, are the same type of people that lead societies after societies down the path of Nazism or communism.
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    204. Re:It's for the children! by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1

      So its obvious to you fellows, but not to me, why is WoD a state's rights issue?

    205. Re:It's for the children! by Ruie · · Score: 1
      In bad old Soviet Russia, you could go and pee on Lenin's statue while shouting "This is what I think of communism ! Lenin, drink my urine ! Down with Stalin !". You would be executed or sent to Siberia for it, but you could do it.

      Actually there was a similary (true ?) story - a child peed in winter so as to write "Stalin" on the snow. He probably heard the name mentioned many times in school.

      Both his parents were executed.

    206. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timmy was tried so he could be put to death. Maybe Padilla's brown skin is buying him some time?

    207. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they are not.

      States' rights are limited by the constitution, amendments to which are radified by the states. Part of the constitution gives the federal government certain powers having to do with interstate matters.

      It explictly says everything not coverend in the constition is left to the states.

    208. Re:It's for the children! by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Um.... They either aided in the attacks or they didn't. If they did, he's right. If not, he's still right in a difference sense. Either way, there is no "opinion" involved.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    209. Re:It's for the children! by mc900ftjesus · · Score: 1

      The real terrorists came up with the Patriot act. You know the ones that impose fear with a nice color system that was designed to tell you how afriad to be. At least the terrorists with bombs let you decide how afraid to be.

    210. Re:It's for the children! by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 1

      Please try to verify things you read on Slashdot before passing it on, including what I just said.

      Are you on crack? Verifying information before posting on Slashdot goes against our most cherished values and longest held tradtions.

      If we started doing as you suggest there would be reasoned argument! Intelligent discussion! Anarchy!!!

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    211. Re:It's for the children! by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Freedom from oppression and freedom from evil should cover all that.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    212. Re:It's for the children! by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Actually, slavery really only came up near the end of and after the "Civil" War as a meant for the victors to justify it.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    213. Re:It's for the children! by scatters · · Score: 1

      I should have added to my post that despite the fact that we act pleased to see you at Aunt Marge's sister's wedding, we're secretly bloody annoyed that
      you grew up to have better paying jobs, bigger houses and hotter wives.

      Bloody kids!

      --
      A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
    214. Re:It's for the children! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      KORAN commands to kill infidels:

      So, does the Christian Bible suggest killing people? To be safe, we need to kill all the religious nuts.

      "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." -- Voltaire

    215. Re:It's for the children! by __aaijsn7246 · · Score: 1

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      For starters, there is the ongoing medical marijuana debate. A bunch of states currently allow for the use of medical marijuana in their state. Federal law still has marijuana in the Schedule I category which means it has no medical use, so feds arrest users.
      Medical marijuana is an easy one, as so many medical organizations support it.

      The current drug czar also uses federal funds to campaign and lobby against drug laws reform at the state level.

      The federal government also recently passed a spending bill which "would take away federal grants from local and state transportation authorities that allow citizens to run advertising on buses, trains, or subways in support of reforming our nation's drug laws".

      Here is a quote from an article regarding assisted suicide, and the federal government's attempts to stop it by invoking drug laws: "Ashcroft... invoked the federal Controlled Substances Act, a law aimed at drug traffickers, and threatened to use it against physicians who prescribe drugs to help patients end their lives."

      There are many other arguments to stop the drug war of course.. our constitution gives us the right to freedom of speech, which presupposes freedom of thought. Many drugs allow us to change how we think, so they should not be banned by the government. The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics makes this argument, which I personally find quite compelling.

      I'm glad you asked this question, and hope I have given you some ideas to think about.

    216. Re:It's for the children! by Taevin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That authority comes from the war powers invoked in Public Law 107-40 [gpo.gov]. Individual cases are subject to oversight both by the Supreme Court and by Congress.

      Did you even read the document that you linked to? No where does that document even mention enemy combatants. What it does do is give the President war powers within the scope of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Not the US, not Congress, not the Courts, the President. See "SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES." (My emphasis added)
      a) NOTE: President. In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
      If you'll read that, you should notice that it gives the President complete authority to use any action he deems appropriate even for individual 'persons' so there is no oversight provided by Congress - besides, they're the ones that passed Public Law 107-40! Not to mention the fact that the PATRIOT Act removes judicial review in many cases.

      Oh, and the PATRIOT Act does in fact have provisions for detaining people see: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156665&cid =13134929
    217. Re:It's for the children! by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      This can be taken too far-- suddenly you're eliminating the responsibility associated with the action itself. Some actions have rightfully "negative consequences"-- for example, should I be able to spread a rumour about ultranova sleeping with the moderators (just an example!) without being punished for it either directly or indirectly (lack of trust from others)?

      --
      Luke-Jr
    218. Re:It's for the children! by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Deported for being a national security threat. He was held in jail for two years without trial. While I agree he's a pain in the ass, I think he should be allowed to say whatever he likes, no matter what the cost, or how unpopular it is.

      Germany has some pretty tough laws against holocaust deniers.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    219. Re:It's for the children! by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Can you please explain how the Patriot Act reduces your right to freedom of speech or thought? Being wire-tapped doesn't give you less free speech. Maybe if you're planning a terrorist attack over the phone, but then that's not an essential liberty, not by any reckoning, except maybe Osama Bin Laden's.

      As for privacy concerns, remember than thanks to CCTV on the London underground, one of yesterday's attempted suicide bombers was caught and shot dead. If you knee-jerk reactionist Slashbots had your way, he'd be alive and free today, and probably attempting another bombing.

      Sacrificing non-essential non-liberties for safety and justice is a good thing. Quoting this Benjamin Franklin person doesn't support your argument either, he's not the Ultimate Authority on Everything.

      I wish we had something like the Patriot Act over here.

    220. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try this one instead:

      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

      -- Patrick Henry

      http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html

    221. Re:It's for the children! by JudicatorX · · Score: 1

      Easy. If I say something that the gubmint doesn't like, I get arrested and detained indefinitely. Hence, no freedom of speech.

      If I take out a library book that is 'suspicious', and the gubmint gets ahold of it, I get arrested and detained indefinitely. Hence, no freedom of thought, as I can't think of things which might be 'offensive' to the governments.

      As for cameras.. did the cameras shoot him down? As it turns out, the cameras were not responsible for him being captured/shot:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/470678 7.stm

      If you like cameras so much, then why aren't they everywhere. After all, you might be building a bomb in your house.... put them aimed at your porches, in the living room, in the bedrooms, even in the toilet pointing up your ass.... just so you can be 'safe' and society can be 'just'....

      The israelis have a tactic of leaving incompetent terrorist leadership in place, and killing the competent ones. I'm not sure where these would-be bombers fit in...

      --
      "It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
    222. Re:It's for the children! by myke113 · · Score: 1

      We ARE always at war:

      The War On (Some) Drugs.

      --

      -Myke
      myke@compassionatecoalition.org
      http://www.compassionatecoalition.org
    223. Re:It's for the children! by Holi · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think security should be in that statement at all. The declaration did anything but make us more secure.

      And freedom ain't free, one has to work just as hard to keep it as they did to obtain it in the first place.

      To bad the majority of us fail to remember that.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    224. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Oh, and the PATRIOT Act does in fact have provisions for detaining people see.."


      Nice dodge. I will scream this one more time. Jose Padilla is an American citizen. The Patriot Act has no bearing on him being held! The Patriot Act speaks about aliens.

      RTF Patriot Act! And where does the Patriot Act remove judicial review? Where? Citations, please.
    225. Re:It's for the children! by Holi · · Score: 1

      The israelis have a tactic of leaving incompetent terrorist leadership in place, and killing the competent ones.

      And Israel never get's bombed because of their super intelligent terrorist policy...
      Oh wait, nevermind.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    226. Re:It's for the children! by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Your perception of his social worth and overall political tendencies is irrelevent to the ferocity by which you should be defending his rights to a speedy and legal trial. If they can do it to him, they will eventually get around to doing it to YOU.

      People accused of crimes are the people most in need of the most stringent observation of their rights, for precisely the lacksadaisical attitudes like yours of the people around them. So, please repeat after me:

      CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS.
      CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS.
      etc.

      Please continue repeating this statement until you understand what the US legal system SHOULD be doing, thus what the citizens MUST be supporting.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    227. Re:It's for the children! by jallison · · Score: 1
      Actually, slavery really only came up near the end of and after the "Civil" War as a meant for the victors to justify it.

      Not true. The issue of slavery contributed in a significant way to the cause and conduct of the US Civil War. The southern economy was based on slavery; the northern economy was not. As such you had divisive issues around slavery, specifically the addition of new states as either free or slave, significanlty before the outbreak of open hostilities in 1861. See Bleeding Kansas, for example.

      During the war issues of slavery continued to play a role. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued shortly after the battle of Antietam in 1862, hardly "near the end" of the war.

      You can't say that the US Civil War was "fought over slavery," but you can't say that slavery was not an issue either.

    228. Re:It's for the children! by phlinn · · Score: 1

      And what exactly does the enemy combatant issue have to do with the patriot act? The act, bad though it is, is the same slow expansion of police powers we've seen many time over the years. It should be fought on those grounds. Nowhere does it allow a citizen to be declared an enemy combatant arbitrarily without due process. Although both are areas where this administration has become more authoritarian, you can't use one to prove the other is bad.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
    229. Re:It's for the children! by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      I do know that the US is at war, something that a lot of people seem to want to willfully ignore.

      Bzzt! Wrong. Your beloved US Congress didn't declare a war, hence your legality in executing people on that basis is simply ZERO.

      If you want war powers, you should bother to have the fucking balls to declare a war.

      And don't try the "we don't know the enemy" myth that somehow precludes declaring war on a nation. America invaded 2 countries and shot at both nation's defenders. America also blatantly usurped the legal governments of both these nations. You declared war in everything but name -- hence legal name. The "grey area" argument is simply your own creation to absolve yourself of any blame when you want to do something nasty. The rest of the civilized world knows full well that that is what you're up to.

      ... you Imperialist ASSHOLE.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    230. Re:It's for the children! by vandon · · Score: 1
      If you'll read that, you should notice that it gives the President complete authority to use any action he deems appropriate even for individual 'persons' so there is no oversight provided by Congress

      How long until a president determines that Congress or SCOTUS "aided a terrorist" by doing something he doesn't agree with and disolves congress and/or the courts to "prevent future attacks"?
      Once the public is used to the PATRIOT act being the norm, they'll put in something just a little more restrictive and wait until it becomes the norm. Eventually, with this much power, I think it's just a matter of time.
    231. Re:It's for the children! by Holi · · Score: 1

      Be glad we are not in a declared war, as domestic laws become much different during wartime. Acts of sedition and treason are more broadly defined and punishments are harsher.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    232. Re:It's for the children! by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      You should lay off the coffee dude. :)

      Yeah the US is oh so imperialist, we just wanted to collect Afghanistan and Iraq to go with our imperial subjects Germany and Japan. What's that you say? We don't own Japan and Germany? What the hell kind of empire are we running here? We're not going to amass much of an empire if we keep giving our conquered states back to their citizens..

      If we really wanted an empire, you'd know it. The US is the first nation in the history of the world to have the ability to conquer the entire world, and choose not to.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    233. Re:It's for the children! by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      And how do you come to this conclusion?

      History. Perhaps you've heard of it. History tells us numerous times that when a right is given an arbitrary exception that denies it, that that exception is mainstreamed so that more and more people are caught by it. The horrendous abuses of the RICO statutes is a clear example of that in modern history.

      ... because their echo-chamber blog friends ...

      The ONLY "echo chamber" predominating American politics is the Republican Echo Chamber operating under the war fever generated by fear and hatred. So that means you'd know EXACTLY what an echo chamber sounds like, Chum, since you're participating in one on an hourly basis with sentiments like yours.

      The illegal holding of Jose Padilla is a threat to EVERY American citizen. His legal status is CLEAR, yet government officials refuse to obey the US Constitution. Only Republican Mouth Bois think otherwise.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    234. Re:It's for the children! by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      What is there to exagerate?

      An American Citizen was arrested on American soil, and the government claims they can hold him without trial as long as they like.

      Now I'll let you in on a secret: It's dirtbags like you, who put politics ahead of constitutional rights, that are to blame. If it wasn't your boy Bush doing this you would be all over it.

    235. Re:It's for the children! by jessicavampirehunter · · Score: 1

      Yes, it can be taken too far, but it hasn't been yet. Spreading malicious rumors is either slander or libel, and that's definitely illegal because it hurts someone directly. Checking out books, whatever the subject, isn't illegal.

      If the idea is to monitor interest and track problems as they arise, why stop there? Why not require that companies hard-code spyware into hard drives? In fact, that would probably be a much better solution. How many modern terrorists would check a book out of the library and possibly have to pay late fees when a simple Google search will do? Just checking it out now yields about two million hits.

    236. Re:It's for the children! by Damvan · · Score: 1

      What war?

      Has Congress issued an official declaration of war?

    237. Re:It's for the children! by Damvan · · Score: 1

      Again, why wasn't McVeigh held indefinately without trial. They could have based on your interpretation. Because he was a member of a "freelance military-type unit."

    238. Re:It's for the children! by icemann476 · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more, and feel that perhaps "it's for the children" may be the government's slogan. If they can brainwash our children then they can dictate our (lack of) liberties forever. A vast majority of our children don't know what the constitution entitles them to and it's not their fault, it's ours. We (American schools) aren't telling them, most can't even tell you the first five amendments. We have become a nation of scared, herded sheeple who are more likely to revolt if Monday night Football was canceled than if a (Bush) family empire were to purchase the elections, twice! Is it a coincidence that Sen. Kerry (a fellow Bonesman) took a dive? Did we really have two candidates or was it merely another illusion?

    239. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      In the same place it says privacy, murder, prostitution, and gambling are not rights. If a right is not enumerated in the Constitution, guess what? It is not a constitutional right. Maybe I am too much of a moron and not neosociolibertarianist enough to understand the law properly.

    240. Re:It's for the children! by 834r9394557r011 · · Score: 1

      I was reading through that H.R 1076 Section (5). The one on limitation. Here is what it says for the first one:

      (1) LIMITATION- A United States person or resident may be detained under subsection (a) of section 3 only while there is in effect for the purposes of this section a certification by the President that--
      (A) the United States Armed Forces are engaged in a state of armed conflict with al Qaeda and an investigation with a view toward prosecution, a prosecution, or a post-trial proceeding in the case of such person or resident is ongoing...

      Now aren't we currently "at war" with al Qaeda? And I don't see it ending any time in the next ten years. Thats a long time to hold someone in prison, with no trial or communication with a lawyer or family. A time in which they don't "really" have to investigate anyhting.

      --
      w00t
    241. Re:It's for the children! by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Was there a declaration of war? I am not clear at all on that.

      Response from Republican Mouth Bois:

      "OH NO! Bombs in London!! We were right all along!!! Lookit the casualties!!!! THIS IS NO TIME TO BE QUESTIONING AUTHORITY!!!!!"

      Of course, the truth is that, no, the US Congress never declared a war over 911*. Going into such a formality is too much risk for the highly risk-averse Congressmen. They instead dote and fret while Bush uses essentially a free hand in the Middle East to kill much of the towelheads that dared to sit over the petroleum that the US wants.

      The Iraq War Resolution of 2002 is as close as the Congress ever got. It just gave Bush a "blank check" for attacking Iraq, and left most of the sensible oversight under Bush's umbrella also. Basically, the Congress told Bush to do whatever he wanted militarily in Iraq, for as long as he wanted. But it wasn't a declaration of war.

      * Of course, you've have to explain in this case what exactly Iraq had to do with 911. The answer: NOTHING. So it was better not to make it formal. Iraq is just Bush's oil grab, prompted by his Saudi connections.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    242. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with the PATRIOT Act? Who has been jailed for their choice of reading materials?

    243. Re:It's for the children! by tgrimley · · Score: 1

      Lot's of things, like judicial review (marbury v madison), are not explicitly "granted" in the constituition. But that's the beauty of the 9th and 10th Ammendments. Anything no explicitly granted to government is retained by the people.

    244. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      There is a distinct difference between the lack of a right to anonymity when conducting transactions with a public entity and the right to choose how one dresses.

      This isn't the 60's anymore. Don't you get that? We are not living in a time where dissidence is punished. We are living in a time where dissidence is very popular and very public.

    245. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't believe everything you see on CNN.

    246. Re:It's for the children! by Taevin · · Score: 1
      You're right, Jose Padilla is an American citizen so he should have his rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Apparently, he has not been given this and this is an extremely bad thing. The Constitution supercedes ALL other laws, so it wouldn't really matter if the PATRIOT Act said all citizens can be detained without question - it is unconstitutional.

      You are right about the PATRIOT Act applying to aliens. It modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by inserting a large body of text that describes the things I was talking about. Section 236A (a)(3): CERTIFICATION.--The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
      • (A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
      • (B) is engaged in any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.
      The sections described in Section 236A(a)(3)(A) of the PATRIOT Act are section in the Immigration and Nationality Act that describe aliens as pertains to security matters. Those sections basically describe aliens that engage in actions against the United States. Coupled with Section 236A(a)(3)(B) of the PATRIOT Act, any 'alien' is subject to the policies of the act if the Attorney General decides they are a threat, evidence or not.

      For one example of removal of judicial review see Section 236A(b) of the PATRIOT ACT: (b) HABEAS CORPUS AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.--
      (1) IN GENERAL.--Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section (including judicial review of the merits of a determination made under subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6)) is available exclusively in habeas corpus proceedings consistent H. R. 3162--81 with this subsection. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, no court shall have jurisdiction to review, by habeas corpus petition or otherwise, any such action or decision.

      The PATRIOT Act gives the Attorney General a rediculous amount of power over the fate of 'aliens' that 'threaten' the US. Now that they've laid this framework, is it really so hard to imagine that some time in the future they'll slip in a modification that changes alien to person? Or, even more shadowy, changes the definition of an alien in the Immigration and Nationality Act to mean any person that threatens the US (afterall only someone alien to this country could ever disagree with it)?
    247. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How anti-american.

    248. Re:It's for the children! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      Replace republican with democrat as you please.

      While I certainly don't agree with all of the Democrat's planks at least you tend to know where you stand with them. They are predictable and the rhetoric tends to match the record. This current batch of Republicans really has made an art form of saying they will do one thing then doing the exact opposite and yet never getting called on it.

    249. Re:It's for the children! by Taevin · · Score: 1
      How sad. I find it baffling that the citizens of the United States of America have no idea what the Constitution is, stands for, or says. You really should read it sometime. I'll help you out though, heres a little excerpt from a section of the Constitution called The Bill of Rights .
      Amendment IX
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
      In other words, the Founders were smart enough to know that assholes would try to use the fact that not every single possible right someone can think of is explicitly given or denied. Hence, Amendment IX. In Amendment X, all rights not explicitly declared in the Constitution are reservered for states and the people. They put two goddamned amendments into the Constitution so it would be hard to miss this relatively simple concept... but you and millions of other people did anyways.
    250. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a lot of debates have been waged about how the rights of American Citizens have been violated, few people seem to deny that if you're a not a US citizen, the US government hardly considers you human. But what's shocking is the surprising lack of concern among the Americans regarding the blatant abuse of non-americans. I've always found it quite disturbing the fact that it is accepted without any question that non-americans aren't entitled to the same basic rights as americans are. As far as I recall the US constitution says, "all men are created equal".
      Does that mean that only Amricans are men, and the rest of us are some lesser beings ?

    251. Re:It's for the children! by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The patriot act has nothing to do with being arrested and detained, you're thinking of something else completely. The patriot act is actually very reasonable.

      Can you cite a single instance of someone being arrested and detained indefinitely due to borrowing a 'suspicious' library book? If you're going to commit a terrorist act, you're going to have enough forethought or money to buy a book in a way that it can't be traced back to you.

      If you like cameras so much, then why aren't they everywhere. After all, you might be building a bomb in your house.... put them aimed at your porches, in the living room, in the bedrooms, even in the toilet pointing up your ass.... just so you can be 'safe' and society can be 'just'....

      The underground is not a private place in your home, it is a public place, you have no expectation of privacy there, anyone can see you, it's just recorded. Even if not by CCTV then by camera phones.

      And the CCTV means we now have pictures of the suspects.

      One of them's dead already, now for the rest of them...

    252. Re:It's for the children! by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      Whether or not they are rights, the federal government has no business regulating any of them except where they actually relate to interstate commerce, since none of them are mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

      You should really have a look at amendments 9 and 10 and try to figure out what they are saying before you post nonsense like this again.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    253. Re:It's for the children! by gg3po · · Score: 1
      However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.

      Rather than them being silent, maybe you're just not listening.

      Here's a repost of some relevant comments I made on this subject several months ago:

      Here's a basic list of just a handful of abuses I came up:

      And finally, maybe there haven't been as many abuses as there will be once all 2nd legal track the preparations are in place .

      --
      ---
    254. Re:It's for the children! by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      nah i'm a J Random White Dude, not Gangbanger Paki Muslim so the Patriot act affects me about this much --->---

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    255. Re:It's for the children! by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Well now I know never to take any of your posts seriously.

      Thats a good rule for /.

    256. Re:It's for the children! by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the Patriot Act will soon liberate you too. Just give it some time.

    257. Re:It's for the children! by tade · · Score: 1

      Well they are not the only ones. Well depending on what you call different religions but other http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions Abrahamic religions have odd rules too. Like that dude Moses from the Bible who commands in his 2nd book (21th verse) something about selling your own daughter as a slave or in Exodus 35 where he states that: " 2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death." You don't even need to be enemy, just work on the seventh day. Seems a bit harsh to me. And your president talks with this persons god? What about slavery then? The third book of Moses (Levictus) states that: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Cheers

    258. Re:It's for the children! by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      Cops are assholes. Period.

      How the hell did this get scored up?

      Moderators are assholes. Period.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    259. Re:It's for the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people you are fighting against are not following the rules of war, by not wearing proper uniform, etc. like most(all) terrorists, then they aren't soldiers: they are just criminals. You arrest them with the regular laws of the jurisdiction at hand; just like McVeigh, as was used as an example.

      This is the sanest post on the topic I've seen in four years. Thank you.

      By the way, I'd submit that the difference between an enemy soldier and a common criminal is not the uniform, but the actions of the defending country.

      If you let someone into your country, and then they commit some violent crime, they're just like any other violent criminal in your country. Deal with them in the same way.

      If they attack your borders, they're soldiers, and that's an act of war. You've got the right to fight to keep your borders safe from invasion.

      It's the basic trespass rule. It's not trespass if I invite you into my house. It's not an invasion if my border guards let you in my country. If you kick down my door, I've gained the right to use force to defend against trespass. If you invade my borders, my nation gains the same right.

      War is when soldiers from one country invade another. Anything else is a local crime; punishable as the local country sees fit. It's what national sovreignty is all about...

    260. Re:It's for the children! by aaronl · · Score: 1

      http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

      Extremely fluffy. It's also a guarantee that if a law is long there is trouble. This law seems to be well over 250 pages long.

    261. Re:It's for the children! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      It is just this anonymity that guarantees that we can do these things...

      If the government can arbitrarily find out whatever someone is doing, then they can control what you are allowed to think, read or do...

      There is nothing wrong with reading about bomb making or Islam, so why should the government be allowed to know if i do so?

      I recently bought "The anarchist's cookbook" at Amazon, did i build bombs and traps and kill people? No, but if I had read this in a library it would definitely look suspicious enough to haul me in for questioning right?

      Correct me if i'm wrong, but we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.. if that is so then why would i be considered guilty just be reading a book?

      Anonymity helps to ensure the burden of proof of guilt by the government...

    262. Re:It's for the children! by raile · · Score: 1
      I suppose you also believe that the USA PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to perform a mass library record search without the approval of a judge. Libraries aren't even mentioned in the entire text of the law, and the language people blow out of proportion would only allow the search of a single person's records on approval of a federal judge with respect to a specific ongoing investigation. Please try to verify things you read on Slashdot before passing it on, including what I just said.
      You are correct, libraries are not specifically mentioned in the USA PATRIOT Act. To be more accurate, relevent section of the USA PATRIOT Act -- Section 215 (ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT) -- replaces text from an existing law: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. s1861 "Access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations"). The replaced text basically says that these actions can now be carried out as part of an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information concerning a United States citizen (previously it only allowed for non-citizens). Also, U.S.C. 50 s1861 does not restrict which kind of "businesses" information can be obtained from; libraries are just one kind.

      I don't think that people believe that the gov't is allowed to do "mass library record searches", just that it has been a common search evoked under the new version of 50 U.S.C. (or at least examples of this have been reported in the press), and given the change to U.S.C. 50, these requests can and have been carried out on US citizens. The troubling part is that many of the US citizen-victims who's records have been accessed had nothing to do with any terrorist activities, which flies in the face of the "...provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution" part of 50.U.S.C. s1861. It's also interesting to note (as a response to this) that the recent vote included an amendement (H AMDT 489 proposed by R Jeff Flake of AZ) to state that the Director of the FBI must personally approve any library or bookstore request for records by the FBI under Section 215.

    263. Re:It's for the children! by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Slavery was an issue before, during, and after the war, but it didn't contribute much, if any, to the reason for the war until later on. Had there not been a war, slavery would likely have dissolved without any bloodshed or bad feelings. As for the Emancipation Proclamation, note that it did not state slavery abolished or wrong. It simply freed a selective group of slaves that would benefit the group issuing the proclamation. Before, all slaves in those territories would be required to fight for the Confederates. After, they can rebel and choose to fight against them. Certainly seems like a useful battle tactic.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    264. Re:It's for the children! by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending monitoring of book purchases/borrows or spyware-- just wanted to point out that removing all negative consequences is not a good thing. Some are necessary; some are unjust.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    265. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Get off your high horse. Those amendments relate to fundamental human rights, like eating, breathing and having sex. Anonymity when conducting a transaction with a public entity is far from such a right by anyone sane person's definition.

    266. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      No one has ever been charged, indicted, or convicted for reading books. The PATRIOT Act does not change this. You will not be prosecuted for your purchase from Amazon, and odds are next to non-existent that anyone would care if you were reading such a book at a library.

      The government is not so concerned with the trivial habits of its citizens that it will haul someone in for questioning because they were reading a book.

    267. Re:It's for the children! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Finally!!! I was wondering when this thread would be over... huzzah!!

    268. Re:It's for the children! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "If that's the case, what is the process for determining who is an "enemy combatant?"

      Ok, so I would ask you, why would you feel the need to comment when you admit YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT."

      Wow nice way to avoid the question, you should apply at Fox News as one of their "policy experts", you would fit in great.

    269. Re:It's for the children! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      Then why do they want the power to know what I am reading?

      If they don't care then why do they Need this power?

    270. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's look at the possible two scenarios:

      1. The Government is on a secret crusade against dissidents and aims to harass anyone found reading certain books. They also have a large, well-trained, and secret force analysing our political/social tendencies.

      2. They want to make it easier for law enforcement to gather evidence against people already under investigation.

      I have a much easier time believing #2 than #1. Then again, if I adjust my tin foil hat properly that could change.

    271. Re:It's for the children! by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      It probably is number 2, but I don't want to make it easier for it to become number 1, which the patriot act helps it become...

    272. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "So you're defending the assumption that the state's desire to keep secrets trumps an individual's right to a fair trial."

      So you're trotting out an inaccurate representation of what I said ij order to make your point. Congratulations, you have succumbed to the Straw Man fallacy. It's ok, smarter people than you do it.

      And to answer your attempt at a question, NO MORON I NEVER SAID STATE SECRETS TRUMP INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

      My point, which you intentionally missed in order to do your idiotic straw man thing, is that THE SAFETY OF AN OPERATIVE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

      Care to explain why the rights of an accused terrorist are somehow more important than the safety of an operative? Is your position that the operative is expendable as long as it's in the pursuit of an individual's civil rights? Funny how one life appears to be so much more important to you than another.

      Next time you decide to comment on my post, READ IT, then ask someone smarter than you to compose a response, because you sound like a jackass.

    273. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      While your points are valid, you chose the wrong CONTEXT.

      There is NO right to know you are being investigated. I don't know why you think there is, but since you do, it colors the rest of your comment.

      As in "this guy has no idea what the fuck he is talking about so I'll dismiss him as ignorant" colored.

      "so i'm not sure what venue you expect a complaint to be heard in"

      Well, where did you hear about these things? Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound claiming the abuses are covered up, then posting a link to an open website where you can read about them?

      I honestly believe you people INTENTIONALLY ignore reason in order to rant about percieved abuses.

    274. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      The slippery slope fallacy. Your ignorance of it outlines why you think the way you do.

      Look it up, you'll be just a tad smarter, and you'll have me to thank.

      "You think that we should all accept the government's assertions about this man without seeing any evidence to back it up whatsoever"

      And that's the Straw Man. Smarter still.

      "Now, what is to keep them from doing the same to anyone if they can do it to him?"

      Ah, slippery slope redux.

      You should have titled your post "LOGICAL FALLACIES 101"

    275. Re:It's for the children! by Golias · · Score: 1

      However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.

      And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?

      For starters, here's an obvious case:


      Jose Pidilla's rights may, indeed, have been violated, and you can perhaps make a case that treating him as an enemy combatant (just because he trained to kill Americans while overseas) is the wrong thing to do, especially when considering he's an American citizen... but that case has nothing to do with the PATRIOT act.

      Under international law, any enemy combatant not fighting is a uniformed soldier is engaging in activity which puts them outside the protection of the Geneva convention. He can be shot first thing tomorrow morning if the military decides keeping him alive serves no purpose.

      If PATRIOT was never passed, the Administration still could have done exactly the same thing, and PATRIOT was not invoked in any way by the state when arguing that he is to remain held.

      Meanwhile, not a single person has articulated a single case in their own words in which PATRIOT was used to violate anybody's constitutional rights, but three jokers moderated down my (obviously correct) point that people seem unable to do so until it vanished into -1 oblivion.

      It seems you people take our rights pretty seriously... except some of you can't seem to tolerate MY exercise of free expression.

      My point remains completely without effective contradiction: The PATRIOT Act (like RICO before it) are treading into dangerous waters, and as a good libertarian I would very much like to see some parts of it scaled back, either by Congressional revision or the courts, but a lot of people are hyping this as The End of Freedom, yet they simply can't point to a single case to bolster that point.

      The good news for you tin-foil hat types is that the House may have voted to extend, but it still needs to go through the Senate, where the general inclination from both parties seems much more aligned with correcting many of the more troublesome parts of the law.

      No need to move to the Netherlands (or wherever) just yet.

      On the other hand... I take that back. As soon as the PATRIOT Act is extended, jack-booted stormtroopers will be busting down your doors and hauling you all the way to Abu Ghraib to put you in the middle of a naked man-pyramid! Flee! Get out while you still can!

      I'll stay here to... um.. slow them down so you can escape... yeah, that's it. Hurry, now! Get on the boat! Quick, before Karl Rove has you sent to Cuba just because you checked out "Catcher in the Rye" at your county library last month!!!

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    276. Re:It's for the children! by Pollardito · · Score: 1
      While your points are valid, you chose the wrong CONTEXT. There is NO right to know you are being investigated. I don't know why you think there is, but since you do, it colors the rest of your comment.
      i find it hard to believe that you read the context, because i was responding to a post in which someone claimed that we'll know when these laws are being abused when we hear about it from the people being abused. since these laws relate to investigation, and by your own admission we have no right to know we're being investigated, it's unlikely that we'll hear about it from those being abused. my point that i was adding is that you're also not going to hear it from the courts (they're out of the loop) or the press (they have to file complaints to secret committees).
      Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound claiming the abuses are covered up, then posting a link to an open website where you can read about them?
      i actually posted a link to websites where you can read about the things that could be abused, there are very few instances of actual abuse that anyone can publish. most people look at the articles and claim that "well, just because they can be abused doesn't mean they are" and my point was that if they are being abused right now it'd difficult under the current system for anyone to know about it.
    277. Re:It's for the children! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      This can be taken too far-- suddenly you're eliminating the responsibility associated with the action itself. Some actions have rightfully "negative consequences"

      Which is why every society I'm aware of has laws defining "crimes" - actions which will lead to punitive action. Crimes are exact antithesis of rights - they are actions you are specifically forbidden to do, while rights are things you are specifically granted a right to do. You can't both grant someone a right to do something and, at the same time, decide to punish them for doing it. Not if you wish to have any logical consistency in your legal system, anyway...

      for example, should I be able to spread a rumour about ultranova sleeping with the moderators (just an example!) without being punished for it either directly or indirectly (lack of trust from others)?

      No. To the best of my knowledge, no law grants you a right to spread lies about me or anyone else. In fact, most legal system specifically declare such behaviour illegal and therefore an anthithesis of a right.

      On the other hand, if I actually was sleeping with the moderators (yuck !), why shouldn't you be allowed to say it ? If the truth about me is unflattering, that's hardly your fault, now is it ? And why shouldn't the others learn that moderations to my posts shouldn't be given as much credibility as other moderations ?

      --

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

    278. Re:It's for the children! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with the PATRIOT Act? Who has been jailed for their choice of reading materials?

      It has plenty to do with the post I was answering to. Namely, it tries to point out that granting someone a right to do something neccessarily leads to a right to do that something anonymously, since otherwise the right is just empty words.

      Whether anyone has been jailed for their choice of reading materials or not I don't know, and neither do you, for I doubt the US government would make noise about it. However, if your government is insisting on getting this information, then presumably they're going to use it for something; why else would they want it ?

      Finally, I must point out that there is more possible negative consequences than just prison sentences; for example, suppose the corporate overlords want to know if someone they're considering employing has read any book this particular overlord happens to disagree with ?

      --

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

    279. Re:It's for the children! by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      A few things you missed:
      - Rights are God-given, not granted by some government
      - Governments have a limited authority: they can't just make laws for whatever they want
      - You're agreeing with me about some actions ("crimes") having proper negative consequences

      --
      Luke-Jr
    280. Re:It's for the children! by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Had there not been a war, slavery would likely have dissolved without any bloodshed or bad feelings.

      Oh bullcrap. The *South started the war*.

    281. Re:It's for the children! by ifwm · · Score: 1

      This was to be expected. Whenever someone denounces one religion, some know nothing moron automatically assumes that it is an endorsement of anothe religion. In case you are wondering, YOU are that know nothing moron. Now, SHOW ME WHERE I SAID CHRISTIANITY IS BETTER. Do it. Show me. You won't be able to, because I am intelligent enough to understand that ALL religions are flawed, and I have said so. You on the other hand are clearly NOT bright enough to uderstand that by denouncing Islam, I am NOT supporting Christianity. If I could snap my fingers and do away with both, I would. "You can shut the fuck up now." You should have taken my advice, you would have avoided sounded ignorant. At least in this post.

    282. Re:It's for the children! by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      As for privacy concerns, remember than thanks to CCTV on the London underground, one of yesterday's attempted suicide bombers was caught and shot dead.

      Wow, don't you feel like a fucking idiot now? Now that, instead of killing a "potential terrorist" your asinine ideas have killed an innocent person? Do you think maybe it's best that you go back to that policy of prohibiting your dipshit cops from carrying weapons?

      Isn't it frustrating that all your attempts to be a fucking man-of-action do-gooder dipshit end up causing more harm than good? Or does the outcome of your actions even register? Do you get a sick perverted pleasure from fucking up people's lives, even? Do you Brits need more mental hospitals over there or something?

      The next time a US law is discussed on Slashdot, you Brits should just shut the fuck up and mind you own God damn business. You, personally, however, are getting an honored spot on my foes list for this and other recent trolls.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    283. Re:It's for the children! by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Let's see: multiple bombs had been set off on the underground the day before. The armed police confronted a man wearing bomb-concealing clothes. What did he do? Surrender? No. He RAN ONTO THE FUCKING TRAIN. What does any remotely-sane policeman do in this situation? Say 'On your way son, don't set off any bombs please.' No, they shoot the fucker dead.

      A relative of the man was on TV this morning being interviewed by phone. The interviewer asked him why he ran onto the train. The line went dead. Says it all really.

      Brits should just shut the fuck up

      Great, racism.

      You, personally, however, are getting an honored spot on my foes list for this and other recent trolls.

      Yeah, Slashdot isn't really a place for people with opinions which differ from the groupthink/hivemind. Notice how anyone who says anything remotely interesting or controversial is censored/moderated.

    284. Re:It's for the children! by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Great, racism.

      Actually, it's called nationalism.

      Racism, on the other hand, is what has prevented my country, twice in the last century, from letting other, more competent nations run rampant over your miserable, pompous little island.

      So, forgive me if I don't give a shit what your views are on my country's laws.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    285. Re:It's for the children! by Creedo · · Score: 1

      If only I had noticed this earlier. I feel compelled to continue a dead thread.

      What makes you competent to judge that?
      Just facts.
      Fact 1 - he is an American citizen.
      Fact 2 - he is being held without being charged with a crime or given a trial.

      If you accept that behavior in your government, I judge you to be insane. I am a dyed in the wool, gung ho, staunch conservative who voted for Bush both times. This is not a knee-jerk, liberal response. If they have evidence that they can use against him, use it, and start the trial. If not, let him go. No middle ground. No "secret" information, no sealed military tribunals. If you don't have evidence, or are unwilling to reveal it publically, tough. I would rather a dozen guilty Padillas went free than to give our government, or any future permutation of that government, the right to hold its citizens without trial. If you cannot see how that is a bad thing, then you are either insane or you are willfully stupid, trusting human nature(especially groupthink) to do the right thing in spite of ALL of history.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    286. Re:It's for the children! by laird · · Score: 1

      "9/11 was not an act of war either"

      "Who said it was? It was terrorism. Al-qaida is not a nation, it's a terrorist network towards which a mad regime was sympathetic."

      Who said it was an act of war? George Bush (Junior), for one.

      I agree about the mad regime, as well. Of course, after we took out the Taliban, unfortunately we decided that we didn't care about fighting the people who attacked us, so instead of pursuing Al Queda and Bin Laden, we started on an inexplicable "war on terrorism" and started attacking semi-random targets around the globe for being "terrorists" while allying with most of the more obvious sources of terrorism (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, who created the Taliban, and more generally funded virulent Wahabi anti-americanism are our allies in the "war on terror"). I think we'd have been better off staying focused on tracking down the people who actually attacked us and doing something about them.

    287. Re:It's for the children! by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      By this definition, 9/11 was not an act of war either

      Clearly!

      Personally, I agree -- declaring a "war on terrorism" is as stupid as declaring a "war on inflation" or "war on poverty". It's meaningless to declare war on a vague concent (sic)...

      I could not have put it better myself. Except that I would not call it "meaningless", I would call it 'marketing.'

      But if you're suggesting that right-wing militia and McVeigh's blowing up a building was "mass murder" while Al Queda's blowing up the WTC was "war"

      Given the definition of 'war' I gave, how could I possibly be saying that? But there is a difference.

      The difference is that the islamic terrorists are often harder to get at. Given they have received shelter from nations like Afghanistan, the position of such nations comes close to being warlike. Even those of us who thought the Iraq debacle was unadulterated madness from the start, regarded the invasion of Afghanistan as justified in the wake of the attack on the WTC &tc., and the refusal of the Taliban regime to hand over those suspected of responsibility.

      Ultimately, however, terrorism can't be fought as if you were fighting a war. The capture of Falujiah did not diminish terrorist activity in Iraq, despite the best hopes of those who believed it would. Rather than being a military endeavour, coming to grips with terrorism is a police matter. We need the FBI (or whatever your preferred police agency is) to lead this, with the marines there on call, to get those who are otherwise too difficult to get at.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    288. Re:It's for the children! by bhirsch · · Score: 1
      It has plenty to do with the post I was answering to. Namely, it tries to point out that granting someone a right to do something neccessarily leads to a right to do that something anonymously, since otherwise the right is just empty words.

      Absolutely not. We have no right to anonymity when bearing arms, driving an automobile, or entering many public buildings. These are all rights we have been granted.

      Whether anyone has been jailed for their choice of reading materials or not I don't know, and neither do you, for I doubt the US government would make noise about it. However, if your government is insisting on getting this information, then presumably they're going to use it for something; why else would they want it ?

      So in other words, because it can not be proved that it did not happen, it must have happened? And, of course they do things with the information. It isn't recorded for prosperity. Nonetheless, their rationale that the information will/would be used in further investigation of someone already under suspicion is quite plausible and reasonable.

      If you really believe in this secret conspiracy theory, do you really think it would be made public via a congressional bill? If I wanted to pick on the dissidents, I don't think I would ask Congress for permission.

      Finally, I must point out that there is more possible negative consequences than just prison sentences; for example, suppose the corporate overlords want to know if someone they're considering employing has read any book this particular overlord happens to disagree with ?

      Protecting the employment of a Communist sell-out who wants to work for the "corporate overlords" is far from a practical consideration. Keep in mind that in most states, any employer can fire any employee for almost any reason, excluding criteria such as age, sex, and race. If an employer wants to fire someone for their political views, most states have no laws prohibiting them.

    289. Re:It's for the children! by wpiman · · Score: 1

      Ok- but what about the right to gossip then? I would be invading someone's privacy in that case?

    290. Re:It's for the children! by laird · · Score: 1

      "Ultimately, however, terrorism can't be fought as if you were fighting a war. The capture of Falujiah did not diminish terrorist activity in Iraq, despite the best hopes of those who believed it would. Rather than being a military endeavour, coming to grips with terrorism is a police matter. We need the FBI (or whatever your preferred police agency is) to lead this, with the marines there on call, to get those who are otherwise too difficult to get at. "

      Thanks for elaborating!

    291. Re:It's for the children! by bamberg · · Score: 1

      I would think that gossip, in and of itself, would be speech. The means by which you acquire the information that you are spreading might violate the person's privacy (or it might not).

    292. Re:It's for the children! by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Well, I imagine whoever built the Eisenhower Interstate System had to have a huge budget, and fifty years on it seems to be working pretty well.

    293. Re:It's for the children! by a.different.perspect · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's so wrong it's not even funny. Slavery was the fundamental issue dividing the United States. It was a political issue from the Consitution through to the Missouri Compromise and all the way through the 1840s and 1850s. The southern states seceded precisely to preserve slavery, which they suspected a Republican President would restrict (and perhaps even abolish). Davis and other Confederate politicians can be quoted on many occasions saying that the right to hold slaves was the fundamental principle of the Confederacy distinguishing it from the Union. And then the Confederacy begun the war by attacking Fort Sumter. As it was actually the south that started it - more broadly by seceding and more immediately by attacking the north - the victors were in no position to need to justify the war.

      No, it was much of the south that tried to weasel out of its earlier convictions and redefine the nature of its behaviour. One effort was to claim that the states seceded to protect state's rights. But the only state's right that concerned the south - according to their own political discourse at the time - was the right to keep slaves. Of subsequent importance was the right to secede from the Union (so as to keep slaves), but that that right was tested was a consequence of the war, not a cause of it. Equally idiotic is the idea that the north and south were driven apart by economic differences, namely that the north were coldly industrial and the south were romantically agrarian (as it is often worded). One problem with that theory is that the north was in fact overwhelmingly agrarian, so the notion of it being fundamentally different on those terms is a fallacious one. The other is that examining economic differences only reenforces the conviction that slavery, and the differing approaches of the north and the south to it (and hence to labour and capitalism, and by extension to industralization), was the central economic difference. It was a difference so profound that the two sides separated by it seemed completely irreconcilable. So then we come to your brand of "revisionism" - that the war was unnecessary, slavery would have passed away peacefully and it was those nasty northerners that gone evilly started that dang war. Except, of course, the northerners didn't start the war. It was the southerners who clung on to slavery, remember? And those southerners who considered slavery worth fighting and dying for, those southerners who recognized, rightly, that slavery was the basis of their economy and way of life, proved through their blood and sweat that they were unwilling to let it pass away, peacefully or not. There is, rather, no evidence whatsoever to suggest any such demise would have occured; there is a mountain, in the form of the war, arguing for southern resolution against it. All three approaches to revisionism can be reduced to the same tendency: to downplay the importance of slavery in the antebellum and Confederate south. That is, as I pointed out before, particularly amusing considering how noisily and repeatedly the Confederacy used slavery and its importance as a rallying cry. You'd also have to be incredibly stupid to look at the southern lifestyle before the Civil War and doubt that it was centered around, and that it depended on, slavery; it was, in fact, the core of southern identity, and showed no inclination of harmlessly halting.

      All of which is disregarded by you. I honestly can't fathom how people can be so uneducated and unthinking as to believe such overtly wrong "revisionism". It resembles Nazi sympathizing and Holocaust denial. To be quite clear: the Civil War occured primarily, and almost singularly, because of slavery. The south wanted to preserve it. The north wanted, initially, to reunite the union that had been split by slavery and prevent the spread of slavery to new states; later, it wished to emancipate the slaves. Please try not to be so ill-informed next time you speak.

    294. Re:It's for the children! by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      If you're suggesting that right-wing militia and McVeigh's blowing up a building was "mass murder" while Al Queda's blowing up the WTC was "war" I'd be curious to know what the difference is.

      I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm just wondering how much support one nation has to give a group of foriegn rebels before that supporting nation should be considered as having declared war.

      Does the Taliban's support of Bin Ladin and their sympathy for him mean that they're responsible for his actions? During the cold war, we were trying to avoid a 'hot war' with Russia so we confined ourselves to proxy wars. But when another nation without nukes gives rebels aid and comfort on its soil, and the rebels attack America it seems Washington wants to be able to go after the source.

      And yes, this isn't 'fair.' Just like it isn't 'fair' that some nations can have nukes and others can't. I don't think fair is what the US is going for.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  5. Fear Wins Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe the terrorists have already won.

    1. Re:Fear Wins Again by FredAkbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was going to say the same thing. The terrorists have won again, not because they killed 50 people with some bus bombings, or 2,000 people with a few planes, but because their random acts of murder make our leaders think that they can make the world a better place by taking away freedoms.

      Our governments have taken away far more freedoms from us than the terrorists ever have. Good job, terrorists: mission accomplished.

    2. Re:Fear Wins Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because that's what the suicide bombings were about. They want our library records searched and our phones tapped.

      And here I was thinking, all along, that they were a bunch of fucking nut-jobs who wanted the whole world to wind the clock back to 800 AD, covering women's faces and making us all bow to Mecca five times a day. No, this was about library books from the beginning man! How could I have been so blind!!!

      (That was sarcasm.)

      Retard.

      (That was not.)

    3. Re:Fear Wins Again by antic · · Score: 1


      Our leaders aren't trying to make the world a better place, they trying to gain more power and control for themselves and their countries at the expense of others.

      --
      'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
    4. Re:Fear Wins Again by netsharc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well consider it like this AC, if I ask you which country monitors their citizens' library records and phone calls, would you say a) it's some Middle Eastern regime, or b) the US?

      These laws have brought the US one step closer to being the sort of nation that is closer to "Utopia according to Bin Laden". Still liking it?

      When religious zealots run the country appoint one of themselves to the Supreme Court and cry and whine about a nipple on television, it gets one step closer to Bin-Laden-Land, albeit with the Lord Almighty instead of Allah, but heck I don't see the difference.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    5. Re:Fear Wins Again by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Right, because that's what the suicide bombings were about. They want our library records searched and our phones tapped.

      Well, they hate our freedom, and although I am an advocate of diplomacy over war, the US gov't is just going about it all wrong.

      Right now, in the US, we're on track to just keep on losing freedoms, since no one's bothered to go and ask the Terrorists (who also appearantly hate freedom) "Okay, WHICH freedoms, specifically, do you hate?" The dismantling of freedom, albeit slow, does show initiative in diplomacy, but this sort of "groping in the dark" method of diplomacy just won't work without more communication.

      Unfortunately, until both sides get on the same page with the specifics, and actually start talking things out which freedoms "they" hate, we'll continue to see this situation... scattershot freedom-reduction on the U.S. end, and continued aggressive action on the Terrorist end.

      If the US and Terrorists could just sit down, communicate, and agree on which freedoms they hate, uniformly (of course, compromises would be made), the problem could be swept up much more quickly and efficiently.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    6. Re:Fear Wins Again by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Interesting


      You make one serious mistake.

      You imply that "our leaders" are merely mistaken in taking the actions of terrorists as justifications for removing rights. You imply that our "leaders" are merely incompetent.

      Trust me - our "leaders" know goddamn well what they're doing this for - and it has NOTHING to do with some random Arab fanatics. That's only the cover story, the excuse. And it's likely they deliberately created the cover story as well, certainly by their policies in the Middle East for the last seventy five years.

      The nature of the state is to constantly expand its powers until "everything that is not mandatory is forbidden."

      I've described the basic concept of the state many times:

      "You give us everything you have and do exactly what we tell you to do, and we'll protect you from the bad people on the inside and outside of our borders - and if there aren't any bad people, we'll make some."

      That is the exact essence of the state and every single solitary person who works in it. It stems from the human primate hierarchy which in turn is based entirely on the fear of death. Which means every single human being has to tear down everybody above him and stomp on everybody below him, in order to please his primitive notions of deities who might then grant him more life.

      In other words, humans are apes with a slightly better ability to conceptualize and no more control over their emotional states than a chimp.

      Nothing but Transhumanism and the appropriate enabling technologies can change this.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    7. Re:Fear Wins Again by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting
      That's absolutely right. The politicians jump up and down about how the terrorists hate freedom, then turn around and take away freedom in the name of preventing terrorism. It's very hard to not see the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act as being utter proof that terrorist tactics work---and work well.

      The scary thing is that they're out there watching our government's reaction, gloating, and planning their next wave of attacks to see what sort of reactionary fascism they can goad our government into next. Not only did the terrorists win, but our government keeps encouraging them by doing exactly what they want---whittling away the freedoms of the United States through the politics of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, all in the name of combatting terrorism.

      PATROIT act tactics have not worked in Britain against the IRA, or in Israel against various terror groups. They won't work in the United States, either. Unfortunately, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I fear that the American public does not learn from history. If that is the case, may God help us all.

      In any case, congratulations, Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, et al. Never in the history of the world has anyone caved to terrorism so thoroughly and completely as the United States in the wake of 9/11. You should all be ashamed, and more to the point, you should all be impeached.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Fear Wins Again by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      Well, they hate our freedom, and although...

      Yeah, and that bully beat you up at school because he was envious of your intellect. Don't make me laugh.

    9. Re:Fear Wins Again by p2sam · · Score: 1

      Parent is an unpatriotic terroist!!! Get him!!

    10. Re:Fear Wins Again by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      It's very hard to not see the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act as being utter proof that terrorist tactics work---and work well.

      Ah, the chicken and the egg. So terrorist tactics work? Or does the US government consider it simply to be the next practical "enemy" the American public can be rallied against? Face it, the best way of diverting attention from what's rotten within is by pointing a finger elsewhere and screaming really loud. Whether it's the commies, the Jews, the Arabs, it doesn't really matter. All one needs is a good example of a single rotten egg and from that day forward simply blame all that is wrong on the basket. Heck, even the rotten egg is a luxury. It's what happens when people act like sheep.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    11. Re:Fear Wins Again by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      [terrorists are] out there watching our government's reaction, gloating, and planning their next wave of attacks to see what sort of reactionary fascism they can goad our government into next.

      This is the "they hate us becasue we're free" claim I heard after 9/11. Really, do you believe al Qaeda suicide bombers are giving their lives because they want to remove your freedoms? They may well find your lifestyle repugnant, but what they want to change is US foreign policy; support of the Saudi royal family, Israel, etc. They are probably quite pleased with the occupation of Iraq for reasons which are obvious. But what the US does within its own borders is of no importance to them.

    12. Re:Fear Wins Again by tsotha · · Score: 1
      The scary thing is that they're out there watching our government's reaction, gloating, and planning their next wave of attacks to see what sort of reactionary fascism they can goad our government into next.

      You have a rather limited view of AQ's goals. They aren't trying to goad our government into reactionary facism. They're goal is to destroy our civilization and replace it with a Taliban-style Islamic theocracy. They're way less subtle than you think they are. Bin Laden himself has spelled this all out on tape.

      So it's quite an exageration to imply "they're winning" when our legal guarentees are pared a bit. If they "win" PATRIOT will seem like heaven.

    13. Re:Fear Wins Again by ifwm · · Score: 1

      When you point to ANYTHING of substance in my life that is changed by the PATRIOT act, I'll take comments like this seriously.

      But the truth is, you're a chicken-little.

      And save your idiotic "if it happens to them it could happen to you" garbage because all that demonstrates is your utter lack of knowledge of logical fallacies.

    14. Re:Fear Wins Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You know, after having read more than a dozen of your posts in this thread, I've noticed a pattern. It seems to me that you are simply flaming everybody with whom you disagree, insulting their intelligence, and claiming that they all have an utter lack of knowledge.

      The other pattern is that not once have you demonstrated your knowledge on any of these topics, nor have you done anything other than YELL at people.

      STFU and go take your medicine, little boy.

    15. Re:Fear Wins Again by thelexx · · Score: 1

      "This is the "they hate us becasue we're free" claim I heard after 9/11."

      No, it isn't. It is saying that due to their success at causing even greater and more permanent social damage as a follow on to their physical acts, they will engage in further physical acts.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    16. Re:Fear Wins Again by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      And here I was thinking, all along, that they were a bunch of fucking nut-jobs who wanted the whole world to wind the clock back to 800 AD, covering women's faces and making us all bow to Mecca five times a day.

      Where have you been? This is not what the terrorists want at all. They don't want the entire world to become Muslim. They just want to isolate themselves into one big Muslim empire that is completely void of Western Influence.

      P.S. Please turn off Fox News. I'm afraid you've become ill-informed because of it.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    17. Re:Fear Wins Again by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      They're goal is to destroy our civilization and replace it with a Taliban-style Islamic theocracy. They're way less subtle than you think they are. Bin Laden himself has spelled this all out on tape.

      Where do you people get this nonsense? Bin Laden never said that. Bin Laden's goal is to eliminate any Western Influence in the Arab world. He has not planned (at least exlpicitly) to take over the world and I think he is smart enough to realize that that is not possible.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    18. Re:Fear Wins Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      sarcasm
      n.

      1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
      2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm

    19. Re:Fear Wins Again by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      This is the "they hate us becasue we're free" claim I heard after 9/11."
      No, it isn't. It is saying that due to their success at causing even greater and more permanent social damage

      They only care about "social damage" in the US as it affects foreign policy. Terrorism is a means to an end (i.e. Islamic governments throughout the Middle East and Central Asia), not an end in itself.

    20. Re:Fear Wins Again by ltbarcly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you point to ANYTHING of substance in my life that is changed by the PATRIOT act, I'll take comments like this seriously. --ifwm

      When you point to ANYTHING of substance in my life that is changed by the HALOCAUST, I'll take comments like this seriously. --White Protestant in NAZI Germany

      No, they aren't on the same level of seriousness, but the logic applies equally in both statements.

      I hope you now see why you are wrong. What you are doing is called 'special pleading'. It demonstrates your utter lack of knowledge of logical fallacies.

    21. Re:Fear Wins Again by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1
      I think so, but it's an oversimplfication.

      If we pulled out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq today, I believe they'd find something else to justify their actions -- something like less defined like "cultural imperialism".

      Let's define $evil_thing, which could be porn, or hamburgers, or maybe even just women driving.

      So, $evil_thing anywhere near a Muslim, even in the middle of France, is now grounds for war, because of the corrosive and corruptive effects.

      So we remove all our $evil_things. But, there's TV and the Internet and word of mouth, and now there's the temptation of going to America and seeing $evil_thing!

      Religious nutjobs will justify what they want with anything.

      I'm not using this to justify anything. If anything, I think everything we've done so far is precisely the wrong thing to do.

      Am I the only one just not that scared of terror? My view is that the chance from getting from injured by terror is much less than getting into a car accident. Yet, I still drive daily. Come back to me when the terror kills more than heart disease, or cancer, or whatever causes people to really die en masse.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    22. Re:Fear Wins Again by tsotha · · Score: 1
      Where do you people get this nonsense?

      Sigh. I always hesitate to answer a question like that, since it's obvious you aren't actually looking for an answer. And where do you get off calling me "you people"? Is "you people" everyone who isn't a member of International ANSWER, or is it just me? Or is it some other grouping you can only see through tinfoil?

      What do you really think he means when he exhorts his followers to "establish the rule of God on Earth"? I realize he makes the comment in the context of "liberation", but this is reference to a Muslim's duty to convert or destroy all infidels everywhere.

      Bin Laden never said that. Bin Laden's goal is to eliminate any Western Influence in the Arab world. He has not planned (at least exlpicitly) to take over the world and I think he is smart enough to realize that that is not possible.

      That's only in the tape he made for western consumption. In the tapes and letters to his followers he doesn't make any mention of ending the jihad. I would dismiss out of hand any promises he makes non-Muslims, since by his reconing there's nothing wrong with lying to us if it provides a tactical advantage.

      The idea we will ever be able to peacefully coexist with his ilk is patently ridiculous. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the progenitor of modern Islamic terrorism, provided a theological basis for their struggle. It's a mismash of thousand-year-old grievances, literal interpretation of 7th century directives, and looney conspiracy theories. You can't make peace with that.

      If we were to withdraw completely from the Middle East today it would simply focus their attack on regaining all the land of the original Caliphate, which would include Spain and Southern Europe up to Vienna. If we gave them Europe they'd be back for more in a couple of years. This is the nature of fascism, which is the true nature of militant Islam. It's a fascist movement masquerading as a religion.

    23. Re:Fear Wins Again by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      I realize he makes the comment in the context of "liberation", but this is reference to a Muslim's duty to convert or destroy all infidels everywhere.

      Where do you get that idea from? It is not and never was a Muslim's duty to convert or destroy all infidels everywhere. Do you even know anything about Islam?

      In the tapes and letters to his followers he doesn't make any mention of ending the jihad.

      I don't see any evidence showing that bin Laden expects to take over the world either. You surely haven't given any.

      If we were to withdraw completely from the Middle East today it would simply focus their attack on regaining all the land of the original Caliphate, which would include Spain and Southern Europe up to Vienna

      This will never happen and you must be the one wearing a tin foil hat if you beleive it. Even if there was a significant amount of Muslims that wanted to do this (and there isn't) they still wouldn't have a chance.

      I'm not defending bin Laden, he's a scumbag, but he's certainly not capable of more than a few organized attacks against strategic targets. The simplest answer to all this is to apprehend the terrorists before they strike with good intelligence. Blowing up thousands of innocent people and taking away Americans civil liberties isn't going to get us anywhere. In fact we seemed to be doing a better job when that's where our heads were at. Several attempted attacks were thwarted with good intel and good police work.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    24. Re:Fear Wins Again by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      The terrorists have won again, not because they killed 50 people with some bus bombings, or 2,000 people with a few planes, but because their random acts of murder make our leaders think that they can make the world a better place by taking away freedoms.

      I disagree. The terrorists have won not because of that but because their actions led to different governments making steps in the direction that the terrorists wanted.
      (See recent withdrawals of troops from Iraq by different countries -- and no, it does not matter that they were announced before the London events, they are still what the terrorists actually wanted to happen anyway. Therefore, these radicals will perceive them as proof that their actions helped the change and therefore are a great reusable method of intervention in world politics.)

      No, I don't want citizens of different nations to continue killing civilians in countries with oil, I would want them out of Iraq tomorrow, all of them. But the way things are going right now unfortunately send a very encouraging signal to terrorist radicals.

    25. Re:Fear Wins Again by tsotha · · Score: 1
      Where do you get that idea from? It is not and never was a Muslim's duty to convert or destroy all infidels everywhere. Do you even know anything about Islam?

      Let's go right to the book, shall we? Sura 9:73:

      "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."
      That's the shortest and most direct, but there are many more if you care to look instead of blindly accepting that "Religion of Peace" garbage.

      This will never happen and you must be the one wearing a tin foil hat if you beleive it. Even if there was a significant amount of Muslims that wanted to do this (and there isn't) they still wouldn't have a chance.

      I never said they would succeed. My point is he's got a list of goals that's completely incompatible with my existance as a non-Muslim. I know that's a hard thing for secular hedonists in the West to understand, but just because we mostly sleep in on Sunday doesn't mean others don't take religion seriously enough to kill for it. Personally, as far as I'm concerned he can have Southern Europe, but we might as well oppose him now since conflict is inevitable.

      Now, I'm not trying to say that every Muslim takes every line in the Koran as seriously as Bin Laden, the same way not very many Christians believe touching shit is a sin just because it says so in the Bible. But Bin Laden, well, the world simply isn't big enough for fanatical Muslims and free non-Muslims.

      I'm not defending bin Laden, he's a scumbag, but he's certainly not capable of more than a few organized attacks against strategic targets

      At some point he'll be capable of a few organized nuclear attacks against heavily populated targets. It may be next year or five years hence, or maybe even twenty, but as far as I'm concerned our security apparatus better be up to snuff by then.

      The simplest answer to all this is to apprehend the terrorists before they strike with good intelligence. Blowing up thousands of innocent people and taking away Americans civil liberties isn't going to get us anywhere. In fact we seemed to be doing a better job when that's where our heads were at. Several attempted attacks were thwarted with good intel and good police work

      Oh, sure, we'd all love to go back to 9/10/2001 and just have the cops deal with this. But that's not how these kinds of wars are fought. To win a war against suicidal terrorists you have to be ready to do things you don't want to tell your grandkids about. You and I simply don't have any way of knowing how many attacks were prevented through PATRIOT, methods completely outside the law, or even methods that would get you a docket in the Hague. I'm all for using the court system whenever we can, but open trials and "charge 'em or set 'em loose" rules can be very damaging to successful intelligence gathering.

      Honestly, I don't know where, as a society, we need to draw the lines. But there's nothing in PATRIOT I can't live with given the threat.

      As far as the war is concerned, it's an attempt by the President to tilt the playing field in our favor. We won't know if it worked for another generation, but it seems like a more reasonable play than sending tomahawks here and there every time we have an attack.

    26. Re:Fear Wins Again by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."

      That's the shortest and most direct, but there are many more if you care to look instead of blindly accepting that "Religion of Peace" garbage.

      Like I said, you know nothing about Islam. I suppose I could just take quotes from the Bible that tell followers to stone someone to death and then we'd all beleive that Christianity is evil. Other than that I don't "blindly accept" Islam as a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. You are blindly accepting right-wing propoganda about Islam. All the major monotheistic religions have some whacko beliefs but at least the Koran was never supposed to be a literal book of God, unlike the Bible. If you actaully want to learn something about Islam I would suggest reading the book "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong.

      Oh, sure, we'd all love to go back to 9/10/2001 and just have the cops deal with this. But that's not how these kinds of wars are fought.

      You are so naive. That is how we dealt with this before (FBI not regular cops) and we actually stopped a lot of potentially bad things from happening. How can you possibley ignore this fact. I don't see how you can support the present actions here and abroad when they have accomplished nothing.

      I'm all for using the court system whenever we can, but open trials and "charge 'em or set 'em loose" rules can be very damaging to successful intelligence gathering.

      You are missing the point again. Not charging suspected terrorists is even worse. It's worse for our society. It's worse for our civil liberties. I guess our repsonse to fascism is more fascism.

      As far as the war is concerned, it's an attempt by the President to tilt the playing field in our favor. We won't know if it worked for another generation, but it seems like a more reasonable play than sending tomahawks here and there every time we have an attack.

      Let me save you the time of waiting this out. It was a terrible mistake to go to Iraq. Do you know how many suicide bombers there are in Iraq? Do you know how many there were before the war? Our presence has actually killed more people during our time there than Saddam's regime. Oh I wonder why they hate us. It doesn't matter though, we'll pull out once the place disintegrates into civil war.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    27. Re:Fear Wins Again by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I think so, but it's an oversimplfication. If we pulled out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq today, I believe they'd find something else to justify their actions -- something like less defined like "cultural imperialism".

      I reallly doubt that. Choosing to become a suicide bomber needs a much stronger motivation than disliking Mcdonalds or Levi jeans.

    28. Re:Fear Wins Again by tsotha · · Score: 1
      Like I said, you know nothing about Islam. I suppose I could just take quotes from the Bible that tell followers to stone someone to death and then we'd all beleive that Christianity is evil. Other than that I don't "blindly accept" Islam as a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace. You are blindly accepting right-wing propoganda about Islam.

      So you say - I wonder who's really swallowing the propaganda here. If it really is a religion of peace maybe someone should point that out to the Muslims, as the don't seem to understand.

      You are so naive. That is how we dealt with this before (FBI not regular cops) and we actually stopped a lot of potentially bad things from happening. How can you possibley ignore this fact. I don't see how you can support the present actions here and abroad when they have accomplished nothing.

      Who's being naive? As far as I'm aware the FBI only stopped one group in New York after the first WTC bombing. There's no way the FBI can be everywhere at once - I'd rather the fight takes place in the Middle East than New York.

      You are missing the point again. Not charging suspected terrorists is even worse. It's worse for our society. It's worse for our civil liberties. I guess our repsonse to fascism is more fascism.

      No, you are missing the point. We're at war - these aren't ordinary crimes. In previous wars enemy spies and saboteurs were tried by the military. Civilian trials simply aren't set up to take national security into consideration.

      Let me save you the time of waiting this out. It was a terrible mistake to go to Iraq.

      You don't know that any more than supporters of the war think it's been a smashing success. Iraq will end up a stable democracy, the only question is what the cost is in terms of blood and money. The idea the country will descend into civil war is patently ridiculous, as there's no indication that's in the cards despite the hopes of the French media. As far as us bugging out... well, that would be a tragedy, but I'm optimistic that won't happen. Certainly it would be a grave mistake.

    29. Re:Fear Wins Again by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      As far as I'm aware the FBI only stopped one group in New York after the first WTC bombing.

      You're just not very aware then are you.

      We're at war - these aren't ordinary crimes. In previous wars enemy spies and saboteurs were tried by the military. Civilian trials simply aren't set up to take national security into consideration.

      I've heard it all before. We had a name for people with your ideas. They were called fascists.

      Iraq will end up a stable democracy, the only question is what the cost is in terms of blood and money. The idea the country will descend into civil war is patently ridiculous, as there's no indication that's in the cards despite the hopes of the French media.

      Wow you are uninformed. The Kurds have had their own government already. Sunni Muslims have been targeted since Saddam was toppled. Do you not think this is at least a possible precursor to a civil war? The Kurds and the Sunni Muslims had more autonomy under Saddam's regime, do you think they will settle for being governed by a the Shiite majority? It's obvious that the Sunni Muslims are already not happy, and it's not likely the Kurds will be satisfied when their laws are disregarded.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    30. Re:Fear Wins Again by tsotha · · Score: 1
      You're just not very aware then are you

      In other words, you think I'm wrong but you don't have any facts to back it up. You could have just said so.

      I've heard it all before. We had a name for people with your ideas. They were called fascists.

      You need to crack your history book. As Oliver Homes said "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact." If you really think what our government (or what I advocate) is doing amounts to fascism, you are woefully historically ignorant. Go back to school, or, if you're already there, please take a history class so you don't annoy people who know what they're talking about.

      Wow you are uninformed. The Kurds have had their own government already. Sunni Muslims have been targeted since Saddam was toppled. Do you not think this is at least a possible precursor to a civil war? The Kurds and the Sunni Muslims had more autonomy under Saddam's regime, do you think they will settle for being governed by a the Shiite majority? It's obvious that the Sunni Muslims are already not happy, and it's not likely the Kurds will be satisfied when their laws are disregarded.

      Well, it would be what you call a "democratic republic". Perhaps you've heard of another? The idea is Iraq would't have all decisions made at the federal level, but by province or locally. That's how you can get disparate populations like, say, New York and Utah to live in the same country without killing each other. Obviously you haven't bothered to learn anything about how the new constitution is shaping up. But then, you don't know anything about your own country, so I'm not surprised.

    31. Re:Fear Wins Again by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      In other words, you think I'm wrong but you don't have any facts to back it up. You could have just said so.

      In 1999 alone 7 acts of terrorism were prevented by the FBI. Do some actual research before you post. You look like a fool when you do otherwise.

      Well, itterrorist arrests fbi would be what you call a "democratic republic". Perhaps you've heard of another? The idea is Iraq would't have all decisions made at the federal level, but by province or locally. That's how you can get disparate populations like, say, New York and Utah to live in the same country without killing each other

      If you even think that is a reasonable comapirson I will kindly ask you to lay of the meds. The differences between New Yorkers and people from Utah are not even in the same realm of the differences between the Shiite Muslims, the Sunni Muslims, and the Kurds. Maybe you should take a history lesson.

      Obviously you haven't bothered to learn anything about how the new constitution is shaping up. But then, you don't know anything about your own country, so I'm not surprised.

      The same constitution that attempts to implement religious morality as law? The same constitution that saw two of its framers, who happen to be Sunni, killed? Are we talking about the same constitution?

      Obviously you haven't bothered to learn anything about how the new constitution is shaping up. But then, you don't know anything about your own country, so I'm not surprised.

      That's an odd opinion coming from someone who wants to disregard the constitution in favor of martial law to obtain a means to an artificial end.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
  6. Homer said it best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    D'oh!

  7. Conspiracy theories anyone? by amigabill · · Score: 1

    So, how many tinfoil hat types do we have wondering if the London thing today was a staged engouragment to pass the bill? :)

    1. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by stimpleton · · Score: 1


      Probably the same amount that found it curious that the first attack might have been done to distract the G8 summit away from poverty like a $20 street hooker waving "Yoo-hoo, boys!" to some sailors in a port town.

      This terror thing needs to be tangible to sell it to the people.
      It needed specific actions, and specific names to to give the whole thing crediability. London did that.

      You can only peddle theories and non-entities for so long.

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    2. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be a tinfoil hat type to suspect that those who want more power(Bush, Blair etc.) and not "moozlim ayrab terrists" did this. Any reasonable person should suspect it.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    3. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any reasonable person should suspect it.

      Any paranoid person, maybe.

    4. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by Xoro · · Score: 1

      "Moozlim ayrab terrists" don't want' more power?

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    5. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by bombastinator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought about it. My theory went that they had real terrorist do it by getting ahold of the communications system the cell was using and co opting their controller. It has been a classic technique in almost every war the US and Israel have fought since WWII. the 1969 war with Egypt was a classic example. See who says Bush had to do it? This way we get even more shadowy groups involved! 8D

      So we got the CIA and Mossad, Can anyone come up with a third gunman? It is traditional.

    6. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, probably a CIA exercise.

      I was at a TV station display at our state fair last year watching the news. Guy next to says, "You know they killed Paul Wellstone." I 'hmmmmed" sagely and said, "You know, they just might have."

      It's my policy. These warmongering liars have killed so many people, stolen so many billions and they've irreparably crippled the foundations of our republic. They've turned respect for truth to dust and dropped us down the rabbit hole of a psychotic nightmare. I've decided it's all fair game in return. Maybe in a couple hundred years tomorrow's Suetonius will report the rumour that Cheney believed his heart would be repaired by snapping a kitten's neck nightly and ripping its neck open with his bare teeth to drink the blood spurting from its still beating heart.

      Probably as illustrative of the guy's black soul as any anecdotal legends about Tiberius or Caligula.

    7. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      Most of all, they want the west to get out of their homelands, stop trying to steal their natural resources (oil), and stop trying to impose western culture on them. They like their own cultures just fine. Since they cannot raise a conventional army, and meet the western powers on the field of battle, they resort to desperate things like terrorism. It is the same in Northern Ireland. Terrorism is the third world's answer to the first world's imperialism. For terrorism to go away, imperialism must go away.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    8. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by Xoro · · Score: 1

      But wait, in your previous post, you suggested it was Bush & Blair that "did this". Now you're saying it won't stop until imperialism goes away.

      Are you saying Bush & Blair bombed London because of their outrage over imperialism?

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    9. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all I don't necessarily think it was "staged". Although that might be the case, "staged", means they took part in setting it up. Even though there has been evidence of the gov and/mil wanting to stage FAKE incidents in the past, personally, I tend to lean more toward "They let it happen.". Whatever the case, I thought the latest was to keep the Brits involved and on the ground in Iraq. Especially seeing as how more and more of their citizens, as well as their military officials, are becoming increasingly fed up and want out of Iraq. Looks like not only that they will stay (and quiet some of the protest) but we get the added bonus of renewing the Un-Patriot Act without much coverage (since the focus is on London) and they get more inertia behind enacting their own version of the Un-patriot Act.

      This is all well aside from the fact that it helps take some of the focus away from Libby and Rove as well; one or both of which may in the future be charged with perjury, obstructing justice and/or making false statements to an FBI agent.

      Remember when we had all kinds of officials running around saying, "We never would have thought about someone using a plane as a weapon"?What about Sam Byck(1974)? What about all the communications between the (g hadists)? What about the daily briefing What about the FBI memo? What about the CIA memo (even the washington times covered that one)?

      "Coincidence is like a rubber band. Stretch it too far and it snaps." - Roger Zelazny
      "If you do something once, people will call it an accident. If you do it twice, they call it a coincidence. But do it a third time and you've just proven a natural law." - Grace Murray Hopner

    10. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by bombastinator · · Score: 1

      conspiracy theory is like taffy. The more you pull it the better it tastes! Personally I was hoping for Croatian mafia or something. Can we work Elvis into it maybe?

    11. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Too bad the KGB went outta business, eh?

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    12. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      They like their own cultures just fine.

      Well, the people in charge do anyway. You can just ignore the whining from the hoi polloi (the poor people, the women, etc) when you ask them how they like their own culture.

      Not that gives anyone the right to go "liberate" them by force, but saying that such cultures are universally satisfactory to their constituents is not a valid argument.

    13. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's weird that the CIA didn't have the balls to kill civilians this time, they've done that in the past so why stop now?

    14. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " conspiracy theory is like taffy. The more you pull it the better it tastes! Personally I was hoping for Croatian mafia or something. Can we work Elvis into it maybe?"

      Elvis is dead. Extra terrestrials are not visiting our planet.

      If you had told people in 1962 that something like operation northwoods was actually being contemplated by the joint chiefs of staff, how do you think they would have reacted at the time?

      Probably something like -
      "Just another silly conspiracy theory."

    15. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by jakupovic · · Score: 1

      I hope not Elvis but How about Bosnian Mafia :)

      Also I would like to submit my .sig as a relevant comment on the discussion at hand.

      --
      You always point your finger at the bad guy, but what if the bad guy points his finger at you?
    16. Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? by tokabola · · Score: 1

      The Vatican?

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
  8. Talkin' bout a revolution by Alien+Being · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Dem's sound bite on this is that they support the extension, but they have some "concerns" about civil liberties. Gee, thanks a shitload for giving us absolutely nowhere to turn to for sanity in this country. I apologize to the few honest politicians left out there for saying that the entire system is fucked.

    They're also trying to make hay by criticizing the war in Iraq. But where the fuck were they before we, for the first time in history, started a war where none already existed?

    Fuck you, Bill Clinton, for demeaning the office of President in such a way that infinitely corrupt GW could trick a bunch of right wing zealots to vote for him despite the pain he has caused.

    1. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      simple! move to Canada !;)

    2. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Just beware... somewhere in the 300+ pages of patriot act it saids in tiny size 1 WingDing Fonts, that Bush can come over your house and have a republican party any time he wants.

      Honest politican wha? When are they going to launch an MTV version of politician-real-world so people know wtf is really going on.

    3. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a deep breath, sit down, pick up the phone and call your local community college for an Anger Management class.

    4. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      Exactly. If Dems don't like it, don't vote for it. Fucking idiots. Makes me want to enter politics.

    5. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Fuck that, I'm managing my anger at this situation just fine, thank you.

    6. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Informative

      My Rep voted against it. How did your reps vote?

      If they voted differently than you had wished, pick up the phone tomorrow, and let them know. Tell people you meet. Do something. Don't just bitch on slashdot.

      (Unless you can't vote in the US, at which point bitching is about all you can do about this latest vote.)

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    7. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by plughead · · Score: 1
      Fuck you, Bill Clinton, for demeaning the office of President in such a way that infinitely corrupt GW could trick a bunch of right wing zealots to vote for him despite the pain he has caused.


      Yeah, all that peace and prosperity must have really pissed 'em off...

      --
      If a giant oil company wanted an abortion, would W's head explode?
    8. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Bush can come over your house..."

      I'll have a bowl of pretzels ready for him to choke on.

    9. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      My Rep sucks. That is it. I may either run against him or support a Dem. Either way, I may actually find a job that doesn't require a belief in Jesus (love red states).

    10. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      I hear Jim Lahey has Julian's trailer up for sale. Maybe I'll go into the shopping cart business with good ole Bubs.

    11. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

      I'm quite surprised. My rep was one of the few Republicans that voted against the bill.

      --
    12. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      The party breakdown for extending the Patriot Act was:

      Yea-
      43 democrats
      214 republicans

      Nay-
      159 democrats
      12 republicans

      It's fun to blame the politicians, but ultimately you have to blame the people and the political climate where people will be deluged by ads next election season calling them "soft on terrorism! so-and-so voted to help The Terrorists hurt Our Children!" The problem is the politicians who are unable to counter this and the voters who are dumb enough to believe it in the first place.

      Also the article mentions that an amendment requiring the FBI Director to personally approve any library or bookstore search passed 402-26. Cute.

    13. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Well only 43 out of 200 Democrats voted to renew it. Mainstream news is whitewashing this as a bill with bipartisan support and downplaying complaints as "concerns". I don't buy it for a second.

      Congressional Democrats shoulda had a spine in '03 about the Iraq War, but it wouldn't have made much difference. The shitstorm coming out about the faked intelligence (Downing Street Minutes, Karl Rove, Valerie Plame) make it pretty clear Bush denied the Legislative Branch any chance of giving "informed consent".

    14. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Both mine voted Aye :-(. So much for "Live Free or Die"...

    15. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When are they going to launch an MTV version of politician-real-world so people know wtf is really going on.
      Unfortunately, next summer.
    16. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      Er, which ones are my reps again? ;-)

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    17. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by BoldAndBusted · · Score: 1

      Terrible numbers in that vote:

      AYES:
      Republicants: 214
      Democants: 43
      TOTAL: 257

      NOES:
      Republicants: 14
      Democants: 156
      TOTAL: 171

      Not Voting:
      Republicants: 3
      Democants: 3

      So, by my arithmatic, had the 43 Dems who voted YEAH! instead voted HELL NO!, and one more Dem showed up, it would have failed passage. Of course, if the non-voting members didn't show up, it would have been a tie.

      Why are the Democants STILL so spineless? (Well, not my Democantic Reps, but, still...) Hell, there were some stand-up Republicants voting HELL NO!

      Yeah, what a dream.

    18. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Call him tomorrow and thank him for his dissent! Since he voted against the party line, he will immediately lose favor in the eyes of the Party leadership, who will probably push for another Rupublican to take over his spot.

      We need more Republicans who can fight the party machine.

    19. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      But where the fuck were they before we, for the first time in history, started a war where none already existed?


      Um, for the _second_ time... go read up about the War of 1812 (you know, the one where Canadians burnt down the White House?)
      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    20. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by KillShill · · Score: 1

      and where might we find these "few honest politicians"?

      i'd say we look on mars, a good a place as any.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    21. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      I could almost consider unregistering to vote due to my stupid state laws. No privacy. People have access to voter registration information here.

      It is so difficult to find who voted for and against certain bills on the government website. Thanks for posting that.

    22. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by IOOOOOI · · Score: 1
      Absafuckinloutely!!! Show your support for your Reps / Senators when you agree with thier vote! Show your disappointment when they vote in ways that are bad for you.

      Part of the reason the American government is so broken is that the vast majority of citizens only respond with negative feedback. There is a behemoth which feeds off that by seeking these reactions to use when it needs something. This behemoth survives equally well on positive feedback, but if that's not available it will gladly consume the negative, and even cultivate controversey to enrich the crop if it must.

      The balance of power starts with every citizen. If we quietly nod when things are peachy but voice only our objections, then the system will adapt accordingly.

      Learn the facts, vote, and give balanced feedback. IOW, get involved.

    23. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by uncqual · · Score: 1
      No privacy. People have access to voter registration information here.

      Umm... how could we have a trusted voting process if the list of registered voters is secret? Obviously this is not sufficient for a trusted voting process, but I believe it is necessary. If I look at the list and find that 10 dead guys are voting from a vacant lot, I can bring that up only if I can see the list.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    24. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Please pardon my ignorance, but:

      How do I pick mine out of there? I live in Washington.

      When I looked up "WA" on there, all I saw were people's who's names start with H.

      How do I read that table?

    25. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My delegate, Steny Hoyer, was someone I respected and admired. He even showed up at my Eagle scout ceremony, which is something I will never forget.

      Nor, unfortunately, will I forget this. I just sent him a letter, and I plan on following it up with a phone call:

      Because of your vote in favor of the USAPATRIOT Act, I will no longer vote in favor of you. Your vote, among with many others, is a sign of just how easily the terrorists have cowed us into submission. Our freedoms are tread upon in the name of security, and you do nothing to stop it.

      I remember how proud I was to see you at my Eagle Scout ceremony, and how I felt knowing that you cared about your constituents.

      Obviously I was wrong.

      Sincerely,
      Me


      Do the same.

    26. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I'm sick of the political junk mail I started receiving since I registered.

    27. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      Mine (Trent Franks, R-Az) voted for it.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    28. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by hhghghghh · · Score: 1

      Please phone your rep and let him know he did the right thing.

    29. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      Mine voted for it, to my great dismay.

      My only comfort is that I was not yet old enough to vote in the last election, so there's not much I could have done.

      Next time, though...

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
    30. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by David_W · · Score: 1
      How do I pick mine out of there?

      If they don't indicate the state your rep is from (well, even if they do really, since most states have lots of them), you have to know their last name. There's a search form on the front page.

    31. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      YEAH, BABY! Rick Boucher in the nay column.

      Sadly, both of my senators will (or have) confirmed yeah votes, the corporate/administration whores that thay are.

      BTW - if any party decides to put forward Mark Warner, current governer of Virginia up as a candidate, consider voting for him. He's about as middle of the road as you can get, and seems to have a decent head on his shoulders. He's not perfect, as by definition a politican can't be, but he's better than most.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    32. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You can find your representatives names and phone numbers by selecting your state here: http://clerk.house.gov/members/index.html

      Look up their votes on the parent post's list and call them to tell them what you think.

      All ten MA representatives just got thank you calls from me.

  9. Says Government to The People by DoctorPhish · · Score: 3, Funny

    pWned!

  10. Another knee-jerk reaction by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    didn't want those civil liberties anyway.

    1. Re:Another knee-jerk reaction by MighMoS · · Score: 1

      How the hell was parent marked "interesting"?

    2. Re:Another knee-jerk reaction by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      I guess someone with mod-points thought it *WAS* interesting.

      Shame on Slashdot for having community moderators. We should band together and force the rest of the Free Slashdotting-World to use our own system; wherein we could intercept posts that might incite groups to take action against our reign of power.

      ---

      I was talking to a Chinese exchange student at University recently, on a similar topic. One of the interesting points he made was this:

      At least their opression is overt.

  11. We're Screwed by MikeD03C · · Score: 1

    There goes the neighborhood.

  12. Scoreboard by NilObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The terrorists will never succeed in taking away our freedoms and civil liberties!"

    Well, technically, they're using our own politicians to accomplish that, if that is indeed their goal. Now that is a feat: getting your enemy to obtain your goal for you.

    1. Re:Scoreboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But that's the central goal of terrorism: to lower one's enemy's morale and disrupt said enemy's way of life. The government, which doesn't want to admit that it is all but impossible to stop determined terrorism, shoves shit like the PATRIOT (clever name) act at us to make security moms feel safer. The sad part is, there are people who still believe that the PATRIOT act has prevented countless acts of terrorism.


      You see, the terrorists wanted Bush to be re-elected to ensure their own safety (has anyone even mentioned bin-Laden recently?) and to ensure that America remains in a state of panic.

    2. Re:Scoreboard by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now that is a feat: getting your enemy to obtain your goal for you.

      By politics or terror, bombs or rules, the goals of many politicians and religious terrorists are one in the same: It's about control-- imposing their will onto yours.

    3. Re:Scoreboard by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When will the Americans learn that there is no freedom and civil liberty, it's all just an elaborate illusion setup by the government to control the population...

      Of course being a Canadian, I know what real freedom is... I can watch anything I want on TV, so long as it's Canadian. I can listen to anything I want on the Radio, so long as it's Canadian. I can smoke anywhere I want, so long as it's not inside or near a building, other than my own house (for now at least). And don't even get me started about this DST crap!

      Ah yes... all these great freedoms... screw terrorists, our own governments are herding us around like cattle... we're so desensitized to it that we just don't notice anymore... and when we do notice a huge change, we blame it on it being a necessary thing to defend against the great unknown (aka terrorists)...

      I'm now waiting for the men in black to show up at my door for some mandatory brain washing... err... I mean re-integration with normal society... time for some behaviour modifying pills to be crammed down my throat!

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    4. Re:Scoreboard by cygnus · · Score: 1
      "the terrorists" that i know about, those being those affiliated with "Al Qaeda" (which was a name invented by the U.S. Government, look it up) really don't give two damns about the patriot act. they want the US to withdraw its forces from Muslim holy lands, and they want to depose many Middle Eastern governments in favor of more Islamist ones. and they're quite vocal in saying so, if you read any of their pronouncements.

      let's not misapprehend the aims of the people who seek to destroy us... it lessens our ability to counter their goals.

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
    5. Re:Scoreboard by Seumas · · Score: 1

      The saddest part is that the patriot act that was signed into law was not the patriot act that our representatives agreed on previously. A new copy was drafted and printed overnight and rammed through congress with only a few hours between when the altered (by the administration) version came off the press and the vote was taken. And it was hundreds of pages long. Most people went along with it because they didn't want to seem unpagtriotic, but Peter DeFazio (I think) was one of the ones who actually stood up and demanded accountability on the floor during the vote.

      We live in a country where Ashcroft was able to just put whatever laws he wanted into a bill after it was already discussed and agreed upon in a certain form, force the vote on it and get it anyway, without anyone even remotely having a possible way to know what was actually IN it since you could change or add ANYTHING to a several hundred page long document before voting when you know there is no way in the world the person voting on it could read it in time.

      YAY DEMOCRACY!

      OH! AND YAY FOR FREEDOM FRIES!

    6. Re:Scoreboard by shepmaster · · Score: 1

      This seems a good place to put this as any...

      My Ethics class here at Georgia Tech recently completed a Topic Paper about all the sections of the Patriot Act scheduled to sunset Dec 31, 2005.

      Feel free to peruse the posted papers (multiple formats).

      Feel extremely free to Slashdot the site, making it impossible for them to be graded in the next few week, giving us all A's in the class!

      -shep

    7. Re:Scoreboard by Seumas · · Score: 1

      The grandparent poster has this backwards. The terrorists aren't using our own government officials against us to limit our freedoms. Our government officials are using the convenience of "terrorism" against us to limit our freedoms.

      The attacks on 9/11 and every attack since then in the world is like the biggest christmas ever for the fascists in government. Are you kidding?! They couldn't be more pleased.

    8. Re:Scoreboard by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 1

      I can smoke anywhere I want, so long as it's not inside or near a building, other than my own house (for now at least).

      Why should your "right" to smoke trump my "right" to clean air? Clean air has proven benefits over smokey air.

      The problem is that sometimes different people's presumed rights are in conflict. The job of the government is to strike some kind of balance.

    9. Re:Scoreboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Well, technically, they're using our own politicians to accomplish that

      I'm a die-hard libertarian, to the point that I believe that all taxes are inappropriate if not voluntary. Yet I think my liberal liberty-loving brothers have gone off the deep end on the Patriot Act stuff. You're drinking the John Birch Society paranoia Kool-aid my side used to thrive on.

      Nothing's black and white. You guys tell us gun-loving, anti abortion libertarians that all the time. You talk about nuance. Take some of your own medicine. There are times we have to choose between the lesser of two evils (Bush v. closet white power Gore anyone? Clinton v. old as a fossil Dole?) It's time to apply that nuance to the Patriot Act argument.

      Here's a consideration for you: there are an estimated 20 to 70 suitcase nukes in the US now, of which probably most won't work but perhaps as much as a dozen can be salvaged (google suitcase nukes and you'll come across enough reports to give you an objective perspective here). Osama's signature is the mass coordination thing. I think it reflects his contracting/engineering days or something, but that's just a wild assed guess. Regardless, he shows off by showing he can throw four planes at targets. Four subway bombs. Etc. My guess is he's waiting for the numbers in his suitcase plan and then will execute. He's going for infrastructure in the US, while doing political persuasion in the UK, Spain, Turkey, etc (the US is his final target and requires a different strategy).

      So you have a choice, liberal libertarian friends. Do you fight an imaginary enemy, Karl Rove/Evil Bush, that might encroach on your liberties (welcome to the freaking club, btw. Since your hero FDR, our liberties have been totally eroded and you never complained). Or do you acknowledged and respond to the real barbarian that's already penetrated your defenses and is only waiting for that last nuke to give the attack his special touch?

      My reading of the Patriot Act and revisions gives me a belief that it is a very small step that might help. We probably aren't doing enough, and OBL will probably prevail in another attack because half of us don't give a damn. Then you'll have to think about your liberties as the other half comes after you for letting this happen again.

      Tough decisions, brothers. The time for ignoring the enemy is over. Either join us or join them.

    10. Re:Scoreboard by mcc · · Score: 1

      Now that is a feat: getting your enemy to obtain your goal for you.

      Nah, it isn't really that impressive. After all, that's the entire point of terrorism in the first place.

    11. Re:Scoreboard by Calyth · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      Practitioners of Guerilla Warfare exploit their weakness.
      My only problem is whether the weakness is that politicians are the ones willing to give up civil liberties, or merely the proles don't know what the heck is going on.

    12. Re:Scoreboard by rsax · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't know if this is supposed to be a joke.....

      Of course being a Canadian, I know what real freedom is... I can watch anything I want on TV, so long as it's Canadian.

      If you're implying that there is a lot of Canadian content on Canadian TV then you're right. If you're insinuating that there is only Canadian content being aired then you're wrong. Flipping through any of these channels I can see butt load of American shows. BTW have you actually watched TV in the states? Are you aware of the amount of censorship that is enforced down south? I'm not talking about just news but sex, swearing, you name it and the government doesn't think you're mature enough to handle it. I spent five months in Chicago, seven months back in Toronto, another five months in Seattle and back again. Canadian broadcasting rules are a breath of fresh air compared to the way they deal with content down there. Europeans get to view whatever they want, we're wannabe Europeans and TV/radio in the U.S. well....

      I can listen to anything I want on the Radio, so long as it's Canadian.

      Same deal as the above. If you're driving through Buffalo then guess what? You're going to hear Buffalo/American content for the most part. If you get satellite radio then you can listen to whatever. Funny how that works.

      I can smoke anywhere I want, so long as it's not inside or near a building, other than my own house (for now at least).

      Good. Keep your cancer causing smoke in your lungs and and in your house. Thanks.

      And don't even get me started about this DST crap!

      OK I won't ;)

    13. Re:Scoreboard by BJH · · Score: 1

      Nothing's black and white. ...
      Either join us or join them.

      I really appreciate how you set yourself up like that - it makes my job so much easier.

    14. Re:Scoreboard by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Yep, and getting the enemy to blow $200 billion++ in the air and getting itself hated by the rest of the world without needing to do it yourself.

      I read a Time article that said, Iraq is now run by the Shias, a tribe that also runs Iran. The Iran-Iraq war was Saddam fighting the Shias, and now guess who just gave the (expensive) gift of victory to Iran.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    15. Re:Scoreboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trade you MTV for Much Music.

    16. Re:Scoreboard by FLEB · · Score: 1

      That's when the situations are best attacked with maximum granularity (defer to the locals). States' rights actually apply rather well in this case. Since it's really no great benefit to the Feds, they haven't used some obtuse form of the Commerce Clause to butt in... yet.

      Personally, I'd be happiest to see smoking outlawed in publically (government) owned buildings by a state or municipal law. Personally, I'd like to see public no-smoke in my state). For other types of buildings, leave it up to the property owners. I wouldn't be against legislation bolstering property-owners' right to enforce their own private smoking bans, but I don't agree with the legislative "class" bans saying "nobody can smoke in restaurants, even if the restauranteur wants it".

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    17. Re:Scoreboard by modecx · · Score: 1

      The attacks on 9/11 and every attack since then in the world is like the biggest christmas ever for the fascists in government. Are you kidding?! They couldn't be more pleased.

      Indeed.. I know I'm not the only one that sees the parallels of the modern day to the 30's, the Reichstag fire, the NAZI party ursurpation of the government running on the fanatic anti-communism platform--anti-liberal, so to say.

      I beginning to anticipate the placement of signs: "Work'll make y'all free!"... Any day now I think.

      *sigh*

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    18. Re:Scoreboard by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm of the school that this, the war in Iraq, Republican control of every branch of the government, restacking the Supreme court is the greatest thing to happen for democracy and civil liberties in the U.S. in at least 30-40 years.

      You see for things to get better they have to get worse, much worse. The problem with America is its government is rotten to the foundation and the American people are completely indifferent and complacent. They ping pong between Republicans and Democrats seeking the lesser evil but finding neither is a lesser evil.

      What America needs is a quagmire of a war or two where a lot of their children, friends and neighbors get killed an maimed, one with a draft would be best. What America needs is a newer, bigger Watergate where its exposed that the party in power is abusing its power to hold and expand its power so its becomes obvious we are in velvet gloved dictatorship under a facade of Democracy. We need the FBI and CIA to get even more out of control than they are, presumably after another 9/11 scale attack in the U.S and start rounding up people on a larger scale, torturing them, etc. We need a McCarthyist witch hunt like we got the last time the Republican's held power in Congress, and have it so sicken ordinary people that they will come to their senses and throw out anyone who have so completely lost sight of what our Constitution is supposed to stand for.

      We need for this U.S. to turn in to a real police state, for all civil liberties to be eviscerated because its the only way the average American will remember that they had value, why they had value and why they were worth fighting for. American's have had it to easy for to long. They need to experience an old fashioned police state close up so they will remember why they are bad.

      The goal is get enough people so disgusted with the status quo they will unite against both parties and start a movement for people and against power brokers, much like the Progressive movement was at the dawn of the 20th century. It could work but not with a bunch of lazy complacent people who could care less if they are living in a velvet gloved police state. That kind of people deserve to live in a police state and would probably be to ignorant to even notice.

      To go off on a tangent there was an interesting comment on Charlie Rose recently about the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court. The worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is for them to stack the court with far right idealogues who will overturn Roe V. Wade. Why because women who used to be 15-20% points for the Democrats and are now split 50-50 and giving the Republicans their power mow. If a Republican stacked supreme court takes away the right to abortion and sentances women to unwanted pregnancies they will turn on the Republicans in droves and drive them out of power. For things to get better they need to get worse.

      --
      @de_machina
    19. Re:Scoreboard by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that a) there're enough Americans to care, and b) that most Americans haven't become spineless lapdogs. Me, what I see are people who don't give a shit if they lose their rights so long as they get the thrill of forcing their neighbors to lose them as well (power by proxy); and people who wouldn't stand against the government if their very lives depended on it, and are working hard to make sure the rest of us adopt the very same victim mentality.

      Sometimes a nation passes a point of no return and eventually self-destructs, never to rise again. History is replete with such examples. Could be we aren't heading for a revolution but a very painful, murderous dissolution.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    20. Re:Scoreboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darth Sidious (King George Bush) engineered the WHOLE thing (with Osama Bin Laden as his operative).

      Why the HELL didn't they go after Bin Laden, ask yourselves that... where are the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" there supposedly was in IRAQ?

      No, don't fool yourselves... this "war for freedom" is war for the freedom of the rich, making them more money is all... & whose expense does it come at?

      Yours: The United States Taxpayer!

      Our Soldiers: Their lives.

      FUCK BUSH, CHENEY, & the entire "sith" overlords that have taken over our nation!

      APK

    21. Re:Scoreboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Do you fight an imaginary enemy, Karl Rove/Evil Bush, that might encroach on your liberties (welcome to the freaking club, btw. Since your hero FDR, our liberties have been totally eroded and you never complained). Or do you acknowledged and respond to the real barbarian that's already penetrated your defenses and is only waiting for that last nuke to give the attack his special touch?"

      Are you kidding? We've never seen these nukes. We're assured by the government they exist, but we were told that about WMD in Iraq.

      Right now, today, the government did something bad to all of us. They attacked the principles on which this government was founded.

      They did it based on the idea of an imaginary nuke wielding muslim. The ACTUAL attack on 9/11 was a bunch of guys who grabbed the steering wheel of vehicles they were in and crashed them. That doesn't take a nuclear power or a supergenius built on world destruction. That just takes a bunch of guys who can get on a plane without being arrested.

      I don't want my liberty taken because the flavor of the month is the Terrorist Bogeyman. What happened to kids making pipebombs off the net? Not a big deal anymore, huh. What about the snuff film fracas of the 80s? Oh, turned out to be minor. Hmm. How about that the second worst terrorist attack was a crazy white guy working alone? Oh, that doesn't matter?

      We even took a break to think the worst thing in the world is a brain-dead woman being allowed to die in the way she chose. Totally forgot about the terrorists.

      You're the one with the weird imagination. You're fighting shadows.

    22. Re:Scoreboard by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      We need for this U.S. to turn in to a real police state, for all civil liberties to be eviscerated because its the only way the average American will remember that they had value, why they had value and why they were worth fighting for. American's have had it to easy for to long. They need to experience an old fashioned police state close up so they will remember why they are bad.
      ...and then?

      Has it occurred to you that if the U.S. goes down this path, it's likely that most of the rest of the Western world will go down the same path? Europe is already well on its way with the way the E.U. is organized, with the U.K. leading the charge.

      If that happens, then who is going to be around to overthrow them? No police state that I've ever heard of has been overthrown from within to be replaced by some sort of democratic government without significant outside influence, if not outright military intervention (the USSR is the closest to this, but it transitioned from a police state as a result of economic competition with the West). But that's exactly what would be required if the world falls into the darkness of fascism. And fall it will, if the current trends continue.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    23. Re:Scoreboard by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      leave it up to the property owners. I wouldn't be against legislation bolstering property-owners' right to enforce their own private smoking bans, but I don't agree with the legislative "class" bans saying "nobody can smoke in restaurants, even if the restauranteur wants it".

      The problem (well, my problem) with this is that you can have, say 40% of the adult population smokers, but virtually 100% of bars and restaurants (aside from McDonalds) as "smoking", because the owners know that some smokers will boycott them if they go non-smoking, but non-smokers have nowhere to go. So given that smoking kills people, even second-hand, not least the staff working in these bars and restaurants, I'm very happy for governments to mandate the situation be reversed and make 100% of bars and resturants non-smoking. Let the smokers be forced to breath fresh air for a change.

    24. Re:Scoreboard by Ztream · · Score: 1

      No problem, just wait for the inevitable oil crisis. Then you'll see all of what you mention.

    25. Re:Scoreboard by arose · · Score: 1

      I choose neither if the choice is between 100% smoking or 100% non-smoking.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    26. Re:Scoreboard by mpe · · Score: 1

      The ACTUAL attack on 9/11 was a bunch of guys who grabbed the steering wheel of vehicles they were in and crashed them.

      Several of the accused hijackers turned up alive and well, the victims of identity theft. Yet the US Government still sticks with the original 19 names. Apparently unwilling to conduct a normal criminal investigation.

      I don't want my liberty taken because the flavor of the month is the Terrorist Bogeyman.

      It has all the hallmarks of this.

      What happened to kids making pipebombs off the net? Not a big deal anymore, huh. What about the snuff film fracas of the 80s? Oh, turned out to be minor. Hmm. How about that the second worst terrorist attack was a crazy white guy working alone? Oh, that doesn't matter?

      Ditto "Animal Rights", anti-abortionists, etc.
      Actual terrorists come in all shapes and sizes. It would probably be a good thing were the US Government to actually oppose terrorists, including terrorists who's aims the Government (or individual Government members) support.

      You're the one with the weird imagination. You're fighting shadows.

      The whole Al Quaeda thing has all the attributes of a very far fetched conspiracy theory.

    27. Re:Scoreboard by mpe · · Score: 1

      Why the HELL didn't they go after Bin Laden, ask yourselves that...

      In they had they'd have needed to recast the part of "Emanual Goldstein".

      where are the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" there supposedly was in IRAQ?

      Osama and Elvis stashed them in a flying saucer :)

    28. Re:Scoreboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just said they don't want to destroy us, just to withdraw... Or do you ment the politicans in the last paragraph?

    29. Re:Scoreboard by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Yes, both smokers and non smokers should all be banned from resteraunts, cafes and public buildings.

    30. Re:Scoreboard by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I choose neither if the choice is between 100% smoking or 100% non-smoking.

      So what alternative is there? In practice, "leaving it up to the restaurant" means "100% smoking". Even legislating to make a certain area of a restaurant or bar "smoke free" generally means "one table next to the toilet".

    31. Re:Scoreboard by arose · · Score: 1

      What about an optional smoking room? Either no smoking at all or smoking just in a designated room. Another method would be some benefits to restaurants that voluntary ban smoking. I'm sure there is a whole range of options between the two extremes. Usualy the only parties that are involved are radical anti-smokers (who want to force their views on everyone) and heavy smokers (who can't go 10 minutes without a cigarete).

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    32. Re:Scoreboard by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      >By politics or terror, bombs or rules, the goals ... are one in the same: It's about control-- imposing their will onto yours.

      This is exactly how I felt about my previous girlfriend.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    33. Re:Scoreboard by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      What about an optional smoking room? Either no smoking at all or smoking just in a designated room.

      That doesn't work in bars or most resturants with one single space. And if they do have the space, it's always going to be inferior to the "normal" = smoking area.

      Usualy the only parties that are involved are radical anti-smokers (who want to force their views on everyone) and heavy smokers (who can't go 10 minutes without a cigarete).

      Unfortunately, it only takes one heavy smoker to effectively convert any room to "smoking", and many seem to chain smoke when they drink. Given that smokers are addicted and are compelled to light up in the sure knowledge it's killing them, anything less than complete prohibition is ineffective.

    34. Re:Scoreboard by arose · · Score: 1
      That doesn't work in bars or most resturants with one single space. And if they do have the space, it's always going to be inferior to the "normal" = smoking area.
      Why not? Make a third door where the WCs are, the room does not have to be big. It may be inferior, but it's still better than a complete smoking ban.
      Unfortunately, it only takes one heavy smoker to effectively convert any room to "smoking", and many seem to chain smoke when they drink. Given that smokers are addicted and are compelled to light up in the sure knowledge it's killing them, anything less than complete prohibition is ineffective.
      The second point has no relation with the first, you can ban smoking in some places and not others, there is no need for a prohibition. Also not everyone who smokes is addicted.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    35. Re:Scoreboard by johansalk · · Score: 1


      I really *don't* think the terrorists are using "our own" politicans to accomplish "taking away our freedoms and civil liberties". If anyone is using an other, it is "our own" politicians - who in trueness aren't "our own" but are "owned" by their paymasters, and those aren't the taxpayers - who are using the terrorists to take away our freedoms and civil liberties.

      I'm not one inclined to accept conspiracy theories, but things have gotten really, really *silly* lately, that one must be a complete idiot not to clearly see that some people's interests are being well served by terror and its continuity into the indefinite future.

    36. Re:Scoreboard by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's too bad that very few americans are dying in Iraq, the government is only slightly more corrupt than was originally accounted for in building the constitution, freedoms are pretty much the same in effect (it's called a subphoena, they could get your phone conversations and library records anyhow, and in the latter case usually wouldn't need one), and traditional civil liberties are either going pretty much untouched, or are in the focus of the public eye where politicians who fuck with them will be touching the third rail. Seriously, man. Get some perspective.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    37. Re:Scoreboard by cdrudge · · Score: 0, Troll

      So was your girlfriend a politician or a terrorist?

    38. Re:Scoreboard by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Why not? Make a third door where the WCs are, the room does not have to be big. It may be inferior, but it's still better than a complete smoking ban.

      "Better", for the smokers. Not the non-smokers, who are supposed to enter and exit via a back alley next to the toilet. It certainly fails to give equal access to any entertainment (band, etc), and probably the bar. It seems perverse to have separate and inferior facilities for what is statistically the majority.

      The second point has no relation with the first, you can ban smoking in some places and not others, there is no need for a prohibition.

      I meant, in that context, that trying to ban smoking from part of a restaurant or bar fails to give clean air to non-smokers.

      As for "some places": trying to legislate to force only some bars/restaurants (say, randomly selected) to be smoke-free would be vigorously resisted by the owners, who would rightly fear losing custom. The problem is that in any group of several friends you're likely to have at least one smoker, in deference to who the whole group will patronise a "smoking" establishment. If smoking wasn't a lethal, costly habit (it killed my mother) I might be more concerned with the "choice" aspect, but marginalising smoking when and wherever possible is one "nanny state" provision I'm behind.

    39. Re:Scoreboard by arose · · Score: 1

      The room is to smoke in, so the smokers don't have to go out into the rain or snow. The main facilities are smoke-free.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    40. Re:Scoreboard by arose · · Score: 1

      There are several methods to make restaurants and bars voluntary choose to be smoke free. You could give tax breaks to smoke-free establishments, restrict the advertisment of smoker establishments, make smoker resaurants adult-only so they have to choose between families and smokers, etc. Smoke-free establishments still could have smoke-rooms for your smoker friend. I'm not against marginalising smoking, I'm just saying that it does not have to be done in a B&W manner.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    41. Re:Scoreboard by demachina · · Score: 1

      Well that is the point:

      A. Either people faced with the harsh realities of a police state and having no civil liberties so they start to care about their government again

      or

      B. American's really want to live in a police state. Fact is a lot of people like police states as you don't cross the powers that be. There are plenty of people in Russia who want the U.S.S.R back. As long as you stay on the right side of the police, dictatorships do tend to keep order and make everyone safe. As much as everyone reviles Saddam he did keep order, versus now where 800 people a month are dieing in bombings and assassinations. Iraq isn't a viable country. Its a fabrication created by the British empire and it has such deep ethnic ad relgious division it will be a miracle if doesn't blow apart as soon as America get tired of the place. If you are going to make one country out of it pretty much need a ruthless dictator.

      Its America's dirty little secret but a LOT of American's were very pro Nazi Germany in the 30's. Americans were rabidly anti communist, especially affluent and powerful Americans, and so was Nazi Germany. Lots of affluent Americans were aggressively investing in the economic miracle that Hitler brought to Germany in the 30's. George W.'s grandfather Prescott was the American banker for the Thyssen family, one of Germany's richest industrial dynasties during the 30's. Fritz Thyseen was integral in uniting Germany's big business behind Hitler and the Nazi's, and bankrolled their rise to power. Prescott's Union Banking was siezed for trading with the enemy after Pearl Harbor over it, much to the embarrassment of the Bush family.

      It would have been interesting to see if Prescott or another Fascist leaning Republican had been in the White House then instead of Roosevelt. The world might be a completly different place.

      --
      @de_machina
    42. Re:Scoreboard by bluGill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are forgetting all the women who lean democratic, but because the democrats are pro-abortion vote for the republicans. I know a fairly large number of this.

      Abortion is controversial. That means a lot of people have strong opinions. Most who care about the issue are already active. There might be a few who change from not caring because they get all the abortions they want now, but the large majority who will care about the issue already do.

    43. Re:Scoreboard by demachina · · Score: 1

      The U.S.S.R and all the Warsaw pact countries are perfect examples, the Solidarity movement in Poland in particular. Its American propaganda that Reagan and America were the reason for the down fall. American's, like most peoples, like to take credit for everything that goes the way the like, and take no responsibility for the things that go wrong. Most of that change came from within, Poland in particular started it. It helped a lot that an enlightened leader came to power in Russia in Gorbachev. It appears Russians didn't really want freedom that bad because they are rushing back to a one party state. Turns out most Russians prefered order and the glory of the old U.S.S.R versus the chaos, especially economic chaos, of freedom.

      The one thing the U.S. did do that was integral to the downfall of the Soviet Union was it funded and armed Islamic fundementalists who fought the Soviet Union for 10 long and bloody years in Afghanistan. That was the Soviet Union's quagmire and it created a generation of veteran's and their families who went to work to topple the communist party that got them in to it. The one irony for the U.S. was the fundementalists they armed and funded in Afghanist turned in to Al Qaeda.

      Al Qaeda sees the same opporunity in Iraq they saw in Afghanistan. Infidel super power invades Muslim country. Muslims wage 10 year Jihad and insurgency against the superpower and after 10 years of guerilla war the superpower risks collapse because of internal dissent, disaffected verterans and having its coffers drained by a war they couldn't win.

      Another example that comes to mind is Algeria which defeated French colonial rule after years of bloody insurgency. Vietnam defeated both French colonial rule and the American military and its puppet regime. Though its true they had massive logistical support from the Soviet Union. I wager they would still have won in the long run without it. Its incredibly hard to beat nationalist insurgencies that have wide spread popular support. The only example you hear the pundits quote lately when discussing beating the insurgency in Iraq is Malaysia. It took Britain a brutal decade to defeat that insurgency in 1960.

      Maybe what American's need is to be invaded and occupied by a foreign power. THAT would wake them out of their stupor.

      The American revolution is still the gold standard for people fighting for freedom though French intervention at Yorktown was pretty crucial to the rebels winning. Maybe they would have won without French help but it would have taken a lot longer and beem a lot harder. At least they were willing to try.

      The one thing you see that came out of the American revolution was a generation of enlightened idealistic leaders that valued the liberties they fought so hard for and worked really hard to defend them in their Constitution. Now more than 200 years later is appears they ultimately failed. That is the thing completely absent in America today which is why we have no political leaders with the guts to defend civil liberties. One of the historical suspicions about the Bush family is they are in fact a remnant of Tory sympathizers which are still centered in Connecticut, the Bush families real power seat. They really didn't like all this equality and freedom. They seem to prefer the pre Revolution government with a wealthy elite with all the power and everyone else in indentured servitude and under control.

      --
      @de_machina
    44. Re:Scoreboard by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I'd rather take my chances against the terrorists. At least they don't demand my moral sanction.

      Also, making it a little easier to fight the terrorists is not the only standard of law.

      And who said that FDR was my hero?

    45. Re:Scoreboard by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are unfortunatley mistaken. Civil liberties have already been savaged, it just that is been done quite selectively so most people don't notice or care, because its only happening to Muslims. Most people aren't muslims. When the Bush administration declared Jose Padilla, an American citizen, an enemy combatant, locked him up apparently for life in solitary with no lawyer, no trial or access to his family they set a precedent. If they can do it to him they can do it to anyone. If that precedent stands the chief executive can strip anyone of ALL their civili liberties, you included. We are just at the mercy of his good will that he doesn't do it on a wide scale. The Supreme court has chided the White House for it, and said "dont do that", but fact is he is still in jail with no trial and the precedent stands. Chances are he isn't the only one, there are probably others but we don't even now their names. When your government makes people disappear you know you are in a police state just like all the one the U.S. supported in Central and South America, like Pinochet's.

      When U.S. authorities snatched a Canadian citizen out of an airport who had the misfortune to connect through New York on the way home (didn't even really stop in the U.S.) and sent him to Syria to be tortured they set a precedent that they can snatch anyone, anyplace and do anything they want to them. In fact under a project code named Rendition they've been doing just that. They've been snatching people all over the world, under the noses and against the wishes of sovereign governments, and sending them to be tortured. The U.S. government just has to have a suspicion you might be a terrorist and your civil liberties are gone. They don't even have to be right, you can be completley innocent since there is no trial here.

      Perhaps saying more American's need to die in Iraq was a bit jarring. But thats what it took during the Vietnam era to wake America up, Americans coming home in body bags and without limbs. Ideally the people dieing in Iraq should be the people that started that war based on a web of lies, but chicken hawks are really adept at sending others to die for them while they stay safe, and reap the wealth and power that flows from war profiteering.

      --
      @de_machina
    46. Re:Scoreboard by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Arbeit Mike Fair! A slogan from my student days, Mike Fair then being a South Carolina state legislator.

    47. Re:Scoreboard by cygnus · · Score: 1
      You just said they don't want to destroy us, just to withdraw... Or do you ment the politicans in the last paragraph?
      well, i think it's one of those situations where these particular terrorists believe there's no way we'll leave without really tearing our country down, so they're trying to really hit us where it hurts. but were we to suddenly stop parking military bases next to the largest supplies of oil in the world and withdraw, they'd probably just passively dislike us and do nothing. but what's the likelihood of that?
      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
  13. Not yet extended by Blutarsky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, the house voted to extend it, but it still has to make it through the senate, which will be an interesting process.
    I'm just interested in seeing how quickly the conspiracy theorist start spewing stories about how the U.S. was involved in this because only the detonators went off.

    1. Re:Not yet extended by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "an interesting process"

      Yeah, I'm sure they'll give us quite a show before they plug us in the ass. They're wearing us down. It's about time that we show them who the real Patriots were.

      Ben Franklin would have punched Bush right in the kisser.

    2. Re:Not yet extended by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No conspiracy theory needed, last I checked Congress was controlled by Republicans not to mention the White House and arguably SCOTUS. When my friends and I saw the first Patriot act pass we knew the sunset would never, ever come. History alone could tell you that.

      The abuses have already happened as reported by the inspector general back in 2003. Oh well, this is the ever changing face of America. Funny how this type of big intrusive government is compatible with conservative philosophies. As long as no men are kissing I guess its all dandy.

    3. Re:Not yet extended by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      "conspiracy theorist"... It's getting to the point where the mainstream media outlets are so untrustworthy and inaccurate that the "conspiracy theorists" just seem to make more sense. I never thought I'd see the day, especially after their "We didn't actually land on the moon" nonsense.

    4. Re:Not yet extended by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      You do know that the Senate is controlled by radical Republicans right?

      Or am I confusing it with Congress?

      Either way, our government is severely unbalanced to the "Religious Right". The younger kids reading this will suffer the most, because they may be considered 'terrorists' because they do some 'undefined act' that the government doesn't agree with. They could be imprisioned indefinitely as 'enemy combatants' without Due Process (a Constitutional Right!) and without even having to be told what they are doing wrong.

      Very bad things are happening to our country right now. If you think the 2004 (and 2000) Elections were just a strange coincidence, you're very naive and you deserve to lose all of your rights (free speech included).

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    5. Re:Not yet extended by KillShill · · Score: 1

      i'm interested in how many government shills are waiting for the "conspiracy" nuts to show up.

      conspiracy :

      1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement b : SCHEME

      2 : to act in harmony toward a common end

      no, two or more people agreeing to do something unlawful? people would kill for money and/or power?

      there's no way in hell i would believe that.

      as far as i know, human beings are the most benevolent and compassion beings around. they would never do any harm, ever. our own history shows just how much so.

      so no, i don't believe people commit crimes, especially in secret.

      and i don't believe that the media is the willing servant of the government. that's just plain ludicrous and not able to be shown with facts and figures. it is not even in the realm of possibility.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    6. Re:Not yet extended by Blutarsky · · Score: 1

      err, wow the comment was supposed to be ironic contempt, little off base there.

    7. Re:Not yet extended by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      My state (Utah) has three representatives in the House, all republicans. Two of them voted against the extension (the one which voted for it, sadly enough, was mine).

      Having a defeatist attitude isn't going to help anything. Get your senators on the phone, and tell them you will be severly disappointed if they vote for this bill. Tell them that you will do everything in your power to help their opponent in the next election cycle.

      And tell all your friends to do the same.

      But don't just roll over and let them walk over you.

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
    8. Re:Not yet extended by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the legacy of the government preceding this one is that no one ever, ever cancels anything out of a paranoid fear of losing a voter or two. The only people with the guts to actually end things that need ending are the libertarians, and they're unfortunately populated heavily by complete nutjobs.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    9. Re:Not yet extended by kopo · · Score: 1

      The House is the only place where the act had any chance of being struck down. The Republican majority in the Senate will have a cakewalk getting it through.

    10. Re:Not yet extended by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was common knowledge that the US funded the creation of terrorists in the middle east, creating the rather mythical Al Qaida.

      Now the US uses these terrorists, who are brainwashed using American brainwashing techniques which are very effective, to enable them to have the excuse to change the law to limit freedoms and liberty, because those two things will always threaten the status quo.

      Rich people like staying rich, people in power like staying in power, and the best way to do that is to get the populace afraid, and then to use that fear to create laws that restrict liberty. Then you can be quite sure that even if 80% of the population wanted to rise up and retake the country for themselves, it will be caught early and thus will never occur. Hence status quo is kept, the rich stay rich, the powerful remain in power, and corruption and moral corruption become rife in these people, whilst the populace descends into drugs, alcohol and anything else, if they have the money for it - once the situation is like this, tax increases to fund the mythical war on terror are inevitable, money that will go into the pockets of the rich military companies.

      America is corrupt, it's been corrupt for many many years, but now they're taking the piss. What are you going to do about it? Even the French had the guts to have a revolution!

    11. Re:Not yet extended by JimBones · · Score: 1

      Where you see coincidence, I see synchronicity. Hail Eris!

  14. So this is how liberty dies by Approaching.sanity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To cheers and thunderous applause.

    --
    RTFA again for the best results.
    1. Re:So this is how liberty dies by william_w_bush · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am sorry, the line doesn't quite work without Natalie Portman.

      Few women could make reading the king james bible into a blockbuster.

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
    2. Re:So this is how liberty dies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God that movie sucked.

      So this is how the greatest sci-fi trilogy dies. With the worst sci-fi trilogy.

    3. Re:So this is how liberty dies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did the Matrix have to do with Star Wars? ;)

    4. Re:So this is how liberty dies by Minwee · · Score: 2, Funny
      Hmm. How about this:

      "So this is how liberty dies. Naked, petrified and covered with hot grits."

    5. Re:So this is how liberty dies by zx75 · · Score: 1

      Its the only way to do it. A tyrant can only rule by the consent of the people, because if the people want it badely enough they will get it. (My salute to the people of Ukraine)

      --
      This is not a sig.
    6. Re:So this is how liberty dies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least make it lukewarm grits. Wouldn't want to burn her!

  15. Diana moon glampers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That one was a doozy.

  16. Could it be? by bhirsch · · Score: 1

    The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy strikes again!

  17. "with liberty for just us not all" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    amazing.

    I think we should be writing the FBI about these senators' potential terrorist links.. let them choke on their own laws for a while.

    G-d blessed america.. too bad this isn't america anymore... maybe "repubica".. or.."kermudgeonia" would be a better name for it.

  18. WTF?? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

    I'm kind of wondering why there were no "electronic protests" going on. Why is it we had the million man march for the broadcast flag but not a peep for this? Am I the only one confused?

    I would've been first in line to say something about this had I known...

    **note: if there was something and I missed it feel free to point it out, because that is very likely.

    1. Re:WTF?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you have to wait for somebody else to start something?

    2. Re:WTF?? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      apparently you can't read, or just chose to ignore the part where I said I had no clue this was up for renewal. Kind of hard to "do something" when you have no clue the event is taking place.

    3. Re:WTF?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apparently you can't read, or just chose to ignore the part where you left out of your post the point where you had no clue this was up for renewal

  19. ZOMG! by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hm, maybe I should brush up on my national anthems.
    *ahem*

    Oh, Canada,
    Our home and native land,...

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
    1. Re:ZOMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just O, not Oh.

    2. Re:ZOMG! by william_w_bush · · Score: 1

      uhh dude, you got any room and maybe a beer over there?

      uhh, i've got a prescription for my glaucoma too, wink wink.

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
    3. Re:ZOMG! by KillShill · · Score: 1

      no, canada is fascist-lite.

      if you really wanna get away, might i suggest antarctica?

      it'll be a few decades before people come to stomp on your freedoms. they tend not to like the cold but it'll be warmer soon.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    4. Re:ZOMG! by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Informative
      Maybe not for long. The US isn't content with keeping its lunacy domestic:

      http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Ful l_Story/did-sg46g7Ks0cvBEsg7OWirIStPSk.asp

    5. Re:ZOMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be 'Eh' ? *ducks*

    6. Re:ZOMG! by mikaelhg · · Score: 1

      I seriously recommend Finland, that's where I live. Dual citizenship is possible, and with a dual Finnish-USian citizenship one can travel and work freely in the EU area.

    7. Re:ZOMG! by plaxion · · Score: 1

      Better yet, you can just go canadian!

    8. Re:ZOMG! by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      We'll see about that.

    9. Re:ZOMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada has it's own, unique forms of censorship, and it's own bizare laws that limit freedom of expression.

      Seditious libel is a crime: be careful what you say and how you say it. Remember, the country is not actually a democracy; it's a monarchy, and Queen Elizabeth II runs it. Laws can only be passed by Royal Assent, or recently, by the assent of the Queen's designated agent, the Governor General.

      You can still be imprisoned for the crime of "blasphemous libel" in Canada. Polygamy is illegal; so is group sex, covered under the same section of the criminal code. No hot sexy, threesomes for law abiding Canadians.

      There is no "fundamental right to free speech" in Canada. There is a freedom of expression, which is supposed to be as free as is deemed appropriate, but not without limits.

      Copyright law is just as present and just as ugly here, except that there are special exemptions for religious groups engaged in religious worship. So much for separation of Church and State.

      Promoting "hatred towards an identifyable group" is illegal, unless it's towards someone the government wants you to hate. People get charged with a hate crime in this country for arguing that the evil hated Nazis didn't torture innocents... and few people even notice the irony involved.

      It's only recently been ruled, and only by an Ontario court, that's it's not "indecent" for a woman to appear topless in public. One judge ruled that it was only not indecent if not done for profit; apparently, being topless and making money is less "decent" than being topless and broke. Again, so much for freedom of expression...

      Certain weapons are prohibited even for police to possess: as of ten years ago, when I last read it, the prohibited weapons list included two sticks joined by a cord were illegal (nun-chucks), brass knuckles, and switchblade knives. Rifles and hanguns could always be legally owned by ordinary citizens, however.

      It's illegal to publish signs in Quebec unless the font size of the English text is smaller than the French text, which must be present. This is unconstitutional, but the Quebec premier formally made a note of this, and passed the law anyway, so that's apparently supposed to make it all okay.

      There are a whole host of other legal problems, but one fundamental problem is that the lawmakers traditionally leave the problem of deciding what the law really means to the courts, and the court rulings are difficult to predict. As a result, citizens don't know what's legal and what isn't until several years after a new law is passed.

      For example, several video stores were driven out of business in the 1980s. They faced charges for contributing to copyright infringement, since videos could be rented, taken home, copied, and returned. Now that it's an acceptable revenue stream, however, there's a video store on every street corner...

      Canada is more free in some forms of expression than the US; worse in others. It tends to have stronger rights with respect to free expressions of sexuality. Gay marriage is now legal, nudity airs on City TV every Friday night, and even prostitution is technically legal, though very restricted in practice (it's actually only legal if not done through any form of public communication, doesn't take place at a "brothel", isn't done to make a living, and, of course, all appropriate taxes must be declared properly). Copyright currently lasts 20 years longer in the US than Canada, and we haven't passed DRM legislation yet, though a bill is before the House of Commons right now.

      It's worse on absolute rights to free speech (they don't exist), religious speech being treated differently than other speech, fewer and more limited fair use provisions under copyright law, as well as special "moral rights" for the author of a copyrighted work.

      There's a lot of bluriness in the laws: it's not technically illegal to own a crowbar, for instance, but it is illegal to be in possesion of "housebreaking tools". So, maybe it is illegal to own a crowbar, depending on the judge you get...

      Canada isn't a bad place to live, but it's no utopia, either. It's just home, and that's the real reason we love it. :-)
      --
      AC

  20. Well damn. by BigChigger · · Score: 1

    Would it make you feel better if the bombs had not been duds?

    BC

  21. Lets hope his only affects you if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are caught renewing your subscription of Nuclear bomb making for dummies.

  22. It won't get any better. by GrandTurismoOmologat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As the ratio of people per square mile increases, the rights of that population decreases. It is a harsh reality.

    1. Re:It won't get any better. by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As the ratio of people per square mile increases, the rights of that population decreases. It is a harsh reality. The Dutch, the Swiss and the Russians might disagree here.

    2. Re:It won't get any better. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That means Java* is like 1984?

      *= not the programming language you nerds!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:It won't get any better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I only know of the programming language and the liquid that promotes the extended use of said programming language. What Java are you speaking of?

    4. Re:It won't get any better. by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The island in Indonesia housing the capital of the country, Jakarta. It has a population density of 864 people per km^2, usually you only get that much in cities.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  23. Hmmm. by Rew190 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." -Adolph Hitler

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Benjamin Franklin

    1. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you are looking for this quote...

      "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

    2. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong attribution, the first quote is from Hermann Göring during his trial as a war criminal. Checked in wikiquote to ensure greater accuracy. There is more material that expands the meaning of the quote significantly on the site: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring

    3. Re:Hmmm. by drakethegreat · · Score: 1

      Could someone explain to me how quoting historical figures is being a troll? I can vouch that they aren't made up cause I have read them before.

    4. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like the PC moderators are out with their troll rating again.

      Take your troll ratings with pride for they come from those who would side with our enemies to dismantle the shining city on the hill.

    5. Re:Hmmm. by aaza · · Score: 1
      not hitler, but one of his men (can't remember which, don't want to look it up from work). It was said to a reporter at Nuremburg (sp?), but not actually during the proceedings.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
      In practice, however, there is.
    6. Re:Hmmm. by uncoveror · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hitler did not say that, one of his right hand men, Hermann Goering said it at Nuremberg. That is a good quote if you use it correctly. Read more here.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    7. Re:Hmmm. by ThaFooz · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you're going to troll, you could at least site properly.

      "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Hermann Goering, not Hitler.

      This one has been quoted (and misquoted) a lot these days. Snopes

    8. Re:Hmmm. by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      if you're going to correct, you could at least use the proper term:

      cite Audio pronunciation of "cite" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st) tr.v. cited, citing, cites

      1. To quote as an authority or example.
      2. To mention or bring forward as support, illustration, or proof: cited several instances of insubordinate behavior.
      3.
      1. To commend officially for meritorious action in military service.
      2. To honor formally.
      4. To summon before a court of law.


      site Audio pronunciation of "site" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (st) n.

      1. The place where a structure or group of structures was, is, or is to be located: a good site for the school.
      2. The place or setting of something: a historic site; a job site.
      3. A website.

    9. Re:Hmmm. by cdills · · Score: 5, Informative

      In Howard Zinn's book "Declarations of Independence," he cites a speech by a student at the Harvard Law School in the early 1960's given to a large group of parents and alumni. The student was speaking about current events, and said,

      "The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! Danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive."

      The crowd applauded the words of the young speaker, and when the crowd hushed, he continued.

      "These words were spoken in 1932 by Adolf Hitler."

    10. Re:Hmmm. by ThaFooz · · Score: 1

      Ok, you caught me after I had a beer and hit the 's' key instead of 'c'.

      But I'm looking at your list of the definitions of the word 'cite'... why does your list go '1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4' with #3 empty?

      It looks like a poor job cutting and pasting. Perhaps you should cite your dictionary source for us.

    11. Re:Hmmm. by tootlemonde · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hitler never said it.

      But so what if had? Hitler was a demogogue who might say anything if it would gain him power. To that end, he might just as easily have said something true as something false.

      For instance, he's quoted here as saying "There could be no issue between the Church and the State. The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church."

      No doubt Hitler had some ulterior motive for advocating separation of Church and State but simple quoting Hitler would not in any way undermine the concept.

      Similarly, America's law makers may have their flaws but they are by no stretch of the imagination like the Nazis or secretly harbour the objectives of the Nazis.

    12. Re:Hmmm. by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      Thank you (and everyone else) for the correction. I could've sworn that one was from Hitler, but I apologize for my error!

    13. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, America's law makers may have their flaws but they are by no stretch of the imagination like the Nazis or secretly harbour the objectives of the Nazis.

      You're missing the point. It's almost certain that Nazis will never control a powerful country again, but it's very likely that another totalitarian regime might.

      It doesn't matter whether the government is on the right (fascism) or left(communism), it matters how much power the state has over the individual. People compare Neo-cons to Nazis because Nazis were on the right. If it were liberals doing this, they'd be compring them to commies. Of course, they're nowhere near as bad as Nazis, but in the beginning, facsism was held as the next great thing by many people. At first, it wasn't as bad as it turned out to be.

      The truth is, none of the old terms exactly fit. Any overly statist group that takes power in the future might have some similarities, but they wont be exactly like the old evils. Societies might be good at recognising old threats, but they're not very good at recognising new ones, especially when they come on slowly.

    14. Re:Hmmm. by __aaijsn7246 · · Score: 1

      The point isn't that our government is like Hitler's. The point is that people enjoy rallying together and will often do so regardless of where their ideas sit on the good/evil spectrum. Its a type of group behavior that we as social animals exhibit. People will often give up their own individuality for the group. That is a simplification of course, but the basic idea is true. Group behavior can be very dangerous. I imagine it would be pretty hard to not think like a Nazi were one raised in Germany during The Third Reich. Psychologically, for the individual, it was probably pretty fun and 'patriotic feeling' to be a Nazi.

    15. Re:Hmmm. by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      1, 2 underneath 3 are sub-menu's. Yes, crappy job of cut and paste. Too lazy to find a firefox extension for slashdot HTML, and too lazy to actually type out all the HTML manually :)

  24. When is the last time a bad law was repealed ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it, when was the last time a bad law was repealed ? When the Republicans took congress under the Contract With America they repealed a bunch of crap. Unless it involves a lot of congressmen losing their jobs, it doesn't happen.

    With only a handful of exceptions, this is the same congress that passed the Patriot Act without reading it the first time around. Why would you expect them to do differently this time ?

    1. Re:When is the last time a bad law was repealed ? by ThaFooz · · Score: 1

      Think about it, when was the last time a bad law was repealed ?

      It was just a year and a half ago that the sodomy laws were repealed ;)

      Unless it involves a lot of congressmen losing their jobs, it doesn't happen.

      Which is precisely why the courts have the power to interperet & repeal laws.

  25. Library records? by nmoog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dang, they've taken out the libraries... If only there was some other place I could find subversive information...

    1. Re:Library records? by william_w_bush · · Score: 1

      google al-quada operations manual. It would be funny if it weren't so damn scary, though I'm not sure if its still circulating.

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
    2. Re:Library records? by Hosiah · · Score: 1

      Very funny, but don't laugh too hard. A few years ago in Vegas, a town which averages three new casinos and two new strip bars per year, a bill was proposed to allocate a small five-figure sum to build a few more libraries to keep step with the exploding population. The citizens of Las Vegas actually took picket signs to the streets to protest it, and the measure was shot down. Very seldom have I been filled with such horror and loathing, as when I saw an entire population voluntarily act to stay as ignorant as possible. Then I moved to Iowa.

    3. Re:Library records? by saskboy · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is that you can still go into a library, take a book off the shelf, photograph it [since the photocopier might be bugged] put the book back on the shelf, and there's no record of you using that book.

      I hope I didn't break the DMCA or Patriot Act by revealing this brain-dead simple detection evasion method. I guess I'm not welcome in the USA anymore.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    4. Re:Library records? by mpe · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is that you can still go into a library, take a book off the shelf, photograph it [since the photocopier might be bugged] put the book back on the shelf, and there's no record of you using that book.

      So how long before it becomes the law that cameras must be bugged?
      There's always the really low tech approach of making written notes or remembering what is in the book.

  26. In the words of Homer! by jav1231 · · Score: 0, Troll

    WooHoo!

    1. Re:In the words of Homer! by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 1

      Bored and trolling, are we?

      I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for at www.FreeRepublic.com... perhaps you should be posting there instead?

      --
      wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
    2. Re:In the words of Homer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the "-5, Prick" moderation when you need it?

    3. Re:In the words of Homer! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume everyone who reads/posts to /. is upset by this?

    4. Re:In the words of Homer! by Mr.+Mikey · · Score: 1

      The assumptions I'm making are based solely upon the content of your post, which is reminiscent of the intellectual rigor and sophistication of those I have seen posted to www.FreeRepublic.com... hence my recommendation.

      --
      wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
    5. Re:In the words of Homer! by Carnil · · Score: 1

      Man, at first I hoped to find in your comment an illuminated quote from the Iliad or the Odyssey... then I remembered this was slashdot...

  27. Grr. by mind21_98 · · Score: 1

    I'm speechless. I really can't think of anything to say without being irrational and ranting, so I won't. I'm just sad for the current state of affairs and the world as a whole, and I just want the pain everywhere in the world to end. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone injured or killed in terrorist incidents, and I pray that we find a rational way to stop terrorists without resorting to a secret government.

    1. Re:Grr. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't compound the problem by praying. Religious fanaticism is the root of all this bullshit in the first place. "Two hands working will do more actual good than ten thousand clasped in prayer"

    2. Re:Grr. by mind21_98 · · Score: 1

      Don't compound the problem by praying. Religious fanaticism is the root of all this bullshit in the first place. "Two hands working will do more actual good than ten thousand clasped in prayer"

      I can assure you that I'm no fanatic. I just want peace in the world. Fanaticism is bad, but blaming it on all religions isn't the right approach.

    3. Re:Grr. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      " I'm speechless. I really can't think of anything to say without being irrational and ranting, so I won't. and I just want the pain everywhere in the world to end. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone injured or killed in terrorist incidents, and I pray that we find a rational way to stop terrorists without resorting to a secret government."

      you just did say something without ranting =)

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:Grr. by mind21_98 · · Score: 1

      you just did say something without ranting =) hehe. I meant concrete arguments against the PATRIOT Act, not general wishes of well-being. Thanks though for making me smile. :)

    5. Re:Grr. by plughead · · Score: 1

      I hope we find a rational way of stopping our secret government before it's too late...

      --
      If a giant oil company wanted an abortion, would W's head explode?
    6. Re:Grr. by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Except when what you call "religious fanaticism" happens to overlap with reality. One clasped in prayer can potentially change ten thousand people for better.

      --
      Luke-Jr
  28. Should have added a guarantee by digitalgimpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not?

    If there is a terrorist bombing, we get money back (taxes).

    Hold lawmakers accountable, so they create laws specifically for the purpose of prevention, not so they can brag about baseless legislation.

    Americans know to look for a guarantee or a warranty on things... why do we hold manufacturers to these standards, but not self absorbed politicians.

    I say we need a money back guarantee. If this fails in the next 10 years, we get refunded tax money.

    If Apple can get attacked legally for iPod batteries that eventually don't hold their charge (because that's so serious), why not hold politicians in that type of arrangement?

    Are iPod batteries more valued than safety?

    /hates politics and stupid people with no priorities or ability to think for themselves.

    1. Re:Should have added a guarantee by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      How would they refund our money?

    2. Re:Should have added a guarantee by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      If there is a terrorist bombing, we get money back (taxes).

      Actually, that's a little bit like the idea behind government by futarchy, the system of government referenced in my sig. Robin Hanson, an economics prof at George Mason University, has a web page about it here:

      http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.html

      A research paper is available here:

      http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf

      The gist of it is that policy decisions are either made or advised by a prediction market. In a prediction market, on can bid on what sort of effect a policy decision might have. In the case of the Patriot Act, one might bid on the probability that there would be a terrorist attack if the Act was extended, versus what the probability would be if it weren't extended. If one's bid ends up being correct one makes money; otherwise, one loses money. It sounds a little hokey at first, but the interesting thing is that prediction markets tend to be better at predicting future events than basically any other method out there. There's of course a number of people who have knee-jerk reactions to anything that involves markets, but such is life.

      In more elaborate schemes, citizens can vote on metrics of national welfare, perhaps as some function of GDP, personal liberties, mortality rates, and so on. One can then bid on how different policies would be expected to impact the national welfare metric, and policies which would benefit it would then go into effect.

      Back to the case of extending the Patriot Act, even if the extension promotes national security, it would have negative effects on personal liberties. Depending on what sort of metric citizens vote on, this may be judged to be an overall good or an overall bad.

      And no, I have no sort of affiliation with Hanson, prediction markets, or anything of the sort. I just think it's a cool idea.

    3. Re:Should have added a guarantee by conteXXt · · Score: 1

      "Are iPod batteries more valued than safety?"

      no. but they ARE tangible.

      --
      The truth about Led Zep should never be told on /. (Karma suicide ensues)
    4. Re:Should have added a guarantee by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea, but what's to stop people from making inaccurate predictions in order to influence policy? Obviously they'd lose money that way, but lobbyists are prepared to lose money if they can influence policy.

    5. Re:Should have added a guarantee by doublem · · Score: 1

      Are iPod batteries more valued than safety?

      Yes, in America, they are.

      Liberty? Dude, for most of America, that ranks below a hamburger.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    6. Re:Should have added a guarantee by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea, but what's to stop people from making inaccurate predictions in order to influence policy?

      A large portion of Hanson's paper is dedicated to possible problems with the idea. Here's the relevant section:

      Potential Issue: People Could Buy Policy Via The Markets

      Imagine that speculators know that a certain interested party, a manipulator, wants to move some price in a certain direction. If speculators know this manipulator has no special information about this topic, then if he began trading large amounts in order to move the price, speculators would see easy pro ts in moving the price right back. The same result follows if this manipulator has relevant information, as long as the speculators know just how badly he wants to move the price, and how much money he has to spend on this. If speculators can predict a bias, they can and will correct for it. A manipulator can thus only influence the price if speculators both think he (or those who trade for him) might have relevant information, and are unsure about how badly he wants to move the price. This implies that on average interested parties cannot bias the price; they can at worst only add noise.

      A manipulator may sometimes raise the price when observers under-estimate how badly he wants to raise the price, but such cases are balanced by other cases where the price is lowered because observers over-estimate how badly he wants to raise the price. Furthermore, the fact that interested parties lose their bets on average will attract more speculators to study this topic. The added information from such efforts may more than compensate for the noise from manipulator trading.

      For example, interested insiders who happen to have an unusually strong desire to raise the market estimate of a certain proposed stadium s pro tability might succeed, but then some other possible stadium's estimate would be reduced because their insiders happen to have an unusually weak desire to raise that stadium's profitability estimate. And the existence of such insiders would attract more speculators to study stadium profitability.

  29. Check Who Voted What by aarku · · Score: 4, Informative

    Check this webpage for the record of who voted what, whenever they get around to putting it online. That's what I was linked to by my local representative's site.

    1. Re:Check Who Voted What by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      loc.gov links expire - could you provide steps to get to those results?

    2. Re:Check Who Voted What by ThaFooz · · Score: 1

      I agree. Better yet, call or write them about it. You just might be suprised at how receptive they are - a lot of people complain, but very few actually voice them to their elected officals.

      It was just a couple weeks ago that I recieved a handwritten note from my Congressman (not one of those generic 'thank you' letters from his office), just because I took the 10 minutes to write a long e-mail about an issue.

  30. The Power of Nightmares by NZheretic · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you have not seen Adam Curtis' documentary "The Power of Nightmares" then
    Download the three episodes from the Internet Archive.org and SEE THEM.

    Even if you do not agree with his conclusion, the historical background will give you a far clearer picture of the reality of the situation.

    1. Re:The Power of Nightmares by chrispl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I could not agree more. This is one documentary that everyone should see.

      It's a pretty comprehensive look at the history and motivations BEHIND the threats we are facing, from both the terrorists and the American government. Yes, at times it's not even trying to be objective, but still a lot of the events and facts that are presented are historical record and are considered far too little today.

      If only this was shown in American prime-time, people may start thinking more critically about the moves we are taking now...

      I still shiver now when I hear the song "Baby it's cold outside".

      --
      What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
    2. Re:The Power of Nightmares by tandr · · Score: 1

      Torrent, anyone?

    3. Re:The Power of Nightmares by Coryoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If only this was shown in American prime-time, people may start thinking more critically about the moves we are taking now...

      It's quite depressing really. That documentary was shown in the UK almost a year ago. It has made the rounds in prime time slots all over the world - it was showing here in Canada several months ago. And for all that, the one country where it probably most needs to be seen is where it isn't getting any significant play.

      If you can't download whole documentaries, you can start this article on Al Qaeda by Jason Burke who featured in the documentary. It will give you an idea of at least some of the background and misperceptions of the "global terror network", or lack thereof, that we are facing.

      Jedidiah.

    4. Re:The Power of Nightmares by EinarH · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here 1.3GB, .avi.

      Something that is good enough to be aired on both BBC and CBC, and then rejected by all the majors in USA is something everyone should view. Especially in USA.

      Even those that strongly supports the current War on Terror should watch this documentary, if only to challenge their own view. Yeah, I know such a concept is naive, but just remember how communist refused to read "american capitalist-literature" in the 10's and 20's. Today some republicans more or less refuse to view "liberal euro-weeniee-propaganda".

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    5. Re:The Power of Nightmares by neverkevin · · Score: 2, Informative

      For you people out there who prefer to read instead of just watch:

      http://www.daanspeak.com/TranscriptPowerOfNightmar es1.html

    6. Re:The Power of Nightmares by Feztaa · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Power of Nightmares.

      You didn't hear this from me.

    7. Re:The Power of Nightmares by mpe · · Score: 1

      It's a pretty comprehensive look at the history and motivations BEHIND the threats we are facing, from both the terrorists and the American government. Yes, at times it's not even trying to be objective, but still a lot of the events and facts that are presented are historical record and are considered far too little today.

      Even when they are highly relevent. e.g. the Neocons liking for irrational conspiracy theorys.

  31. From the article... by steelfood · · Score: 1

    "'Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing,' said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Massachusetts. 'The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?'"

    The answer to that question should be none. We cannot give up any freedom just to feel safe, or, for that matter, to even be safe.

    On the other hand, it's about time people start realizing freedom is something they'll have to fight for--if they even want it anymore that is.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:From the article... by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?'"

      Speaking for myself: NOT ONE BLOODY BIT!

      "Live Free or Die" is not just a cute soundbite, ya know...

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  32. "Extend the Patriot Act" by Captain+Pringle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "the US House has voted to extend the Patriot Act"

    If I'm reading the article right, I'd say "extend" isn't quite strong enough of a word:

    From the article: "The bulk of the back-and-forth centered on language making permanent 14 of 16 provisions that had four-year sunset provisions under the original law..."

    I have to strongly agree with the critics mentioned in the article, who "said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the September 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law."

    Guess the House didn't think so.

    1. Re:"Extend the Patriot Act" by jcwren · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think this demonstrates just how ineffective and pointless these laws are. If the laws survived on their own, they would easily be renewed every time the sunset provision expired. The mere fact they chose to "extend" (make semi-permanent) these laws just says they have no merit.

    2. Re:"Extend the Patriot Act" by oscartheduck · · Score: 0

      If you study Hitler's rise to power as a dictator, you note that the act that gave him dictatorial powers was initially temporary and only became permanent after it was due to end.

      --
      How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
    3. Re:"Extend the Patriot Act" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dilemma: Poster invokes Godwin's Law, but yet still has a compelling argument. What to do?

    4. Re:"Extend the Patriot Act" by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      You know what really annoys me?

      My representative (a Republican) stated multiple times that he did not think the sunset measures should be changed or removed, and that the powers should be taken away.

      Then he goes and votes in favor of making 14 of them permenent.

      Great way to earn my trust, right?

      I'm waiting for him to explain his irresponsible behavior.

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
    5. Re:"Extend the Patriot Act" by hplasm · · Score: 0
      "Owing to the current state of Emergency, Godwin's Law has been temporarily suspended.

      Do you want to know more?"

      /. Department of Information. /.

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
  33. You're kidding? by Deanasc · · Score: 1

    Is anyone really supprised by this move? We need to start getting ready to exercise the second ammendment.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    1. Re:You're kidding? by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      Is anyone really supprised by this move? We need to start getting ready to exercise the second ammendment.

      Preach it, brother, preach it. These greed, power-hungry, corrupt, bastards in Washington DC are going to keep pushing, and pushing, until one day the American people are going to rise up and say "Enough."

      The tipping point is approaching and the day is drawing nigh when "We The People" WILL take action so that this country can honestly be called a Free Country again... I am as sure of this as I am that the sun will rise tomorrow.

      Keep the faith, freedom lovers, keep the faith.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    2. Re:You're kidding? by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The tipping point is approaching and the day is drawing nigh when "We The People" WILL take action so that this country can honestly be called a Free Country again...


      Yup, there's nothing like an armed revolt to ensure freedom and democracy.... not.


      Most likely a serious violent revolt would end up with the installation of a dictator and martial law... no matter which side 'won'.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:You're kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, there's nothing like an armed revolt to ensure freedom and democracy.... not.

      Why not? After all, that's how America was founded, and that's exactly why we retain the right to bear arms. Our founding fathers are on record saying that occasional bloody uprising is a necessary evil in ensuring freedom. I have no reason to think otherwise.

      That said, a revolution is unlikely right now, and it's sad. Too many people buy the idea that only the bad people have to worry, and these laws are but a minor inconvenience to the good ones. Rising with a war scream will probably get you 15 minutes of shame on the local news when you're shot by the police, and just a few sympathies from a few anarchists, at best. The reason most people revolted nearly 230 years ago was because everyone was being opressed to the point that everyone felt it. If over half the population doesn't feel opressed, and is kept dumb enough to believe the gov't, then an uprising won't work. Once the time comes that everyone DOES feel it, chances are you won't have the right to bear arms, or even speak evil of the gov't in public, private, or even think about it. Then, what will we do? Exactly what Al-Qaeda is doing now. Curious how today's enemy is tomorrow's teacher, I say.

    4. Re:You're kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      After all, that's how America was founded, and that's exactly why we retain the right to bear arms.

      Keep dreaming, buddy. The "arms" that you have a legal right to bear have just about zero military utility.

    5. Re:You're kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep dreaming, buddy. The "arms" that you have a legal right to bear have just about zero military utility.

      They seemed good enough at kicking our troop's asses in Vietnam, I have no reason to believe they wouldn't be effective at home.

      During our war of independence, the rules of war at the time were to have a lot of men with guns line up and shoot at each other in a large, open field. Hillarious by today's standards, but that was the way it was done. But then we would have lost, so one of the techniques employed were sniping off red coats traveling through the woods or fields. Today, we may call that terrorism. It's pretty much what the Iraqi's are doing right now, along with the road side bombs which, while not legal, do not require the biggest brains to build. So, the guns we have right now certainly COULD be good enough.

    6. Re:You're kidding? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Most likely a serious violent revolt would end up with the installation of a dictator and martial law... no matter which side 'won'.

      Tell that to George Washington and crew.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    7. Re:You're kidding? by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      Tell that to George Washington and crew.

      George Washington and crew lived during a time when the firepower of the average soldier and the firepower of the average armed civilian were about the same.

      This ain't the 1700s anymore. Today, the average soldier has, after accounting for all of the conventional support weaponry indirectly at his disposal, a many hundreds to one advantage in firepower over the average armed civilian. When you factor in weapons of mass destruction, that advantage rises to tens or even hundreds of thousands to one.

      And even in George's day, they still needed military help from the French to win. No power on the planet would be stupid enough to give military aid to a popular uprising against the U.S. government, lest they find a few nukes lobbed their direction.

      If the power of the U.S. government is seriously challenged, that government will do whatever it takes to remain in power, even if it has to nuke its own civilian population (which it will do only if nothing else can work, of course). Such is the nature of all power-mad governments.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    8. Re:You're kidding? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      How fortunate that by the time this uprising happens the government will have all the laws and powers it needs to easily crush it in it's tracks.

    9. Re:You're kidding? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Yes because the US is mainly a large impenetrable jungle isn't it.

    10. Re:You're kidding? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      If the power of the U.S. government is seriously challenged, that government will do whatever it takes to remain in power, even if it has to nuke its own civilian population

      You're making the mistake of assuming that the government is a borg-like structure all thinking with one mind and acting with one will. This will be anything but the case in the face of a popular uprising.

      This ain't the 1700s anymore. Today, the average soldier has, after accounting for all of the conventional support weaponry indirectly at his disposal, a many hundreds to one advantage in firepower over the average armed civilian.

      And as anyone who's actually served knows, these numbers are bunk, especially in the case of overwhelming civilian resistance. They only mean anything if you were to line up every rebel and every soldier on a nice flat plain, and told the rebels that they all had to stand in place without moving. Then you'd get maximum effect for your artillery, and cluster bombs, and so forth.

      In real combat conditions it's never that easy. Homemade bombs of fuel and fertilizer can blow the most powerful tank to hell; a molotov can take an APC out; pungi sticks are cheaper than land mines. Fighting a determined civilian populace is every commander's worst nightmare; you never know who the enemy is, or what is or is not a weapon, or if by simply driving down the street in convoy you're walking into an ambush. Not to mention the absolute nightmare that logistics would become.

      And lets not forget that these are Americans, gunning down their own people. While I'm sure a significant fraction wouldn't have any problem with that scenario, an even larger fraction would. This from anecdotal experience, but do you have any experience of your own to counter it? Other than armchair punditry?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    11. Re:You're kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They seemed good enough at kicking our troop's asses in Vietnam

      You can't buy a SAM or a mortar at Wal-Mart.

      It's pretty much what the Iraqi's are doing right now, along with the road side bombs which, while not legal, do not require the biggest brains to build.

      Of those two, only the bombers have any brainshare, and that's only because of news coverage. Moreover, continually improving body armor and high-tech army bullet-tracking gadgets make the effectiveness and life expectency of snipers smaller every year.

      In a hypothetical oppressive regime where TV coverage is censored, the Iraqi tactics would be nothing more than a minor annoyance. Most oppressive regimes would have dealt with the problem long ago with draconian group punishments against those who might be harboring the insurgents. Given the questionable premises for this war, we're currently constrained with trying to look like nice guys.

      In historical terms, killing only 1% of your enemy's troops after two years is a dismal failure. Bottom line: illegal bombs might get you on the news if your government allows it, small arms which you can currently buy legally do jack shit.

    12. Re:You're kidding? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Fighting a determined civilian populace is every commander's worst nightmare;

      Only if they're worried about collateral damage.

      Don't forget that not too long ago "revenge quotas" were an usual and accepted way to deal with partisan activity. Round up and shoot X random civilians for every soldier killed by partisans, where X can range from 10 to 100.

    13. Re:You're kidding? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      My .30-06 is more powerful than the gun most soldiers carry. More accurate too. They have automatic, but the isn't much use (which is why the marines never use it). They have more powerful guns they can call in. Doesn't matter though, as their lighter guns are still powerful enough to kill people.

      There so no reason to assume that the average soldier will obey orders and fire on me. Remember, we are talking civil war - many soldier did choose sides (mostly based on geographical home area) in the last one. The confederates were able to field an army.

  34. F#*% by Nissmo · · Score: 0

    all your freedoms are belong to us* *us meaning the United States gov.

  35. Calm down people... by Paladin144 · · Score: 4, Informative
    It has not yet cleared the Senate, and when it does, the bills will need to be reconciled:

    A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.

    So, let's use this time effectively. Get the word out, and contact your senator. The PATRIOT Act will probably pass, but we can at least try to get ammendments to it that will protect civil liberties while still allowing different law enforcement agencies to work with each other. While I would prefer not to have the PATRIOT act pass, we'd be better off with a bill that protects privacy and prevents racial profiling.

    Personally, I think we should allow it to expire and start over. Many bits are useful, but let's have more emphasis on protecting American rights/liberties. And come on - who named this thing? What an awful, divisive name; it implies that anyone who opposes it is unpatriotic, which is complete horseshit. Name the act for what it does, not for cheap political points.

    1. Re:Calm down people... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bills like this should not even be discussed in our country. There is no reason to calm down.

      It is offensive that laws like the PATRIOT act are even discussed in this country, let alone passed the first time.

      People act as if having any of these provisions striken is a victory. The fact that secret trials, the seizure of library and medical records, and roving wiretaps are even discussed in this country should offend you.

    2. Re:Calm down people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What an awful, divisive name; it implies that anyone who opposes it is unpatriotic
      I think that was kind of the whole point...
    3. Re:Calm down people... by bnitsua · · Score: 1

      It is offensive.
      However, after watching the call-in reactions on C-SPAN, it seems the majority support the PATRIOT act and believe it is going to eradicate "multi-culturalism", "political correctness", defeat liberalism, bring back god into the schools, etc. Thank you, Fox News, for putting a nice spin on such a neo-McCarthyistic piece of legislation.

    4. Re:Calm down people... by Stickerboy · · Score: 1, Insightful
      While I agree with you on the parts of the PATRIOT Act referring to secret trials and the unmentioned removal of judicial oversight of law enforcement activities, I don't see a problem with seizure of library and medical records, with a proper court order and the accompanying judicial oversight, or with roving wiretaps.

      I mean, c'mon, it's pretty ridiculous that wiretaps requests wouldn't be for a person instead of a specific line. When the police ask a judge for a search warrant, do they have to obtain separate warrants for every room and dresser? No, they ask to search the premises of the person being investigated. Criminal investigations are aimed at people, and it only makes sense to have wiretap requests aimed at the people being investigated.

      There has to be a balance between individual freedoms and societal needs. Screaming and hollering about every little step taken in the opposite direction from individual freedoms, no matter if it's justified or not, doesn't help you or the cause of protecting freedom. It just marginalizes you and people with similar views in the eyes of the mainstream, instead of convincing them with rational, thoughtful discussion. Look at the "gun nuts", like the NRA. Even though they have a good overall point in protecting the 2nd Amendment, the fact that they will not even discuss or consider even intelligent or rational gun control steps makes the mainstream look at all 2nd Amendment defenders as fanatics and gun-crazy sociopathic idiots.

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    5. Re:Calm down people... by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Actually, they do have to be specific with a search warrant. To quote the 4th amendment:

      "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 quote effectively says that roving wiretaps and broad search warrants *are* unconstitutional. It says that warrants are *not* to be aimed at people, they're to be aimed at places and things. Roving wiretaps will affect more than just one person. That has to be weighed when a wire tap is granted by a court. That's why we shouldn't have roving wire taps for any reason. There is far too much room for abuse, and that is never acceptable.

      Also, library records were fully intended to be anonymous. It was thought to be vital to freedom to be able to read what you want without the government knowing. Current Federal action just reinforces this as necessary. Medical records are what you are, and what has happened to you. It makes sense for those to be able to be accessible via court order.

      You also contradicted yourself about freedoms. By taking steps away from individual freedoms, you are in fact reducing freedom. You need to scream and holler about it because otherwise you lose all your freedom with baby steps.

      The NRA people oppose gun control because they either don't want the government telling them what they're allowed to own, and they want to own the guns they like, or because it's a reduction in freedom. They can support this because the 2nd amendment clearly states "shall not be infringed". Gun control will, in fact, infringe on my ability to keep and bear Arms. The reason you hear all the "gun nuts" is because the media chooses to only report stories on those types of people. If it comes down to it, we can't effectively fight the government if they have guns and we don't; we lose the ability to maintain our freedoms by force, if necessary. That reason is specifically put into the amendment:

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      Like so many other things, politics is like a game that is won by the majority of a minority. Most people don't vote. You don't need to convince the mainstream, you just need to be loud enough that that minority that actually votes hears you.

    6. Re:Calm down people... by SkuzBuket · · Score: 0

      I would love to contact my senator on this one (and luckily I have a good one: Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid.

      Anyway, in order to sound professional on this, can we get some input on certain sections of the PATRIOT act we would like changed/excluded instead of just writing, "Umm, could you make it, you know, like better on my liberties man?"

      Lets get some specifics from anyone here that knows particular points we should be interested in contesting.

      THIS IS IMPORTANT PEOPLE. LETS TAKE ACTION!!!

    7. Re:Calm down people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If it comes down to it, we can't effectively fight the government if they have guns and we don't; we lose the ability to maintain our freedoms by force, if necessary. That reason is specifically put into the amendment:

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      Holy. Fucking. Christ.

      I so desperately want to believe you're not that stupid. I'm so depressed by the fact that in all probability you are.

      Here's a clue: read up on what happened in Baltimore during the War of 1812 (you know, that other war we had with the British?). If you're really feeling froggy (but be careful not to hurt yourself, you'll actually have to use your brain here) you can consider the reason it was necessary in the context of many of the Founders' distrust of standing armies.

      On the really slim chance that you're actually capable of absorbing that information and making reasoned conclusions based on it you'll see that a) the second amendment has nothing to do with Americans being able to impose their will on the government (we have a little tool called the vote with which to do that) and b) only an utter fool would believe it did.

    8. Re:Calm down people... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Not sure if there has been another bill in the Senate Intelligence Committee but the one they have been discussing would allow the FBI to take records without subpoenas only in the event that they came across them in the course of normal events and they had no other way of securing them. In much the same way that the FBI can currently break into a house without a warrent if they hear someone in the house yell "Help me, she is tring to kill me".
      As it was the FBI would be required to prove that they had to take immediate action to secure the record, once that was proved they would then have to prove that they could of gotten records using normal means. If they cannot prove both there is no using of the records.

    9. Re:Calm down people... by Clansman · · Score: 1

      You should calm down, as he says, because this is free speech in action. Someone is speaking, so now you speak up against it ...

      Get organised - you didn't get free speech in the first place without a fight so it is clear that free speech, or indeed freedom generally is not the natural "steady state" of mankind. We are animals, and dominance and territory are in our genes. Historically, dominance by the few has been the norm.

    10. Re:Calm down people... by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      The NRA has the guts to advocate the gun control measure of "not being a fucking idiot". They don't quite say that people that leave their guns loaded in reach of children fully deserve it when they end up with bullet holes in sensitive areas, but they come close enough that they're one of the few organizations that I respect, despite not fully agreeing with them on some points. It's a very effective prevention method, actually, I've applied it successfully to many areas of my life. Also, by 'mainstream' I think you mean 'the whiny democrat faction and people in california' because those are the only people I've heard actually complain about the NRA itself.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    11. Re:Calm down people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm, funny troll. Do not feed? Eh, the hell with you.

      Why was there a distrust of a standing army? Use as a tool by the government against the people.

      So why did we have to make sure the people had guns? To defend the country from attack. What does an attack end up constituting, aside from the violence? A reduction in freedom. Is the government forcing the populace to do something they are unwilling to do applicable? Yes, it would be an attack on the people.

      So... the 2nd allows for the people insure the security of their *free state*. It does not say "insure the security as long as the attack is from outside the borders".

      Putz.

    12. Re:Calm down people... by vector_prime · · Score: 1

      contact your senator. I live in Tennessee, you insensitive clod. My senator is Bill Frist.

    13. Re:Calm down people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in DC, I have no senator to contact...

    14. Re:Calm down people... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Apparently you've never lived in NY.

  36. Looking into my crystal ball... by s000t · · Score: 0

    I see the movie Hackers coming true...50 FBI rushing into our rooms as we are alleged hackers/spoofers/or even /.'ers. They'll try to make us out like terrorists and hang us out to dry. I sure hope the senate votes better than the house!

    --
    Here today, gone tomorrow.
    1. Re:Looking into my crystal ball... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Senate = House

      Same dam fucking thing.

      We're fucked.

  37. Warm & Fuzzy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got that warm feeling of safety washing over me.

    No, wait. I just PISSED MYSELF in fear.

  38. Woo by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

    and another allowing searches of library and medical records

    Yeah, but at least we live in the land of the free... where we don't have to worry about being controlled by a draconian government, and having our privacy needlessly invaded.

  39. Just another "coincidence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It stops being a conspiracy theory when all you have are facts.

    http://rense.com/Datapages/londonbmb.htm

    Patriot Act coming up for revote
    England losing support to stay in Iraq
    New need to fuel the fight against 'those terrorists'
    London just got the olympic bid
    The g8 summit.
    The orwellian "we can't define the enemy, so we can't define the victory, so we'll just keep an ongoing war against a mythical enemy" syndrome

    The list goes on

    posted anonymously, because my karma can't take any more hits from those that censor anything that would shatter their world view.

    1. Re:Just another "coincidence" by toddhunter · · Score: 0, Troll

      It starts being a conspiracy theory when you simply state facts and assume that in someway backs up your view.

      "The list goes on" So continue the list? You were getting shaky by the end of it I suppose so you probably can't do so.

      How about just maybe there are some fucked up people out there doing bad stuff because thats what they know to do, and the men and women who we elect are just trying to do their job and stop them?
      Ever stop to think that it might be just that simple? No oil theories, no aliens, no secret governments..just normal people doing their day to day jobs (be it in government or as terrorists) and going about their lives killing time till they die?

    2. Re:Just another "coincidence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, your karma would be being oppressed? You nerd.

    3. Re:Just another "coincidence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever stop to think that it might be just that simple?

      Did YOU ever stop to think? Bad people are known to exist in the FBI. Spies, corporate espionage.. and thats all just in recent memory. Go back farther and throw in Hoover and an era where the FBI collected dossiers on everyone who was anyone, and it's pretty clear that history is ripe for repeating itself in short order.

      So tell me, when there's no record of the wiretap, how are you going to prove the FBI agent made that five million dollar trade on the news you just phoned in to your partner? If Bush is willing to throw people out of international conferences just for giving Kerry $250, what do you think he'll do with the FBI now?

      Prove that the FBI will place safeguards to make sure this won't be abused, then come back. Until then, quit pretending that any of this is going to help anyone but the sleazy agents looking for some hot stock tips or to jack off to other peoples' love letters.

    4. Re:Just another "coincidence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an interesting solely because of the timing of the blasts. During the G8 summit, and during the time of the PATRIOT act coming up for debate? Both of them coinciding to garner support... and amazingly killing (and hurting) fewer people compared to what they could have been if they had been set off at different times?

      I doubt there is a consipracy, but it is interesting.

    5. Re:Just another "coincidence" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      things are rarely as they appear. look to history.

    6. Re:Just another "coincidence" by 0xC2 · · Score: 1

      No secret goverments? Now you are deluding yourself. I guess the Founding Fathers were a bunch of paranoid conspirasists, too. Things will have to get really bad, at the point of no return, before the majority will wish they acted sooner.

      --
      Be heard || Be herd
    7. Re:Just another "coincidence" by toddhunter · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So your point is that there are bad people in the FBI?
      No there are bad people everywhere. There are also good people. There are lazy people. There are people who invent good things. Does that prove anything? No not at all.
      Get over yourself and just get on with life. The important thing is shit like this *just doesn't matter*. If you want to see things that really matter, go to a country like Rwanda and see what real problems are all about.
      I mean OMG the FBI can check my library records!!! Thank god we have people like you eternally vigilant that can save us from life shattering changes like this. Wake me up *when* *something* *important* *happens* that is not just people trying to fix a bad situation as best they can by doing their jobs.

    8. Re:Just another "coincidence" by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Get over yourself and just get on with life.

      You get over yourself, idiot. Exactly who the hell do you think you are to decide for the rest of us what constitutes a serious threat to freedom in this country, and what does not?

      Please, do go back to sleep. You're just getting in the way.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    9. Re:Just another "coincidence" by toddhunter · · Score: 1

      Look to history...actually it proves over and over again that things *are* that simple, and are exactly what they appear to be...it just happens that not everybody knows what those things are, no matter how smart they like to think they may be.

    10. Re:Just another "coincidence" by toddhunter · · Score: 1

      So this post, is considered insightful and underrated. It claims that the mass killing of people in london was organised to help pass a law that allows law-enforcement agencies to check library records.

      A post that disagrees with this is moderated as a troll.

      Is this really slashdot that I am reading?

    11. Re:Just another "coincidence" by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      You are a cretin, it's no wonder you have low Karma. Whoever modded you insightful is also a cretin.

      The best quote on those web pages you have linked to is this one "Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

      Unfortunately it applies far better to the writers of those 'conspiracy' articles than it does to the real press and government.

      In a way it's rather sick and a bad reflection on your character that you should take tragic events like the London bombings and use them for, basically, your entertainment - obviously you must enjoy inventing this nonsense and participating in the community which does likewise.

      I wish you would get back to finding 'proof' of widespread alien abduction and the scandalous cover up concerning the entry point to the hollow earth rather than bringing you ill thought out stupidity to bear on events in the real world.

  40. give thanks to the arabs for this one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    also give thanks to the arabs for not being able to carry a screwdriver on an airplane anymore. thanks a lot. if it weren't for arab savages, we wouldn't have to live like children.

  41. Jesus titty fucking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Know what it takes to become a politician these days? An IQ less than your shoe size, morals to match Stalin, the individuality of a goddamn sheep and lips well trained in the art of dick-sucking.

    I fucking hate these retarded asshats. Every. Single. Fucking. One.

  42. The real quote from the AG. by hobotron · · Score: 1


    "After measured deliberation and a public debate, the House has again provided the brave men and women of law enforcement with critical tools in their efforts to combat terrorism and protect us FROM the American people", Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement.

    How many people were successfully prosecuted AS TERRORISTS under the Patriot Act again?

    --
    There is truth in humor.
    1. Re:The real quote from the AG. by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

      How many people were successfully prosecuted AS TERRORISTS under the Patriot Act again?

      Interesting you use the word 'prosecute', given that most suspected terrorists don't even get that kind of attention, and are indefinitely detained as 'enemy combatants'.

    2. Re:The real quote from the AG. by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent down, "-1 liberal liar". That goes for 90% of the posts on this topic.

      "After measured deliberation and a public debate, the House has again provided the brave men and women of law enforcement with critical tools in their efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people"

      SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280 ,-5158572,00.html

      Care to post your source? As if you had one.

    3. Re:The real quote from the AG. by hobotron · · Score: 1


      I bolded the part of the quote that was not said but the meaning that lurks behind it. It was a literary device, not a literal quote you cockgobbler.

      See how it works?

      --
      There is truth in humor.
  43. May I be the first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To say what the fuck.

  44. If you want real freedom, cut taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A government without the money to pay for police, armies, and weapons has no power.

    If you don't want to cut taxes then don't bitch when the ability to increase government power corrupts those people in power.

  45. It's the principle... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 1

    I may not care who sees the list of books I check out from the library, but I like knowing that the privacy is there. Required or not.

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  46. Wow, and here I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the US goverment engineered today's London bombings just to get the Karl Rove mess off the front page. It never occurred to me that they'd do it to scare Congress into furthering the conversion of the US into a police state.

  47. PATRIOT coming to Europe by Wizzmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The London attacks will bring PATRIOT style legislation to Europe. We're talking mandatory data retention, search warrants without probable cause, and confiscations without the need to inform the suspect. In Sweden there is talk about breaking down the barrier between law enforcement and the military. In Italy they're talking about allowing interrogation without a laywer present. All the stuff we wouldn't normally accept. The bombs may have struck London, but their effect will soon be known to everyone in the EU.

    1. Re:PATRIOT coming to Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be the difference? Europeans don't have rights anyway, they merely have privileges at the whims of the queen. So now the queen is thinking about taking some of those privileges away to increase her own power using terrorism as an excuse. Who the fuck would be surprised? Oh well, most Europeans are all in favor of anything that takes away individual rights and lets the government "protect" them. If the Third Reich wanted to rise again in Europe, the people sure as shit wouldn't stop them. In fact, they would support it as long as a different name was used.

    2. Re:PATRIOT coming to Europe by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The depth of your knowledge of Europe astounds me. I'd especially like to here more of this "Queen of Europe".

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    3. Re:PATRIOT coming to Europe by Dal+Platinum · · Score: 1

      holy shit. read a history book. And maybe cross-reference with an atlas. You talk as if your tongue is made of penis.

    4. Re:PATRIOT coming to Europe by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What would be the difference? Europeans don't have rights anyway, they merely have privileges at the whims of the queen.

      Finland doesn't have a queen, because it isn't a monarchy.

      So now the queen is thinking about taking some of those privileges away to increase her own power using terrorism as an excuse.

      Um, "queen" refers to a female ruler, while both Bush and Blair (the ones the founder of this thread accused of bombing London) are males - I think.

      Oh well, most Europeans are all in favor of anything that takes away individual rights and lets the government "protect" them.

      I find it ironic that this accusation was made in a discussion about the US extending Patriot Act ;).

      If the Third Reich wanted to rise again in Europe, the people sure as shit wouldn't stop them. In fact, they would support it as long as a different name was used.

      Yes, this is sadly true. The generation that saw the destruction caused by nazis is mostly gone. Inevitably, the younger generation will start dreaming of glory and greatness, and follow whoever promises them straight to hell.

      Sometimes I wish humanity had a racial memory, so we wouldn't repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Then again, we would propably use it just to retain and refine the most horrific torture methods of history for use of our "intelligence" services.

      --

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

    5. Re:PATRIOT coming to Europe by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      In Sweden there is talk about breaking down the barrier between law enforcement and the military.

      In Sweden its also legal and permissable to have sex with animals, a practise which is in fact on the rise.

      In Italy they're talking about allowing interrogation without a laywer present.

      This would be the home of the Mafia, yes? Do you think that might have any bearing on their decisions?

      Here in Europe politicians aren't rockstars like they are in the US, and they are hired and fired by the public based on their achievements and progress. Employees of the public, in other words. Each country will find its own answer to the rise of terrorism, and terrorism has been here for a whole lot longer than it has been in the US. One thing I can guarantee you, any state that has watched the events in the US post 11-9 will think long and hard before giving in to them by setting up a patriot act. Assuming the people let them if they tried, of course.

  48. Breath of fresh air by poind3xt3r · · Score: 1

    With the http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/21/014121 4&tid=126&tid=99Ray Gun to keep out of control "rioters" at bay and listening on "possible terrorists" i can finally put aside all the paranoia live a worry-free life knowning that my governement is "watching" my back.

  49. This isn't a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Say what you want about those two quotes... kneejerk Godwin's law if you want. But to call them a troll? Those two quotes sum up a very real problem with human society, past and present. Perhaps we'll move beyond this, someday.

    But if people honestly think this is "trolling", then I guess that day is a long way in the future.

  50. Terrorism... by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Before he was elected, Bush was actually quoted as saying that he believed the American people had too much freedom.

    Terrorism is just being used as an excuse for Bush to remove everyones rights.

    1. Re:Terrorism... by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Before he was elected, Clinton was actually quoted as saying that he believed Hitler was Jesus.

      Mod me up please, this post with its fake quote is about as insightful as the parent. Fair is fair.

    2. Re:Terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before he was elected, Bush was actually quoted as saying that he believed the American people had too much freedom.

      He also once said (after becoming president) that a dictatorship would makes things much easier. He was joking, of course, but it's not comforting to have your leader say that.

      That said, I'm not worried about Bush. He's a moron, an idiot, a sandwich short of a picnic, whatever you want to call it. Alone, he has absolutely no power, no presence, and no clue as to what to do. What SHOULD scare everyone are the puppet master creeps comfortably hiding behind Bush Jr.'s shadow. These people have been hanging around the White House for HOW LONG? They have been related to various scandals including those surrounding Nixon and Viet Nam? These are the real creeps, and should scare everyone shitless. Forget Bush Jr., he's just a puppet. While I'm not usually in favor of violence, I sometimes wonder if it's even ethical NOT to be violent, when their powers have resulted in so much violence on innocent people. Remember, if you're in a violent world and refuse to be violent, you will soon be extinct.

    3. Re:Terrorism... by mbius · · Score: 2, Informative

      The context of that quote, FYI, was that the owner of gwbush.com put up a site criticizing his presidency bid in '99, titled "Just Say No to Former Cocaine User for President." The exact quote is "There ought to be limits to freedom."

      http://www.rtmark.com/more/articles/bushdallas0522 bush1bushsite.htm

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    4. Re:Terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... at least we have to harmonize our laws with our trade partners like China. Otherwise, we won't be able to compete! Just look at the Chinese economic miracle. Anyone who suggests that having inane privacy and freedom laws is more important than the economic well-being of our contry and its corporations, is clearly an extremely selfish and unpatriotic person! We need to forget about little freedoms and work toward our common well-being!

    5. Re:Terrorism... by darkera · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to when Bush said "There ought to be limits to freedom" ? I don't like him either, but that statement is true. Afterall, the right for you to swing your arms ends where my face begins.

    6. Re:Terrorism... by superyooser · · Score: 1
      It's easy to quote people out of context.

      "...unfortunately we can't control the actions of everyone." - Bill Clinton, April 20, 1993

      "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..." - President Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993

      "When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it." - Bill Clinton

      [Source for my quotes, which lists original sources]

      Here's the context of the last quote: "When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities." - 3/22/94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"

      Was Clinton using the issue of crime to remove our rights?

      More Clinton quotes:

      "The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people."- during an interview on MTV in 1993

      "You know the one thing that's wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say." - May 29, 1993, The White House

    7. Re:Terrorism... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      I am not a Bush fan by any means, but if you are going to say something like this (and people are going to mod it up), please, INCLUDE A REFERENCE. Everything Bush says in public is recorded. Give us a link or something.

    8. Re:Terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The quote was "there ought to be limits to freedom"

      I can just add to that. If you treat people like animals, they become animals.

      Maybe that is what happened to dubya. The series of pictures of him with monkey expressions beside a rea l monnkey. The transformation is complete. With a monkey at the helm america is on the way to becoming a banana republic.

    9. Re:Terrorism... by hyperbaba · · Score: 1

      "Terrorism is just being used as an excuse for Bush to remove everyones rights. " All the problems that US created in the world today are caused by "double standards" policy in foreign politics. Typical example is frequent use of the term "Terrorism" . Everything that is turned against US interests are characterized as a "act of Terrorism" but in the same time the groups that use terrorism as their method of achieving the goals (and they suit the US policy) are called "Freedom Fighters" or similar . Terrorism is by one definition "The use of extreme violence or the threat of violence by states, groups or individuals to generate fear in individuals and thus manipulate their behavior." , and this is exactly the US policy against some countries ( Take the example of 1999 Bombing campaign of Yugoslavia; US led forces targeted Power plants and power distribution infrastructure , leaving entire country without electricity and water supply. This can be characterized as Act of Terrorism and it really was, on the grand scale). So don't be worried about your rights diminished by the Patriotic Act, this is just the path your government choose for you and your children. At the end , you still have a right to Live (freely or not) and this right is taken from many people throughout the world.

    10. Re:Terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      So he'd like to silence people who don't want him elected? Wow. That makes the quote even worse.

    11. Re:Terrorism... by mbius · · Score: 2, Informative

      So he'd like to silence people who don't want him elected? Wow. That makes the quote even worse.

      Yeah, well, I thought clarifying an incorrect quote in the parent was always a good thing, but whoever modded me overrated is probably feeling pretty good about himself.

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    12. Re:Terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...an excuse for Bush to remove everyones rights...

      And to use them as a whip to BEAT US WITH!

    13. Re:Terrorism... by torpor · · Score: 1

      who cares about clinton? is he currently in charge?

      comparing Bush to Clinton is a pathetic argument; one is in power eroding peoples rights, and one isn't.

      do something about the idiot in power *now*, not the idiot who used to be in power..

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    14. Re:Terrorism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:Terrorism... (Score:1)
      by torpor (458) on Friday July 22, @11:29AM (#13135653)

      who cares about clinton? is he currently in charge?

      comparing Bush to Clinton is a pathetic argument; one is in power eroding peoples rights, and one isn't.

      do something about the idiot in power *now*, not the idiot who used to be in power..


      Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

      Many critics of these abuses by the Bush administration fell over themselves to kiss Clinton's ass when he did the same things. They don't care about tyranny, as long as their guy is in power. Be careful of them -- they have their own agenda, and it's not freedom.
    15. Re:Terrorism... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Uh, yes- disarming HUD residents was indeed a limitation of personal rights in the United States, as every NRA member knew at the time. I like you see no difference between Clinton's limitation of weapons in Housing and Urban Development; and the Patriot Act. One used crime, the other used terrorism, but the end result was the same- a massive curtailing of civil liberties. I decried both at the time- especially since neither seemed to attack the actual problems to me.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  51. Any proof that the Patriot Act actually works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can congress produce any actual cases of terrorist arrested or attempted attacks foiled because of the provisions of the Patriot Act.

    Just wondering whether I'm getting my freedom's worth.

  52. Come early... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 1

    If you hurry, we might be able to stuff you somewhere in Nunavut. If you get friendly with the locals, you'll find an infinite supply of firewater and marrywanna.

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  53. THE SKY IS FALLING! by Comsn · · Score: 1

    also, why isint anyone upset that tax payer money is paying some fool to look at library records? what good is a library record? to see how many times the person checked out 'how to draw manga'?

  54. It doesn't matter if they really did it or not by Neoncow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They'll use it to their advantage. 1) The London attacks did not happen on US soil. Therefore the measures taken MUST HAVE WORKED ("this rock keeps tigers away"). 2) Conveniently, the war on terror will never be over. Therefore we should extend the patriot act for as long as damn well possible.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter if they really did it or not by tehlinux · · Score: 1

      I'll buy your rock.

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    2. Re:It doesn't matter if they really did it or not by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      OK, so the attacks didn't take place on US soil, but that doesn't mean *more* liberties *won't* be taken away. Take a look at Random Bag Searches on the New York subway...

  55. Whoopie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think this is a great and american thing

    malcolmr1@comcast.net

  56. Ok, here's a question or two... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why extend them?

    Or to ask it in a more direct manner, exactly what terrorist activities have these bills stopped since they were enacted? Any?

    What's the benefit? How has the Patriot act helped us so far?

    Has it done any good at all yet - or is it just rights erosion for the expediency of law enforcement?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Ok, here's a question or two... by warkda+rrior · · Score: 1
      [E]xactly what terrorist activities have these bills stopped since they were enacted?

      That is not a good question to ask, since all security measures become visible only in their failure. If security works, you will not know it.

      This means that they can always say "we stopped 1,234,056 terrorists using the Patriot Act" and there is now way one can verify it.

      A better question is: How does this law helps us prevent terrorist attacks? Could it prevent 9/11? Could it prevent 7/7?

      --
      You need to install an RTFM interface.
    2. Re:Ok, here's a question or two... by NaCh0 · · Score: 0

      To tackle the prevention problem. The London bombers from 2 weeks ago were said to commingle in libraries together. The so-called PATRIOT library provision may have provided law enforcement necessary tools to prevent the bombings that occured. Not by the records themselves but it could establish a pattern of concern when associated with other information on these people.

    3. Re:Ok, here's a question or two... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To tackle the prevention problem. The London bombers from 2 weeks ago were said to commingle in libraries together. The so-called PATRIOT library provision may have provided law enforcement necessary tools to prevent the bombings that occured. Not by the records themselves but it could establish a pattern of concern when associated with other information on these people."

      So...tell me again, if they didn't have any records to search, how the USAPATRIOT Act would have established a "pattern of concern"?
      Unless these libraries required you to sign in, or somehow identify yourself as you enter/leave.

      Then again, it could establish patterns of concern for our terrorist youth. After all, THOUSANDS, perhaps MILLIONS, of America's young people gather in libraries EVERY DAY. Does this mean that the local Color Guard is going to plant a bomb in a local bus station?
      Heaven forbid a local Shakespear club might try to hijack an airplane!

      Why don't we just outlaw libraries?
      Why don't we outlaw gatherings of more than two people in the same place? That might slow down these terrorists.
      In fact, why don't we outlaw reading and writing? After all, if they can't learn how to build bombs, they can't be effective terrorists, right?

      Let's all huddle in our homes, waiting for the inevitable day when a terrorist decides our house is a prime target.

      If you are so afraid that a terrorist is going to get you, then you go hide. Leave. Get out of my country, coward.

      And remember, as you are leaving, that our founding fathers were terrorists. Think about that the next time you start calling someone unpatriotic. You are a direct descendant of a terrorist.

      P.S. - it's an intersting bit of irony that the confirmation word for this post is "enslave". Is /. trying to tell me something?

    4. Re:Ok, here's a question or two... by zx75 · · Score: 1

      Have you seen any terror attacks on American soil since 9/11? It must be working.

      I also have a rock that keeps tigers away if anyone's interested.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    5. Re:Ok, here's a question or two... by alexo · · Score: 1


      > After all, THOUSANDS, perhaps MILLIONS, of America's young people gather in libraries EVERY DAY.

      You wish...

  57. Democrats are wusses ("Dude, where's my country?") by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    Moore himself berated democrats for being utter wusses.. refusing to stand up for their values, and becomming nothing more than bland republicans themselves. It is their fault.. they caved to the smear campaign engineered by the right-winged media outlets and gae up... the guardians have left the gates open and taken a long nap.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  58. In Memoriam Habeas Corpus by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    During the committee negotiations in the House of Representatives, one Democrat attempted to append an amendment to this Police Act that explicitly stated that the Act did not in any way suspend Habeas Corpus. That foundation of American justice was claimed by opponents to be threatened by the Act, which threat was denied by its supporters. So why did Republicans vote down that simple amendment? It surely would have saved a lot of time and money in any case where a judge had to decide whether, in fact, the Act did violate the Habeas Corpus principle. What does this Act therefore really mean, once the dross of rhetoric that ushers it through the process is lost in the sands of history?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:In Memoriam Habeas Corpus by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      "So why did Republicans vote down that simple amendment?"


      There is no such beast. Given the way our law system works, a 'simple' amendment probably has 5 public works projects, the establishment of three new government organizations, and a provision mandating that the congressman's dog get patted three extra times that afternoon. I don't even bother asking your question anymore, as so much crap is built into the making of laws that there is always, always a valid objection to any given act. Just my 2 cents.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    2. Re:In Memoriam Habeas Corpus by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      The amendment seems to have been simply within the scope of reaffirming habeas corpus despite possible confusion that the Patriot Act might infringe it. I can't find the killed amendment online (yet), but it passed unanimously in committee, before being killed by Republicans on the floor in a purely partisan vote:
      Rep. LOFGREN: Well, as you know, we completed action last night, and on a party-line vote, the bill was passed. ...
      You know, when the assistant attorney general came to testify before the committee on the act, I asked him whether he thought it might not be a good idea to reaffirm that the Congress of the United States has not acted to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I offered that amendment last night, yesterday evening, and it was unanimously adopted. And then after much flurrying around with kind of Justice Department dweebs, there was a party-line vote to revote that amendment, and the Republicans voted against the proposition that we have not suspended the write of habeas corpus, so that's kind of chilling news for the country and an additional reason to be concerned.

      I doubt the committee passed some kind of pork sandwich wrapped in habeas corpus. Especially since at least one Republican would have voted for it. If someone can show me the amendment, and it's really just pork or some other exploding cargo, I'll believe your theory. Until then, I'll accept the completely plausible assertion of Rep. Lofgren. And refuse to accept the Act, which now obviously targets the destruction of habeas corpus (unless, perhaps, you're a Congressmember, or used to run Enron/HealthSouth/ArthurAnderson).

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  59. Inflamed Passions? by thouth · · Score: 1

    "Critics heralded the bulk of the existing law, but said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the September 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law." So when did 2 weeks right after terrorist attacks in London killing 56 people, and a couple of hour after four more attacks (even though they were dud's) didn't count for inflamed passions or at least some biase. If you ask me, all the people that claim there will be a terrorist attack before X because it will help push things along for party Y don't so sound crazy any more.

  60. BTW by william_w_bush · · Score: 1

    BTW, that's the part of this that scares me the most. If they could do this 2 weeks after the last attack, they could've killed as many people as last time. Cong stupid luck, but they will almost certainly try again, and next time they won't make the same mistake, how do you stop them again?

    I forsee xray machines on the tube...

    --
    The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
    1. Re:BTW by finkployd · · Score: 1

      how do you stop them again?

      How do you stop terrorism? It is actually quite simple. You have three options

      (1) Kill everyone who might present a terrorist threat. Downside: you create a lot more terrorists this way, but they think of themselves as "freedom fighters". People get irrational like that when their families are killed.

      (2) Appease them. Bow down to every demand, every threat, and never give them cause to harm you. Downside: they own you, once you give in once they know it works and will do redouble efforts.

      (3) Lock down your country so tightly that it is almost impossible for anyone to do anything even remotely terror-attack-like. Then all the citizens can enjoy their freedom too...well...be safe. Downside: that is the only freedom they get.

      Hmmm, turns out it is not easy, but we are gonna try (1) and (3) just in case. However in real life you can never stop terrorism. No power hungry dictator can ever oppress the population enough that a motivated person cannot kill a bunch of other people. And you can never kill all the terrorists, that action breeds more. And you cannot give in to them or they fuels their fire.

      Finkployd

    2. Re:BTW by william_w_bush · · Score: 1

      You are a horrible, depressing, son of a bitch.

      My original question was rhetorical and sympathetic, much along the lines of saying "you gonna be all right?" to a 5 year-old leukemia patient. Thank you, for telling me the unbelievably hopeless but completely obvious truth that everyone knows and no-one is even remotely able to consider.

      If you need me I'm going to go home and cry into my rocky road haagen-dazs, because it doesn't judge me, or tell me horrible truths I really want to consciously ignore.

      Also, you're missing option 4:

      (4) Find a way for another party (not you or anyone you like) to offend the unpleasant party, allowing them to redirect their misplaced anger toward them, and then giving both parties weapons before stepping away.

      I mention option 4 because a) it works, and 2) we've done it before, those poor soviet sob's

      --
      The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
  61. I think I speak for all of us when I say by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Funny

    fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

    (For some strange reason the Slashdot filter doesn't like this post. I can't imagine why.)

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    1. Re:I think I speak for all of us when I say by Minwee · · Score: 1
      I think George Carlin put it best:

      "Make fuck, not kill."

      Either way your plan has merit, and I intend to give it a try.

    2. Re:I think I speak for all of us when I say by pehrs · · Score: 1

      The government wants you to be safe.
      It's treason not to be safe.
      Traitors are shot on sight.
      Are you safe, citizen?
      The government obviously needs more trouble-shooters.

      (I guess I should be happy not to live in a country slowly creeping closer to becoming alpha complex. Freedom is worth more than safety. We will all die eventually, but not all of us will die free.)

  62. Ha ha ha, want an extention bomb a foreign city by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LMAO an incident that never happened in our soil and we extend the patriot act, I'm rolling on the floor laughing......

  63. bad ideas beget bad ideas by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

    it is the slippery slope.

    first today it will be 1%

    then tommorow 1.5%

    the next day maybe 2% gone

    a week? 5% gone,

    20 years? 50% gone

    I am talking about freedoms. They are slipping through your fingers and you care not.

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
  64. I have worked out their thinking behind this... by Sathias · · Score: 1

    They hate us because of our freedom... so if we remove our freedoms they won't hate us anymore!

    --
    Blessed are the 1337, for they shall pwn the earth.
    1. Re:I have worked out their thinking behind this... by klang · · Score: 1

      That's brilliant! :-)

      oh .. actually, it's very sad! :-/

      I wonder if it will work, though?

  65. Quote is from Goering, not Hitler. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  66. But wait! This is America... by lightyear4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...welcome to the land of the everchanging opinion! Instead of grumbling about the erosion of civil rights, ask instead what the future may hold. The tides are already turning for the current lame duck sitting in the office on the hill. So then, might we at least consider that DC will wake up, shake the fog from its collective head, and repeal or alter the damn thing?

    1. Re:But wait! This is America... by gerardrj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once government has taken a power from the people it is never returned except by force. Any government that attempts to restrain the people inevitably fails.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    2. Re:But wait! This is America... by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      Any government that attempts to restrain the people inevitably fails.

      Really?

      Where in the world did you get this hopelessly naive viewpoint from?

      The vast majority of governments throughout human history have been the type that restrains the people. Despotisms. Monarchies. Banana republics. It's only within the last couple of hundred years that we've seen a move towards individual empowerment. Now we're seeing a move away from it again.

      And since the modern tools to subdue large populations can only be defended against by weapons that no individual can afford, the trend towards worldwide totalitarianism will inexorably accelerate, not slow down, until the entire world is a totalitarian state.

      And once that happens, there will be no outside force to push it over. It'll topple on its own, eventually. Everything changes, given enough time. But it'll take thousands of years.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  67. MOD Parent DOWN -- Its a WRONG attribute by Blahbooboo3 · · Score: 1

    Uhm, the quote is Hermann Goering... NOT hitler.

    1. Re:MOD Parent DOWN -- Its a WRONG attribute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, the quote is Hermann Goering... NOT hitler.

      No neither one, is the leaked memo from U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld before Iraq War.

  68. fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me... by screwthemoderators · · Score: 1

    "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again!" GWB I would think our representatives would know better than to prolong this legislative travesty. Sad.

  69. The Constitution must be sore... by psykocrime · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    it just got brutally anal-raped with no vaseline.

    Take heart my friends, we WILL take our country back someday.

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    1. Re:The Constitution must be sore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will we take it back? Not through violence. The general public has handguns and hunting rifles. The US Government has all manner of assault rifles, grenades, bombs, tanks, planes, etc. The general public has no formal training in combat situations. The US Government hires and trains a standing army, navy, and air force.

      The nicest solution would be to ban all political parties. You can no longer use groupthink... you have to justify each choice based on what you think. No "party line" to follow.

      All political ads must be registered, and equal airtime must be given to all candidates. (Maybe by saying there are n candidates, there is t airtime for political ads, each candidate gets t/n airtime. If candidates don't use their airtime, it is simply used for regular ads... nobody gets to use more ads then anybody else!) Perhaps even a shared webserver where each candidate gets to explain their views. Of course, there are a lot of offices to fill from local to state to federal government, but such a site could be set up.

      Yes, that means the public would have to deal with more candidates. That's the whole point. Debates for each office with all candidates involved (obviously only a few at a time, but you only get to be in one debate!).

      A choice of "None of the Above" on the ballots. If "None of the Above" wins, an entire new crop of candidates runs... nobody is allowed to run from the previous group. And the incumbent is also kicked out of office, since they lost. Yes, this means the government could shut down temporarily... but that is their own fault.

      Insane? Probably. But the only thing I can think of that would try to add fairness to the election process.

    2. Re:The Constitution must be sore... by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      Hopefully it won't take violence, but if it comes to that, then yes. All the talk about hunting rifles v. assault rifles is insignificant. "We The People" outnumber the standing military of the United States by millions and millions of people. If enough of us decide we're tired of having our freedoms taken away, we're completely capable of taking them back.

      The trick is getting enough people to care, to do something about it.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
    3. Re:The Constitution must be sore... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The general public has handguns and hunting rifles. The US Government has all manner of assault rifles, grenades, bombs, tanks, planes, etc.

      That, my friend, has never been the problem. What about when the government had swords, cavalry, rifles and artillery, and the people had, uhh, pitchforks? When the people stop working, the economy collapses, and no one is moving ammunition, fuel and food to the army any more. Plus how does the soldier feel when asked to open fire on a public whose opinion he might basically agree with? It becomes a lot easier to turn on the few military leaders than wipe out the teeming masses. You go from being the bad guy to being the hero instantly.

      Technology has never stopped a revolution.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:The Constitution must be sore... by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      I'm an outside observer, but I think if the shit hits the fan, the US military will be out in front. They know what honour is.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    5. Re:The Constitution must be sore... by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1
      I, for one, do not support violence. I think that things would have to go really far in order for there to be enough people pissed off to actually stage a violent revolt. I really hope it never gets to that point.

      That being said, if it really comes down to that, then it does, and action of that sort will have to be taken.

      As an aside (and response to GP), there is a significant number of trained soldiers in the civilian populace (I am one), so lack of training for such a thing would not be so much of an issue. Military-grade weapons, while not available to the civilians at first, can be appropriated with time.

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    6. Re:The Constitution must be sore... by psykocrime · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear, I don't "support violence" in the sense that I consider violence the first choice. I very much want to see our country restored to a state where we can consider ourselves the most free nation in the world, and I very much hope it can happen without any violence. Myself, I would hate to have another man's blood on my hands, for any reason.

      However, that said... I am not against using violence if it comes to the point that there is no other option. But clearly, any sort of violent revolution should be the last resort. For now I still hold out some small hope that by voting and campaigning and doing all those things, we can effect some positive change. But that hope keeps growing weaker as I see the shit happening around us.

      --
      // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  70. Goes to show ya by RingDev · · Score: 1

    No matter who hires Alan Kay, we're still screwed.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  71. in soviet russia by atarione · · Score: 1

    in soviet russia patriot acts you.

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
    1. Re:in soviet russia by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      we're in soviet russia...

    2. Re:in soviet russia by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you are not in Russia. You are in Honecker's East Germany, where all citizens are spying on each other, people are detained without trial and dissenters get shot, well, one more step to go...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  72. A guide to legislation, circa 2005 by dachshund · · Score: 1
    The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.

    This is true. Or it used to be. Whatever the Senate passes must be reconciled with the House version by a conference committee. In theory, this should ensure that the House and Senate bills are fairly blended. The Senate is a more moderate and bipartisan place, so a moderate version of the bill in the Senate might help to temper the bill that just passed in the House.

    Unfortunately, conference committees have become another avenue for abuse of power over the past several years. With one party dominating both the House and Senate, the other party can be shut out of committee. The same goes for any moderate members of the majority party who don't go along with the party line. So any compromises in the Senate bill that don't please the majority leaders can be conveniently wiped out at that point. It's politically difficult for a Senator to turn around and vote against a bill they've already "passed", so these changed bills typically sail through a final vote and become law, no matter how unrecognizable they become.

    Look for this process to conveniently erase any improvements or checks on the power of law enforcement that find their way into a Senate bill.

  73. The Patriot Act would be o.k. by Pete+LaGrange · · Score: 3, Insightful


    if it were only going to be used against people
    who were trying to try to blow things up.

    The problem is it's going to end up being used
    against grandmothers with glaucoma and kids
    with a few dime bags.

    It's like the RICO act, meant to be used against
    racketeers but just try to get your car back if
    you drive down the wrong street at the wrong time.

    The war on drugs has turned our government into
    paternalistic assholes and changed cops from
    helpful servants into self-righteous bastards
    who see a criminal in every face.

    We set ourselves up for this.

    Where better for a guilty, nervous would-be bomber
    to hide that among a population filled with guilty,
    nervous drug users?

    Wake up.

    Tell your congressmen to repeal drug laws because they
    only fuel organized crime, camouflage the real danger
    among us and make those who would do us harm safer
    by diverting funds and manpower from hunting bombers
    down like animals to locking up teenage girls because
    they were caught with a joint.

    --
    loyalty above all, save honor
    1. Re:The Patriot Act would be o.k. by Proc6 · · Score: 1

      God damn it what is with you people that force line breaks, its annoying as fuck.

      --

      I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

    2. Re:The Patriot Act would be o.k. by Pete+LaGrange · · Score: 1

      God damn it what is with you people that force line breaks, its annoying as fuck.

      Yeah, sorry. It was just hell on my eyes the other way. Didn't really help anyway.

      --
      loyalty above all, save honor
    3. Re:The Patriot Act would be o.k. by RiffRafff · · Score: 1

      Those weren't line breaks. That was a haiku.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    4. Re:The Patriot Act would be o.k. by FatSean · · Score: 1

      Well said, but a hopeless request.

      Our government is strong...it will stay the course and not flip flop on important issues. Like the war on drugs the USA has been losing for decades. Better to stand firm on your principles than to recognize that your hopeless ideals are lies and intractable in the real world.

      --
      Blar.
  74. Hmm... by r_naked · · Score: 1

    Yea, whatever, fuck 'em.

    Bring the battle to my steps, and I will fight back.

    Some people here may be daft enough to think I am reffering to what most people,usually incorrectly, like to refer to as terrorists. Just to clarify, I am reffering to the REAL terrorists, the US government, the UK government, the AU government ... any one "power" that, for what ever fucked up reason, thinks they need to decide the fates of others.

    Keep in mind, there is a BIG difference between deciding someones fate and *SIMPLY* keeping the peace (emphisis on the word PEACE).

    --
    -- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
  75. GOD DAMMIT! by thedarb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Damn reactionary bastards! Don't you law makers get it?!? You just let the terrorists win! AGAIN!

    "Oh we won't let them change how we live our lives..."

    What do you think you just did?

    Terrorists are horrible unspeakable evil, but sometimes stupid people in office due just as much damage.

    *sigh*

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  76. Bush Political Maneuver Helped Terrorists Get Away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/14/211527/166 Daily Kos points out that the London bombers were part of a cell whose members were alerted to their compromised position by the White House's leak of the capture of one of their members, a leak intended to draw attention away from last year's Democratic National Convention. "Those arrests were the arrests that the Bush administration botched by announcing a heightened security alert the week of the Democratic Convention. Because the US let the cat out of the bag, the media got a hold of Khan's name, his Al Qaeda contacts found out he was co-opted, and they fled."

  77. Adolf Hitler??? Mod Parent DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gustave Gilbert said it, Adolf was pretty bad but he didn't do EVERYTHING... Full quote: "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

  78. Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government is by definition a body of people that is not governed

  79. mod me to hell, laugh or ignore me, i dont care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A poster farther up asks "how many tin foil hat types think theres a connection with today's bombings"... All things considered, I find the coincidence of today's bombings somewhat disturbing. If history is to be considered, then there is good reason to question whether or not there is a connection.

    How much farther does this idiocy have to go before the proles wake up. Aside from a new and improved Asshole Act, I wonder what monstrous retaliation awaits the next targets of our country's arrogant and foolhardy wrath.

    If knowledge is power, then ignorance must be impotence. So I beg you to do what you can in that regard, at least. Share the knowledge. Encourage the ideals. Stand by your neighbors. Voice your opinion. Be disobedient if you must.

    Need some red pills for your trapped friends and family? Perhaps these will help:

    The Law, Frederic Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

    No Treason, by Lysander Spooner http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm

    An Essay on the Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1201

    Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

    The Declaration of Independence http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.h tml

    Civil Disobedience http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html

    Common Sense, by Thomas Paine http://www.bartleby.com/133/

    Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Ettiene de la Boetie http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

    The Discovery of Freedom, Rose Wilder Lane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane

    Law of Nations, Vattel http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

    Best luck to us all.

    C

  80. I wish my memory was better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but I remember a friend telling me about how they were sure that within 15-20 years the US would be a totalitarian state, and here we are 10 years later well on the way. I'm sure democratic elections and (what remains of) free speech will be legislated away soon enough, all in the interest of the public good of course.

  81. And so... by Snaller · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... its one step closer to Titors predictions...

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:And so... by Dr.+Droolius+Drool · · Score: 1

      Titor was an obvious phony, I mean shotguns, John Updike thought we should be using them in Vietnam, but their range sucks, shotgun militias will never be a defensive army, only a police force. His timeline is seemingly unneringly accurate though. :Exhales Paranoia: It's been a long week.

  82. Daddy, what is freedom? by SoloFlyer2 · · Score: 0

    Well son freedom is something that we used to have before the PATRIOT act was passed...

    P olitical
    A ssholes
    T heiving
    R ights
    I n
    O verwrought
    T houghtlessness

    --
    "I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
  83. So this is how karma is whored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...by someone posting this Star Wars quote in every single Slashdot article involving civil liberties lately.

  84. I know it was a lie by brakken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When the first Patriot Act passed I knew the government was lying when they said they would not extend it past it's deadline. I understand during a time of war it has been necessary in the past to put a lockdown on certain freedoms, but aren't we not at war anymore? I've watched our freedoms being raped from us every single day for the extent of my life any the only reason behind it is so that the government makes some cash. Luckily we're still able to talk about the way we see things on sites like this, but I wonder how long that will last?

    --
    [ brakken ]
    1. Re:I know it was a lie by swiftstream · · Score: 1

      You know, I feel a bit of the same way.

      My representative, who voted for the Patriot act, stated that he expected this bill to fail, and he did not think that the sunset provisions should be repealed or the rights renewed.

      And then he goes and votes in favor of repealing 14 of the sunset provisions and extending the other two for 10 more years.

      Doh!

      Last time I trust him on his word... /waiting for an explanation from representative

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
  85. And this is why... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a mousepad with "smash head here" written on it. But, seriously...

    One of Osama's stated goals is to destroy, through holy war, America (the Great Satan). One of the things that made us great was our Constitution, that great document which protects our freedoms. Yet here goes the House of Representatives, doing exactly what bin Laden wants: Taking away our freedom. In fact, doing the one thing that Osama can never do. The only question I really want answered is, "House of Representatives: Who the heck are you representing?" Because I don't believe that the majority of America, let alone 60% of us, want the government to be able to get search warrants without a judge's consent. To force us to keep quiet about a search. To invade the privacy of our medical and library records.

    And I don't want to hear any BS about 'it will only be used on/against terrorists.' This government, like any other, has abused/abuses almost every power it was ever given. And you think they'll pass up something as juicy, and so easy, and so incredibly tempting to abuse as this? Look at RICO. It was passed so the cops could bust meetings of mobsters. Now it's routinely used against groups of garden-variety criminals.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H L Mencken. Terrorism is a complex problem. We have to pull off a considerable juggling act: We have to try and defend ourselves against terrorists. We also have to make sure that we have a nation that is free and worth defending when we're done. We have to find and assauge the root cause of the hatred, because as Vietnam and now Iraq have demonstrated, superior technology can't defeat a foe with the power of conviction in his beliefs. And we have to reign in our collective ego, and not be too proud to admit that Iraq is a lost cause and that we should leave. And so far, our government is only keeping one ball in the air. The "Patriot" act is an answer that is clear, simple, and dead wrong.

    "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison
    "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Abba Eban.

    "Most Democrats echoed that support but said they were concerned the law could allow citizens' civil liberties to be infringed." translate(BS, ENGLISH) == "The 43 Democrats who voted in favor secretly oppose it but have no spine or willpower to say so."

    "While the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Of course not, dumbass. The threat will not recede until we (the Infidels) remove our troops from the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) because that's exactly what Osama expicitly stated! But America won't do that and we all know why.

    "The House debate included frequent references to the attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts that killed 56, including four suicide bombers." Hmmm... could it be that THIS is what the London blasts were about?

    Ugh... I am disgusted with this government beyond words.

    1. Re:And this is why... by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You claim that it's "BS" that the patriot act will only be used on/against terrorists. I've been hearing this for years, so where are all the cases of abuses? I don't see any. Care to point some out, or are you making a tinfoil argument?

      Despite what the media wants you to believe, we are winning the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq and we are WINNING the war. The root cause of Islamic hatred toward America and the west is our success and our rejection if Islam. We can remedy this in two ways, by killing or capturing all Islamic terrorists or by converting to Islam. The terrorists know that if they lose in Iraq then it's all over for them, that's why foreign terrorists from all over the middle east are pouring into Iraq. This is the terrorists' last stand and we will prevail.

      Fortunantly we have a president now who couldn't care less what the American left and the American media say about him. They can keep calling him Hitler day and night, they can yell at him until they are blue in the face just like they did to Reagan. Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing, it doesn't matter to him one bit what vocal fringe lunatics think.

    2. Re:And this is why... by Tony · · Score: 1

      . . . it doesn't matter to him one bit what vocal fringe lunatics think.

      Yeah, it does. They're the reason he's in office.

      [rimshot]

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    3. Re:And this is why... by randalware · · Score: 1

      And our glorious leader still sounds like an idiot.

      I think the US foreign policies, giving money to support governments, to support our countries big business is a major part of the problem.

      "Follow the money" there is graft & corruption in this.

      --
      This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
    4. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be no proof of abuses because the proof is SECRET. I wouold be willing to bet there were several librarians who would be willing to testify before congress but are not allowed to because of the automatic and permanent built-in gag order. If you read the PATRIOT act you will see that if you get a request you can only tell your lawyer and even then only for the purpose of complying. It is ILLEGAL to tell your lawyer for the purpose of challenging the order or law and it is ILLEGAL to testify before congress that you recieved a request because all such requests must be kept SECRET.

    5. Re:And this is why... by uprock_x · · Score: 1

      House of Representatives: Who the heck are you representing?

      House of Representatives is the lower house, equivalent to House of Commons in the UK ?

      I know our MPs don't vote based on what people want or what they believe in. They vote on what the party line is or what they think is a good idea.

      I wrote to my own MP about ID Cards in the UK telling him what a bad idea it was. Little point though as the guy is an unapologetic, corrupt, spineless toad for New Labour and will just do whatever the great Bliar tells him.

    6. Re:And this is why... by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      Why aren't you disgusted with the voters?

    7. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you agree with Osama? You think that the attacks that killed thousands of innocent people on September 11th, 2001 were a good thing?! You want the troops to withdraw from... Saudi Arabia. But, um.... the war is in Iraq, last time I checked. What does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything? Sure, we were in that country long ago, but that's all over now. And you talk about RICO being used on "garden-variety criminals". Let's get one thing straight - a criminal is a criminal, no more, no less. A lump of cow crap is a lump of cow crap, however you look at it. If the cops can get another scumbag off of the street, so he doesn't rape/murder my kids, I'm all for it. And if the guy loses his rights, why does it matter? He's a scumbag! I don't care if he's mafia, mob, CIA, or whatever. Crime must be punished.

    8. Re:And this is why... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Rather than reinventing the wheel, here's a link to another post of abuses. Also, did you consider that since the "Patriot" act allows the government to deny prisoners their right to an attorney, right to a speedy trial, and the right to know the charges against them, and allows them to be held indefinetly and incommunicado, you're not supposed to KNOW about abuses?

      Despite what the media wants you to believe, we are winning the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq and we are WINNING the war.
      If we were winning the war, then the number of suicide bombers in Baghdad would be decreasing rather than increasing. As I said, this is turning into another Vietnam which will again demonstrate that technology CANNOT defeat an enemy who has the power of his convictions. We lost ~60000 men in Vietnam, the Vietcong lost more than 2 million - yet we left in shame.

      The root cause of Islamic hatred toward America and the west is our success and our rejection if Islam.
      You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? Osama bin Laden has called for and gotten Jihad against America because American soldiers are stationed in Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca. HE FRACKING SAYS SO. If America withdraws it's forces from Saudi Arabia, he'll end the Jihad!!! But as I said, we won't do that for obvious reasons. Furthermore, if rejecting Islam was the reason that Osama hates us, then shouldn't he also be waging war on China?

      We can remedy this in two ways, by killing or capturing all Islamic terrorists or by converting to Islam. The terrorists know that if they lose in Iraq then it's all over for them, that's why foreign terrorists from all over the middle east are pouring into Iraq. This is the terrorists' last stand and we will prevail.
      Kill or capture all Islamic terrorists? Sure - just like each retaliatory strike by Israel against Hamas prevents violence rather than inciting more of it. Converting to Islam? Simply not going to happen. Removing our troops from the Holy Land of Mecca just like Osama wants? Not going to happen either. If it weren't for oil, we wouldn't give a flying damn about the middle east. Either we prop up corrupt dictatorships for oil and have to live with terrorists or we stop sucking the oil tit. It's obvious which we're choosing.

      Fortunantly we have a president now who couldn't care less what the American left and the American media say about him. They can keep calling him Hitler day and night, they can yell at him until they are blue in the face just like they did to Reagan. Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing, it doesn't matter to him one bit what vocal fringe lunatics think.
      Bush is doing the 'right thing?' Was he doing the right thing when he 'fixed the facts around the policy' of war with Iraq? When he failed to fire Rove and Libby for exposing Valery Plame becasue her husband exposed his lie about the Niger yellowcake? When he entered Iraq with no plan to exit? Don't delude yourself - Bush didn't invade Iraq because Saddam is a nasty meanie person. He invaded Iraq because Iraq has 1/4 of the world's oil reserves, and his advisors would rather enrich their former employers than invest 200 billion dollars in alternative energy.
    9. Re:And this is why... by Anubis350 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      did you miss the part about the "vocal fringe lunatics" being 49% of this country? Bush was elected on a very narrow margin Dr. Troll and there are a lot of us who don't believe in his policies.

      "The root cause of Islamic hatred toward America and the west is our success and our rejection if Islam"

      Bullshit, it's fringe religious nuts who hate the west. Most Moslems don't, don't support terrorism, and are good, normal people. Interestingly, the beliefs of the fringe groups that fund the terrorism have a great deal in common with the right wing christian ultra-conservatives in this country (including both hating freedom and those who disagree with them).

      Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing

      That's the worst part, the inability of the right wing nuts who control this country to deffirentiate between "the right thing" and "our beliefs". Bush beleives that he is Right and refuses to ever admit that he is wrong. This is not a strength but a terrible weakness. There is no shame in being wrong once in a while, there is shame in convering the fact up to avoid embarassment.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    10. Re:And this is why... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative
      One of Osama's stated goals is to destroy, through holy war, America (the Great Satan). One of the things that made us great was our Constitution, that great document which protects our freedoms. Yet here goes the House of Representatives, doing exactly what bin Laden wants: Taking away our freedom.

      Anyone who doubts this claim, read Osama's own words on the topic:

      "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
      -- October 21st, 2001
      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:And this is why... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Mmm... them too. You're right. But that's another problem. Of late, it's become very fashionable for media outlets to tell everyone to 'get out and VOTE' and equally fasionable to berate people for not doing so. The result is ignorant votes as voters decide on things that they don't have a clue about beyond retarded 10-second soundbites on TV.

      I mean, for God's sake, more than 50% of voters in November 2004 thought that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda. No doubt a sizeable fraction still do. The people are unwilling to educate themselves and the politicians have no interest in an educated electorate, despite all the BS they spew to the contrary while around elementary schools and little kids. They don't want constituents who can think for themselves, because people who think for themselves aren't so easily led and decieved.

      If the media would stop hounding everyone to vote and denigrating those who don't, then people who care would educate themselves about the relevant issues and vote knowlegably and the idiots would stay at home.

      (OT: Is anyone else having problems staying logged in?)

    12. Re:And this is why... by Comatosis · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well said, I wish I could piss on every single asshole we have as a government official.

      --
      When expecting to find intelligence in a person, do not look at their age but instead look at their IQ and maturity firs
    13. Re:And this is why... by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One of Osama's stated goals is to destroy, through holy war, America (the Great Satan). One of the things that made us great was our Constitution, that great document which protects our freedoms. Yet here goes the House of Representatives, doing exactly what bin Laden wants: Taking away our freedom. In fact, doing the one thing that Osama can never do.

      That's exactly right. bin Laden has written quite a bit, and you can read much of it. It's worth reading, because he's quite clear on what he wants to do, and made it clear a decade ago. It's striking how effectively Bush is doing what bin Laden wants.

      Note that a similar strategy has been successful against Israel. Israel used to be a liberal, well-governed country. Ongoing terrorist attacks have resulted in hard-line governments, fanatical right-wing movements, and the mainstreaming of what used to be marginal religious positions.

    14. Re:And this is why... by It's+Impossible · · Score: 1



      "Because I don't believe that the majority of America, let alone 60% of us, want the government to be able to get search warrants without a judge's consent. To force us to keep quiet about a search. To invade the privacy of our medical and library records."

      Let's be honest with ourselves. The majority of America has no idea what you're talking about.

      Clearly, ethical abstractions like these are Un-American. Until the majority of us start experiencing a concrete impact on our "liberties," nobody will care about these general Constitutional principles and the minority (and minorities) they protect.

      Records? Warrants? What, like Law And Order? I saw a great episode last week...

      Practical, cosmetic freedoms -- the freedom to purchase, to be entertained, to write pointless and impotent screeds on Slashdot -- are the best technique ever yet invented to keep us in line and not really giving a damn. After all, everything else is just Godless intellectual hippie poetry or something. Give me NASCAR or give me Death!

    15. Re:And this is why... by holmengraa · · Score: 1

      Disgusted as you may be, over 50% of your population want this, jugded by the presidential election. After all the press about guantanamo, abu ghraib and illegal detentions, the result has to be a well informed one.

    16. Re:And this is why... by will_die · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness that 50% were correct and knew that Iraq had ties with al-Qaeda. "I don't think there's any doubt but that there were some contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden's people." (9-11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton)

      However I am guess you mean with respect to the 9/11 attack, and there as President Bush has said at numerious times "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks."
      Sidenote:
      The majority of the people think that Iraq had knowledge and help with 9/11 attack voted for Kerry or classified themselves as democrates or independants(possibility of not voting). Thoses that classified themselves as Republicans who voted for Bush and believed this was a very small percent.
      Now it gets really interesting is when you start comparing the amount with the time line. The number of people who said this was the case increased while the movie "fahrenheit 9/11" was gaining in popularity and hit a near record high after the DVD had been released. It has been dropping since then and as of March 2005 was back to the lows.

    17. Re:And this is why... by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "The House debate included frequent references to the attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts that killed 56, including four suicide bombers." Hmmm... could it be that THIS is what the London blasts were about?

      Prudent, sensible political analysis of the kind only Democrats can come up with. Reminds me of a radio jingle I *think* I heard the other day: //JINGLE//

      Are you a "felon", "rapist" or "terrorist"*? Do you have trouble with The Man, Consensusnormativity or perhaps The Great Infidel Satan?
      No worries! - The Democrats(TM) are on the case! We are working tirelessly around the clock to shorten your sentence, restoring your voting rights, and getting your ass out of Gitmo!
      No matter what kind of antisocial freak you are, The Democrats (TM) will always be there for you!

      And remember: It's not your fault - It's the fault of a wealthy white male! Vote Democrat! //JINGLE//

      *: DISCLAIMER: One man's "terrorist" is another man's Freedom Fighter.

    18. Re:And this is why... by slashdot.org · · Score: 1

      First of all; great post, but I wanted to reply to this comment:

      Yet here goes the House of Representatives, doing exactly what bin Laden wants: Taking away our freedom

      Here's a thing that bugs me about this: why is it so rarely discussed/researched in the media what the _real_ reasons are behind these terrorist attacks? I mean, "know your enemy" and all. From the very beginning everyone has been saying it's because 'they hate our freedom'.

      I don't buy it; at least not without some pretty damn good substantiation. Without that it sounds pretty likely that there's a little bit more to it than just that.

      Maybe I'm crazy, but it seem to me that before anybody talks about signing 10-year extensions to such a controversial (to say the least) thing as the Patriot Act, it may be an idea to actually understand what we are really up against?

      In other words, the Patriot Act is a very reactive measure, and I hear very little about what can be done to design proactive measures. I hate to say it, but I think terrorist are always going to find ways around the reactive measures...

    19. Re:And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just punish crime wont stop criminals from committing crime and PATRIOT act will not stop terrorist from committing terrorist acts and try to kill people either. Get to the root of the problem instead of trying to patch it like Microsoft. What is it that says that all of a sudden someone says you are a crminal? They claim you commited a crime and by your definition the cops would drag you out in the forrest and shoot you. Scum is scum, remember?

      What does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything?
      You serious? It got everything to do with it. It doesn't matter if the "war" (the war is over, remember?) is in Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the holy land. Its were the Prophet came from and to Muslims having foreign troops that also is not Muslims is like letting Satanists have their masses in Christian churches.

      Sure, we were in that country long ago, but that's all over now.
      You are still there and its not over. Sigh... You really cant see the forrest for all the trees?

      Besides, it wasnt Osama that attacked USA on 9/11. It was Israel. Israeli agents chered and danced at the sight of Americans dying. Its not the first time the killed Americans either. USS Liberty was an unarmed US Navy wessel that got attacked by Israely Air Force. 34 Americans died. Israel is NOT a friend of USA. Never have been and never will be.

    20. Re:And this is why... by SamSim · · Score: 1
      Kill or capture all Islamic terrorists? Sure - just like each retaliatory strike by Israel against Hamas prevents violence rather than inciting more of it.

      Indeed. In the words of Bob The Angry Flower: how much do you gotta BOMB people to get 'em to quit HATING you?

    21. Re:And this is why... by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      USA isn't winning the war in Iraq, Iran is winning the war in Iraq. The election brought the Shiites into power and Iran is openly peddling its influence with Iraq's majority Shiite party while the Sunnis keep killing off any of their own that participate in the government.

    22. Re:And this is why... by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1
      Please allow me to dispel this myth that the majority of the American people support this asshole.

      From this page:
      2004 Election Data Summary
      Bush: 62,041,268 (50.73%)
      Kerry: 59,028,548 (48.27%)
      Total: 122,293,720
      Turnout rate among voting-eligible: 60.3%

      So, doing the math, only 30.59019% of the voting-eligible population actually support him. That is not over 50% of the population. Also, I have spoken with several people who actually did vote for this guy, and they have since told me that they regret it . Not that it does any good now :(

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    23. Re:And this is why... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Because the voters don't have a meaningful choice to make.

      There's nobody to vote for.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    24. Re:And this is why... by RexxFiend · · Score: 1

      I guess you just missed the next bit where he says, "however each party told the other to bugger off, after they realised they had nothing in common, towels on their heads notwithstanding" (slight paraphrasing).

      Seriously tho, I think rumsfeld met with saddam more often than bin laden did, and probably had more ties too.

      On a related note, to steal Bill Hicks' joke:
      How did they know that Iraq had WMD's?
      They checked their invoices.

      --

      A crash reduces
      Your expensive computer
      to a simple stone.
    25. Re:And this is why... by will_die · · Score: 1

      His actual quote was
      " But our finding relates to a collaborative effort, the lack of evidence for a collaborative effort to attack the United States. We're not saying that there were no contacts of any kind or description.

      We're quite sure on the basis of the evidence we have that there was not an operational tie between Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government on the one hand and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida on the other with regard to attacks on the United States. "

      If you read the actual report they go into way they were coroporating including training camp and Iraq providing papers and transportation for some people who were involved in the 9/11 attack.(however there is no reason to believe that Saddam actually knew what they were planning)

  86. Everyone now... by adtifyj · · Score: 1

    Its the end of the world as we know it ... [come on, dont stop now] and I feel fine."

  87. Dems Will Use Patriot Act To Confiscate Handguns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Democrats will come to power sometime while the Patriot Act is still in force. And when they do they will use its full powers to confiscate every handgun and gun they can lay their hands on.

    I'm amazed that the Republicans are willing to give such powers to centralized government, when they know that it is impossible to retain executive and legislative power forever.

    I can see it now: Dems touting gun owners as "terrorists", raiding homes and killing people in the name of the Patriot Act.

  88. If you don't like it by djdanlib · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you don't like it, here's an idea that isn't "STFU" or "move".

    Write to your congressman or senators, who were elected to represent you and can only represent you if they hear from you, and politely tell them that you disagree with this. Ask them to consider changing their minds.

    A letter can make a difference.

    1. Re:If you don't like it by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A letter can make a difference.

      Really? When?

      Name one single example after 9/11 where letters such as what you describe (and not accompanied by a check for $100,000) have made a real difference in the fight against a bill whose purpose was to give the federal government more power or to satisfy the desires of large corporations (in other words, a bill that the "representatives" want to pass despite the wishes of the people).

      Bet you can't.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  89. Yah, and.. by JustOK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been wondering if there was a "message" in the locations. Warren (War on) Shephard's Bush (President Bush) Oval (Office) ...

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:Yah, and.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been wondering if there was a "message" in the locations. Warren (War on) Shephard's Bush (President Bush) Oval (Office) ...

      Aha! iYhey're following the classic Rushton's Flip. I bet the next one will be Mornington Crescent.

  90. QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Dr+Kool,+PhD · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How has YOUR LIFE been effected by the Patriot Act?? I don't want to hear your wild insane "Bush can knock down my door without a warrant" theories, I want to know how YOU have been negatively effected by the patriot act.

    Oh yeah, IT HASN'T. Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do. I also know that if 9/11 occurred during the presidency of a Democrat you'd be STFUing right about now, you wouldn't even see 100000 crap articles like this on slashdot.

    PUT UP OR SHUT UP, HOW HAS THE PATRIOT ACT EFFECTED YOU????

    1. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I don't want to hear your wild insane "Bush can knock down my door without a warrant" theories, I want to know how YOU have been negatively effected by the patriot act."

      My money is funding it.

    2. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by gerardrj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't tell you that. To do so would be a violation of the Patriot Act and I could be imprisoned as a terrorist sympathizer, indefinitely without trial. If fact my mentioning this may already be a violation.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    3. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How has the 'Patriot' act affected me? It has affected me because I am not willing to wait for someone to declare Martial Law before I decide that my rights are being screwed over now.

    4. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it affects even the most liberal of activists.

      however patriot act-esque activities have been going on a long time illegally. remember cointelpro?

    5. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by slashdot1968 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That same question could have been asked to citizens of the Stalinist Soviet Union or Nazi Germany for that matter, and you'd have virtually the same stats. Effected 1%, not effected 99%. Actually, in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany many people received financial windfalls through promotions, or firesales for the victims. Keep your rhetorical flamebait to yourself loser.

    6. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by mbius · · Score: 1

      Since there's no law that says they can't, I assume the Feds have already searched my house and library records. How's that grab you, "Republican"?

      --
      you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
      Prime UID Club
    7. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      my tax dollars pay for it, dumbass.

      jesus christ, seriously: if you don't care about liberty and freedom, if you honestly think the patriot act is a good idea, why the fuck are you living in this country? remember that quote about "and when they came for me, there was no one left to defend me"? no, didn't think so. those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, retard. shit.

    8. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do.

      Can I tell the cops that when they arrest me in my home for smoking some pot? No? I guess I'm a terrorist too....

    9. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anubis350 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, IT HASN'T. Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do.

      So Moslems don't deserve the rights that the rest of us enjoy eh? I'd like to here the rationale behind that piece of shit comment...

      oh, btw, what's up with the "not a script" image? it was actually a word this time, "analyze". How's that going to stop a bot with a dictionary attack?
      see image here

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    10. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by daemonc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First they came for the Jews and no one protested.
      Then they came for the Gypsies.
      Then they came for the Communists and no one protested.
      Then they came for the Catholics and no one protested.
      Then they came for me, and there was No One Left to protest.
      -- Martin Niemoeller

      --
      All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
    11. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      How has YOUR LIFE been effected by the Patriot Act?? I don't want to hear your wild insane "Bush can knock down my door without a warrant" theories, I want to know how YOU have been negatively effected by the patriot act.

      *Opens bag of TrollChow(TM)*

      Well for starters it is now possible for my own government to hold me indefinately with no explaination, trail, access to legal recourse, etc.

      Oh yeah, IT HASN'T. Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do. I also know that if 9/11 occurred during the presidency of a Democrat you'd be STFUing right about now, you wouldn't even see 100000 crap articles like this on slashdot.

      Racist much? Go home redneck.

      PUT UP OR SHUT UP, HOW HAS THE PATRIOT ACT EFFECTED YOU????

      I now have a 100% legitamate reason to fear my government, who appears more willing to cave in to the terror mentality that "the enemy" is pushing, rather than DO THEIR F-ING JOBS and resolve the situation.

    12. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by IOOOOOI · · Score: 1
      I have progeney who will grow up with the notion that in a free society it is acceptable for the government to check what citizens read, their genetics (medical records), and eavesdrop in them as a routine part of any investigation, secretly.

      "In Soviet Russia, you don't beat terrorists, terrorists beat YOU!"

    13. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh yeah, IT HASN'T. Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do. I also know that if 9/11 occurred during the presidency of a Democrat you'd be STFUing right about now, you wouldn't even see 100000 crap articles like this on slashdot.

      People named Habib who wear turbans to work deserve the same rights under the Constitution as those named Steve. By denying them that right, we are violating the fundamental principles of our society; of MY society. The laws and principles of MY country are being violated, and my fellow citizens (many of whom are named Habib) being denied their rights as citizens.

      That anyone in DC even gives such a concept consideration is apauling and offensive.

      As for a Democratic president, there were terrorist attacks under the last Democrat. The Bill of Rights was not violated under him the way it is being now. Instead, we had an impeachment hearing about a blow job.

      You're right. Under a Democrat, we'd not be having this discussion. We'd be paying attention to a fake scandal cooked up by political hacks in order to cripple him. Welcome to Modern America.

      --

      --GrouchoMarx
      Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

    14. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Evets · · Score: 1

      How have I been negatively affected by it? You jackass. I've been affected by it because freedoms that I enjoyed my entire life have been stripped away from me.

      I have been negatively affected by it by having the newfound knowledge that in our FREE country, in our FREE society, a nation built on the blood of men who gave their lives so that our ideals could exist that my inalienable rights are in fact alienable.

      I have been negatively affected by it because the nation I have held in such high esteem for my entire life is now turning into a true to life cross between 1984, Farenheit 451, and Animal Farm.

      Why would you try to turn this into some partisan "you're either with me or against me!" argument. We are talking about the ideals that this nation was founded on being eroded at a level not seen since the Red Scare. What possible reason would you have to willingly give up your freedom and strip it away from your fellow countrymen? Because you are a die hard conservative and that's what Rush Limbaugh tells you is the right thing to think? Because you are truly scared that if you don't give up that freedom a bomb will be set off on your daily commute? Because you truly believe in your heart that "it won't happen to me" so fuck the rest of them?

      Stop thinking about you. Think about your parents. Your grandparents. Your children. Your grandchildren. Do you want freedom for any of them?

    15. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while i agree that the grandparent is a fuckwad.

      i can't deny how fucked up clinton was. remember clinton's bombings in the middle east? remember NAFTA? clintone wasn't a saint.

      fuck all presidents when will you people learn to stop playing the game of politics and start working to make real change. its obvious that all manmade heirarchical structures are illegitimate and oppressive.

    16. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AND!

      My hoenymoon was fucked because I was on the no fly list. My career as a pyrotechnician is fucked because of BATF changes. Touring shows for theatre have scaled down or quit. I took a $20,000 hit annually when the patriot act and border closures began affecting the entertainment industry.

      You like the majority of my countrymen are an idiot.

      Bin Laden even told us that what he wanted was for America to have a knee jerk readtion like this to bring it to it's knees economically.

      Our big problem is Bin Laden is far more intelligent than our fucktard president and his short term proft ideaology. Bush is Bin Laden's closest ally. He is playing so far into Bin Laden's hands that I would not be suprised if he was pushing airline stock on september 10th, 2001.

      America HAS voted itself into a fascist state. And through this knee jerk reaction, as Bin Laden predicted and planned, America is driving itself bankrupt.

      and you love it you stupid cow. Chewing gop propaganda like cud and marching into the slaughterhouse that is driving itself out of business.

      We ain't going to have overlords... no one is going to want the mess that Bush will leave behind.

      ARGH!

      You stupid stupid stupid idiot.

      You are just a stupid idiot.

      and yes sir, I am working on moving to another country... it is too embarassing to live here.

    17. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by hhghghghh · · Score: 1

      How has YOUR LIFE been effected by the Patriot Act?? I don't want to hear your wild insane "Bush can knock down my door without a warrant" theories, I want to know how YOU have been negatively effected by the patriot act.

      I'd tell you, but I'm locked away indefinately without access to lawyers or public hearings.

    18. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Moslems don't deserve the rights that the rest of us enjoy eh? I'd like to here the rationale behind that piece of shit comment...

      Well, in the islamic theocraties Christians don't have the same right as Moslems do. Fair I think.

    19. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by dalutong · · Score: 1

      How has YOUR LIFE been effected by the Patriot Act?? I don't want to hear your wild insane "Bush can knock down my door without a warrant" theories, I want to know how YOU have been negatively effected by the patriot act.

      That's like saying you can't complain about a law allowing rape until your wife or daughter (or yourself) are raped.

      That's like saying that most of what all oppressive dictatorships do is okay. After all, for mr. farmer in rural sudan or china (where i grew up) they're doing the same thing they'd be doing under any government, especially when it comes to "rights-limiting" laws.

      And, tell me, why should anyone be treated any differently by the government because they wear a turbin to work?

      So I won't even answer the question -- because if that becomes the standard then only the oppressed can complain while the rest of us must either live in ignorance or live in silence.

      The sadest part is that this isn't an AC troll...

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    20. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by brakken · · Score: 1

      I would tell you if I was legally allowed to. Get my damned point?

      --
      [ brakken ]
    21. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by will_die · · Score: 1

      I've been affected by it because freedoms that I enjoyed my entire life have been stripped away from me.
      Name three.

    22. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by will_die · · Score: 1

      Come on lets update this for the modern age.

      First they came for the people who did not wear helmet while on a motorcycle and no one protested.
      Then they came for the smokers.
      Then they came for the owners of gun and no one protested.
      Then they came for the drivers of large vehicles and no one protested.
      Then they came for me, and there was No One Left to protest.

    23. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by will_die · · Score: 1

      Who would foolish enough to mark this as insightful?
      Funny or fantasy yes, since it has basis in reality.

    24. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by The+NPS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean it's ok. Your argument isn't valid. People are starving and dying in wars all over the world, but I'm sitting here in my cushy room typing on my computer. Their suffering will probably never reach me, but that doesn't mean it's ok. It's important to preserve freedoms, and even if the patriot act never affects me (why would the government care about some kid they're never heard of?), it still affects other people, and that matters.

    25. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Amen, reverend. This useless money sink, too, shall go the way of the Dodo, right alongside that damned social security and no child left behind nonsense.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    26. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 0, Troll

      An impeachment hearing about perjury, dunce. And you'll note that, in addition to not violating civil rights, he also did nothing else. Among the things he didn't do was attempt to defend our country or respond to the growing oragnization and temerity of our enemies. through the Clinton years Al Quada et al kept blowing up bigger and bigger things as they realized that tehy could get away with it. Clinton sat around seducing interns and let American citizens die without a blink, often even helping the incidents fade from the media by completely ignoring them days after they occurred. Well, he fed their confidence enough, and they found a really big target to knock over. Yeah. The glorious reign of the Democrat. Real nice legacy, there.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    27. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly know I'd treat anyone wearing a turbine to work differently.

    28. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and a twentieth-century Liberal democracy is just like Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany, dipshit

    29. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right to due process, right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, want some more?

    30. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by jc42 · · Score: 1

      A version I ran across yesterday:

      Knock, knock!

      Who's there?

      Under the terms of the Patriot Act, I don't have to tell you.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    31. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      An impeachment hearing about perjury, where the perjurous testimony involved him getting a blowjob. Not exactly, say, outing a CIA agent, for example (though we know Clinton got a hummer, we're not really, truly 100% sure about the outing. Or Vince Foster, for that matter).

      Anyway, Clinton at least tried to get congress to do something about North Korea, and then had to give up because the R congress blocked him at every turn. The lack of policy with N Korea, thanks to the total clusterfuck that Iraq has become , has effectively allowed them to get into the nuclear brotherhood. And don't talk to me about Iraq and terrorism in the same sentense - we invaded Afghanistan over terrorism. and don't bring oil into the picture - there are enough oil fields in the world, and "experts" tell us we're unlikely to run out any time soon - Iraq is a small player in the oil market. We invaded Iraq over a sense of revenge ("Don't worry dad, I'll got him for you"), ti just tooka couple of years to figure out a good excuse.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    32. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stow the righteous soap box and read some left wing and international news so you can get balance and perspective. Clinton's personel attempted to BRIEF BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION on the threat. But Bush dismissed the warnings. Michael moore commented upon this in Fahrenheit 911. I can't find links now, but there are other articles on The current administration's disinterest in terrorism.

      The letter Bush ignored : http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pd f

      "Former interim FBI chief Thomas Pickard testified Tuesday that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft didn't want to hear about terrorism when Pickard tried to brief him during the summer of 2001, as intelligence reports about terrorist threats were reaching a historic level." Cam Simpson, "Ashcroft Ignored Terrorism, Panel Told; Attorney General Denies Charges, Blames Clinton," Chicago Tribune, April 14, 2004.

      Interesting quote by Dave Kopel on the Patriot act and its origin - "The one significant Bush administration lie exposed in the film involves the so-called USA PATRIOT Act; as Fahrenheit 911 accurately claims, at least some of the material in the USA PATRIOT Act had nothing to do with 9/11, and instead involved long-sought items on the FBI agenda which had previously been unable to pass Congress, but which were enacted by Congress under Bush administration assurances that they were essential to fighting terrorism."

    33. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by czarangelus · · Score: 1

      You damned jackass. It's the conservatives who are PASSING this shit, and the liberals who are fighting it! Hell-fucking-o, you do realize that conservatives control 2.5/3 branches of gov't, right?

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
    34. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by ShadoHawk · · Score: 1

      Quote: "Oh yeah, IT HASN'T. Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do. I also know that if 9/11 occurred during the presidency of a Democrat you'd be STFUing right about now, you wouldn't even see 100000 crap articles like this on slashdot."

      I don't mean to be a party pooper, but last time I checked. Most Muslim men don't wear a turbin. Nor have I met many (any?) muslim Habibs.

      So, my question: Why is NON-Muslim, Turbin wearing Habib getting shit for his culture? He pays taxes too. Probably works his ass off every day to live HIS American dream. So, we are paying for harasment?

      Why can I not take a stand to change something that I [don't] believe in? I am tired of hearing people say: "If you don't like it. LEAVE!" and "How does this affect you?" Well, I feel that it is MY patriotic duty to stand for what I beleive in. To change those things that are not right in my eyes. I believe that it VERY PATRIOTIC to make this country something I am proud of and would want to leave for my children. Right now I don't have any children. I am not sure that I am going to have children to let this world brain wash and abuse.

      Now I hear you saying: "I believe in what I say." I have no doubt that you do. You have a right to that. At least for the time being. We don't have to agree on everything all the time. Your partisan bullshit is what iritates me. I don't take a stand on either the Red or the Blue side. I feel that I can take each issue for what it is. Not where does my party stand? I will stand with them. I feel that I have my own mind to decide.

      Bottom line: I am paying for it. WE are paying for it. I can't justify paying money for less. I thought that was one of those American things? More bang for the buck! Every day I feel like I have a little less bang.

    35. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so by your logic our current president should be tried for treason. I mean lying to congress and all to start a war using those lies. Isnt perjuring yourself in front of congress a little worse than a grand jury? I can hear you spinning already.

    36. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by dalutong · · Score: 1

      Hah. Didn't even realize. I just typed what the GP had typed. I meant turban, of course.

      A turbine would indeed be interesting...

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    37. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yes sir, I am working on moving to another country... it is too embarassing to live here.

      Good Riddance?

    38. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by will_die · · Score: 1

      right to due process
      US PATRIOT ACT does not have anything dealing with lower that. If anything it requires more levels protection because it requires the recording and tracking of various police actions.

      right to a fair trial
      An other that the US PATROIT ACT does not have anything about.
      freedom of speech
      I am guessing you are talking about how if you are servered with an order from a judge for a search of record you control and the judge added the provision you cannot talk about it you are upset that you cannot call up the suspect and legally sell the information to them for a defined and resonable amount of time?
      This type of provision existed before the US PATRIOT ACT, during the 90s it was added to other crimes and the US PATRIOT ACT it was added to a few more. So it is hardly a right you have had all your life.

    39. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by The+NPS · · Score: 1

      I think you're mistaken? I was just replying to first guy. He asked how the Patriot Act affected us, and assumed that because it didn't it was just fine. I'm not talking about politcal bias here, I was just saying his arguement was invalid.

  91. It's nearly impossible to refund tax money by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    If this fails in the next 10 years, we get refunded tax money.

    If you want a "tax refund", you can get one right now by taking out an extra $300 on your credit card. Just like the government a few years back, banks will eagerly give you $300 in cash now along with more than $300 in debt you'll be made to pay back later. The only way to cut taxes and keep them cut is to also cut expenditures... and except for Congress' salaries (which come to less than $1 per taxpayer per year), any government expenditures which aren't worth the price ought to be cut whether we're attacked again or not.

    1. Re:It's nearly impossible to refund tax money by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, don't cut their salaries. $300 million is barely enough to pay 535 people a living wage.

      Thats not to say there isn't watse in government. There's huge waste - starting with more than $1000 per person, per year in interest on the national debt. But luckily the Republicans are in charge, and they know how to get spending down, and to have us keep more of our hard earned dollars.

      Ooops, thats right, the debt has skyrocketed. Guess we can't trust them, either.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  92. Republicans have better marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's really what it comes down to. The people who oppose this sort of thing need to appeal to the masses the same way the the Republicans are doing it. They need to convice the the public that they are weak if they support the Patriot Act. They need to essentially tell people that they're pussies who give up American tradition and liberty so they can feel safe. Would the U.S. exist if the colonists had given up their rights instead to feel safe instead of risking attack by Britain? Appeal to everyone's collective inferiority complex with that sort of trash. I sure wish we could just have intelligent political discussions instead, but such is the curse of democracy. If the people don't really care enough to understand government and law, it all sort of breaks down into dumbed-down rhetoric that's totally unrelated to the real issues.

    Unfortunately, I think it might be too late for a Republican-like strategy to work. The Republicans got the jump on the "you're weak if you don't follow us" marketing strategy, and they've been milking it for so long that dissociating them from their image of being strong and decisive may be too great a challenge.

  93. Re:America isn't that smart by symbolic · · Score: 1


    If Bush can get away with the eggregious and stupid post-hoc fallacy that he uses to justify the extension of the Patriot Act, our freedom is in more trouble than we realize. Americans themselves have to be accountable before they have the ability to hold anyone else to that standard.

  94. 94% of Republicans voted for the act. by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's the list.

    But here's a summary:

    94% of Republicans voted for the act. They have no morals.

    21% of Democrats voted for the act. They have no strength.

    1. Re:94% of Republicans voted for the act. by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      They have plenty of morals. That's the problem.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  95. Terrorists win with fear by BoldAndBusted · · Score: 1

    Terrorists win when fear is the overarching guidance for policy. Where does more intrusive and arbitrary infringements on personal liberty and privacy fit in with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

    It would appear that the terrorists are winning in my great country, since they win when the populace forgets its highest ideals and instead focuses on security and fear. The PATRIOT act, in its current form, goes too far, and, as history shows, when a government - ANY government - gains a "right" or "power", it is very hard to take it back.

    Yes, thousands died on 9/11. It was a terrible, terrible cowardly attack. But what of the lives of hundreds of thousands who have died since the American Revolution to fight to restrict government intrusion into our private lives and secure our liberty? Do they mean nothing?

  96. Corrupt logic ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    set time = rightnow() - 15 odd human years

    select country FROM earth WHERE crazystuff LIKE "Ideology, Secret Police, Political prisoners, press going by the name of propoganda, torture, dumb old politicians, corrupt society, KGB, yada, yada..."

    I remember this program printing out USSR some time back, but when I execute this program now, it prints USA.

    Could it be that the logic has gone corrupt?

    Finally, maybe we all came down from the trees too early!!! (we does not refer to the super intelligent, principled right wing "intelligently designed" humans).

    Rational, Reason and Peace.

  97. Practical questions and strategies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the estimated route this is taking in the Senate? When is it expected to up for vote there?

    Everyone should contact their Senators. That said, which Senators are on the fence and can be the focused target of a campaign to sway their vote by their constituents?

    Finally, if this does pass, what is the general rule regarding physician's having to keep accurate and up to date medical records? In the past, medical records are considered the patient's property; you can walk in and demand them and they have to give them to you. Some states have rules that the two copies of records can be used (e.g. a "clean" copy for the patient, the "real" copy for office--Texas I believe), some state that physicians may make a full or partial copy for themselves within a reasonable time a request is made.

    But I'm wondering if you can walk in and request your records, right now, no copying, and shield yourself directly. I know there were changes in the past 10 years regarding medical privacy laws, but that seems a separate issue from retaining or accurately reflecting medical records.

    What law, if any, forces physicians to keep medical records in the first place? I know most will do it to cover their asses and for effectiveness wrt patient history. But are they lawfully required to?

    Ditto with prescription stores--who will fill an RX but not enter it into a computer. Strangely, this seems more likely to push spam sales and people going up to Canada (although I think that loophole was recently closed?) to obfuscate things and get some semblence of privacy back.

    Oddly, one of the reasons some people didn't want state health care was because of medical privacy concerns (the other main concern was the state dictating what practices and treatments were acceptable). State health care was more-or-less considered a liberal agenda. Now we effectively get the same thing under a conservative agenda.

    If I were a liberal group that had a clue, I'd be pushing this in an ad campaign like all hell. Government has passed laws that allow your medical records to be reviewed without cause or oversight. Has a chilling effect of people not seeking medical treatment, but as a political message, make the message clear that this potentially affects their well-being and privacy.

  98. Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me, or is the Slashdot crowd vastly liberal?

  99. Whoopie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great...this gives you whiners 10 more years to come up with a real example of someone innocent actually getting hurt by this allegedly "scary" legislation.

  100. electronic protests, what a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could go on about how electronic protest barely shows any interest in the topic at all, but Greg Graffin sums it up much better: http://www.badreligion.com/news/essays.php?id=8

    To be fair, he's sort of a technophobe in general, but his point on this subject remains valid.

  101. Parlez-vous "Hell yeah" by william_w_bush · · Score: 1

    dude, i'd learn to speak french for that.

    --
    The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
  102. But it's actually a bit of improvement... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

    Look at it this way...there was a change of about 100 votes against the Patriot Act since it was passed the first time.

    357-66 on October 24, 2001
    257-171 on July 21, 2005

    In about 4 years that's a lot of crow eaten. (Mostly democrats admittedly, but 11 more Republican votes against than in 2001 (14 now to 3 in 2001. Wikipedia was the source for the link above incidentally.)

  103. and if you don't like it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and if you don't like the fact we are extending the patriot act we will raygun you into submission.

  104. Every Single Time: by rscrawford · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every time the government uses an excuse like this to restrict the freedom of Americans...

    Every time an American citizen is held indefinitely by the courts without trial or proof of guilt...

    Every time a hate crime is committed against a Moslem...

    Every time the government suspends its laws in the name of the War on Terror... ...the terrorists win just a little bit more.

    (Yeah, I know it'll be modded "redundant." It's just something that's been on my mind for awhile, and now seemed like a good time to say it.)

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
    1. Re:Every Single Time: by tedrlord · · Score: 1

      For a minute there I thought you were going to say "God kills a kitten."

      --
      [insert witty quote here]
    2. Re:Every Single Time: by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, the terrorists don't win until we stop supporting Israel and cease using economic pressures to influence the middle east. Or when we're all dead. Or both.

      --
      ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
    3. Re:Every Single Time: by slycrel · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this quote, but more specifically this movie in general.

      "What if what they really want is for us to herd children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and - and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that, and everything that we have bled and fought and died for is over, and they've won. They've already won!" - Denzel Washington in "The Siege" (1998)

  105. If the terrorists hated Bush by relaxrelax · · Score: 1


    If the terrorists hated Bush, they wouldn't have given him such grandiose power to arbitrarily and secretely detain those accused of being odd.

    Either we have some uniquely dumb terrorists, or they don't hate Bush all that much (which is anti-american; the americans hate Bush with a passion).

    Or perhaps there is more to this Carlyle and Bin Laden's family corporation with a Bush in it than appears at first. It's not like the first lady didn't get 100,000$ of jewelry offered by a middle east nation just before the war you know.

    It's sad to say, Bush and the terrorists *need* each other in order to extend their influence. Bush wouldn't have a second term if not for the war.

    --
    Microsoft is pure dog-ma. FreeBSD is pure cat-ma.
  106. ~Security - ~Freedom by geekee · · Score: 1

    " "The terrorists will never succeed in taking away our freedoms and civil liberties!"

    Well, technically, they're using our own politicians to accomplish that, if that is indeed their goal. Now that is a feat: getting your enemy to obtain your goal for you."

    There's always some person who says something like this and gets modded up as insightful. It's more complicated than that, however. By threatening your life, the terrorists have already taken away your freedom. Security is necessary to have freedom. So reasonable politicians (not just the Bush admin.), including both Democrat and Republican senators, are trying to strike a balance to gain back some of the freedom lost trhough loss of security, as the expense of some other freedoms.

    The attempted bombing in London today shows terrorists can strike at will, even in a place they just attacked. The British govt. has not made the subway any more secure in the last two weeks, despite all the rhetoric. I won't be surpirsed if they enact more PATRIOT act laws as well.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
    1. Re:~Security - ~Freedom by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Security is necessary to have freedom.

      Ben Franklin had something to say about that. Unless you think you're smarter than ol' Ben was?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    2. Re:~Security - ~Freedom by TekPolitik · · Score: 1
      By threatening your life, the terrorists have already taken away your freedom. Security is necessary to have freedom. So reasonable politicians... are trying to strike a balance to gain back some of the freedom lost trhough loss of security, as the expense of some other freedoms.

      In other news, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

    3. Re:~Security - ~Freedom by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Practically there isn't much more they can do to make the tube any more secure. Personally I think a special armoured carriage for dark skinned men with rucksacks is the way to go but I don't expect many others to agree.

    4. Re:~Security - ~Freedom by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      The willingness to allow them to threaten your life and cause you to live in fear is what threatens freedom. Not the threat of death itself.

      The fact that you may feel your life is under threat, and you allow that fear to control you, is what has caused the kind of bullshit you just posted.

      Security does not ensure freedom, when that security comes at the PRICE of freedom. Terrorists gained a whole hearted victory by showing American that it was too weak to stand up to terrorist ideology on its own terms.

      The patriot act was an act of fear, it was a victory for terrorism as a tactic, it showed the world that 20 highly determined men can bring the United States to its knees and give up the very principles it was founded upon out of fear.

      On July 21st we were shown that this victory was whole and complete, and they defeated the United States from an ideological standpoint with a stark thoroughness.

      The United States did not buckle so easily when the same goals were intended by Timothy McVeigh, because at that time there was a strong beleif in American beleifs and values being strong enough to overcome such things without stripping the rights of the American people. Unfortunately our government is weaker now when it comes to protecting the American people, and neither political side is exempt from that statement.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    5. Re:~Security - ~Freedom by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Some freedoms, well, not exactly freedoms but crucial aspects of our life, come from security. Stuff like losing the freedom of killing people in order to gain security. The Patriot Act has no securities of such high importance.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  107. Who do they think they're kidding? by rscrawford · · Score: 1

    From TFA: "Democrats were incensed after Republican leaders blocked consideration of an amendment that would have blocked the library searches. The House approved identical language last month in a test vote."

    How can the Republican party pull this kind of shit and still claim that they stand for democracy? I honestly feel sorry for my Republican friends who have to deal daily with the knowledge that their party is under the control of bullies and bastards like these.

    --
    -- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
  108. Cowards Die Many Times.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes, listen to all these people talk about their rights being violated and their freedoms taken away by the Patriot Act. No one in a country like that they claim to be in would be talking this way. They're like Walter Mitty, a hen-pecked husband who imagines himself brave and heroic. "I'm standing up to Bushitler" Blah, blah blah. "No Iraq War" blah, blah, blah.

    Put them in a real dictatorship like Nazi Germany and they'd be heiling their beloved fuhrer with the worst of them.

    The only recent threats to our rights came under a Democrat beloved by liberals and the ACLU--Bill Clinton. Remember Ruby Ridge, sending the little boy back to Cuba, and Waco? Nasty weren't they? In the first, a mother holding a baby had her face blown off by a FBI sniper. In the second a Miami home was raided by federal agents carrying automatic weapons with the safety off. And the last was the worst mass killing of US civilians by an action of the US goverment since the Indian wars a century ago. They were evil and they were all done by liberal Democrats when there was no threat to public safety. In comparison, the Patriot Act after 9/11 is nothing.

    But did these twits protest Clinton and Reno's foul deeds? Oh no, not them. NPR didn't tell them that and they always depend on NPR to tell them how to think. Instead, they lie awake nights fretting that the Attorney General is finding out what books and films they're checking out of their public library. Yes, Ashcroft knows about your secret addiction to Disney cartoons. He may even know that you sleep snuggled up to a frayed teddy bear.

    Shakespeare described these people well when he had Julius Caesar say, "Cowards die many times before their death. The valiant ne'er taste of death but once."

    Every time they hear the words "Patriot Act," their little hearts quiver and their spindley little knees shake. They never outgrew their fear of the boogie man under their bed. Bush is their boogie man.

    --Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle, Dachau Liberated

  109. I can only say.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (cue Carrie Fisher voice)

    "Help us ACLU, you're our only hope !"

  110. Sorry, but I (we) told you so by Y-Crate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When the PATRIOT Act was first proposed a lot of people - myself included - saw it for what it was after momentarily putting aside the shock and unreal horror of 9/11.

    Thus, the following exchange occurred many times with many different people.

    Me: "So you're saying that you think this whole thing might be a bad idea in the long run?"

    Them: "Yeah, but don't worry, everything sunsets in five years. The bill will expire and by that point the threat will have diminished to the point where it won't be needed any longer. Chill man. Stop being a Chicken Little about things."

    Me: "Don't you realize that once the government gets more power that they are very unlikely to ever give it up again? Do you understand how many times this sort of thing has happened, where temporary measures such as taxes to fund wars, emergency powers and the like end up going on forever?

    Them: "You have to wake up to this post -9/11 world we live in now. Things are different, we have to win this war on terrorism!"

    Me: "How do you win a war against a tactic? Terrorism is here to stay, and if you let this bill come into law then it will be here to stay. There is zero doubt that reason will be found to keep it and use it as justification for further restrictive bills. Once the ball is rolling on this, it will be more or less impossible to stop."

    Them: "Not more of that liberal alarmist BS..."

    I had that conversation about 50,000 times, I'm sure many of you did as well. The cliche of a "slippery slope" is a cliche because it so often proves to be true. The PATRIOT Act was never going to expire and never will. Terrorism is too nebulous of a threat to ever go away. It can be brought out indefinitely to justify the permanence of such legislation, regardless of wether it is a truly valuable tool and one that respects the rights of all those who fall under its jurisdiction.

    The rumblings of what comes after the PATRIOT Act have been a troubling sight on the horizon for the past few years now. Drafts have been circulated on Capitol Hill. They contain such provisions as being stripped of your natural-born citizenship by executive order upon being deemed an "enemy combatant" and various other items that you can read up on at non-tinfoil sites out there.

    I'm not gloating that I was proved right. I'm depressed. I wanted little more than to see 2005 close with the likes of the PATRIOT Act in the rearview. To wake up from the nightmare that we've all descended into. The nightmare that is the kind of world we saw dawn on a September morning almost 4 years ago. Sheer unimaginable brutality delivered by surprise along the sense that worse was yet to come at some point, while we were forced to watch those we had entrusted with our safety play politics with it and make the power grabs that we have always dismissed as fantasies of lunatics on the fringes of society.

    The actions of Al-Queda and governments around the world in response, were both examples of dramatic and unexpected reactions to external influences. Hoping that they were an aberration proved to be futile. They are now the new norm.

    I think at this time the only thing that I can really say is that when the government pushes more legislation and word starts getting around about a new bill coming through the pipe, do not dismiss it with the usual "It will never get out of committee" or the equally as overused "It will never pass."

    If by now, you haven't learned to grasp that you need to expect the unexpected, then the next 5 years look like they will be quite a ride for you.

  111. "They hate our freedom" by hey · · Score: 1

    Well, guess what the terrorists have won.

    1. Re:"They hate our freedom" by klang · · Score: 1

      ..by making the government do the job for them, yeah .. so sad

  112. Jose Padilla the facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    His name is no longer Jose Padilla.

    It is Abdullah Al Muhajir. He is an Al Qaeda associate. An associate of his in Pakistan is in jail for terrorist activities (which means he's a serious hard guy). He is alleged to have taken up arms against the US and to conspire with bin Laden to kill Americans with a dirty bomb. Traveling from Pakistan terrorist madrassa to Chicago.

    Al Muhajir is a hard core, nasty Islamic terrorist. His avowed aim is to kill millions of Americans.

    "A former Latin Kings gang member in Chicago, al Muhajir served time in juvenile hall in connection with a gang killing and other incidents in Chicago. During a later stay in a Florida prison as an adult, he converted to a militant form of Islam, law enforcement sources said. Officials said he is married to a Middle Eastern woman, identified by one law enforcement source as an Egyptian."

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A28493-2002Jun10&notFound= true

    According to the Washington Post (that conservative anti-liberty rag), he had been under observation in Pakistan by the FBI and CIA for terrorist activity. His buddy is in jail in Pakistan. Google. It's your friend. You might try it sometime. www.bugmenot for WaPo registration info.

    So, let's review:

    A. Juvie record, involved in gang killing.
    B. Converts to Islam in the slam, a militant terrorist-oriented version of Islam.
    C. Marries an Egyptian.
    D. Hangs out in terrorist madrassas in Pakistan for ... what the food?

    Yup. I'd want to get on that guy's side too.

    Seriously, does the term "idiotarian" mean anything to you? Google it's your friend you should try it sometime.

    1. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well it certainly sounds like they have some pretty hard evidence, so why don't they try him?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Once they start trying these people information about how the Americans captured him is going to start slipping out giving terrorists information on how to avoid detection and capture. Lol, like not announcing you are a hard line muslim in prison.

    3. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by tokabola · · Score: 2, Insightful
      He is alleged to have taken up arms against the US and to conspire with bin Laden to kill Americans with a dirty bomb.

      alleged means someone says he did it, but no-ones offered any proof of that. It they had any proof, they would have pressed charges. Instead, all they have is circumstantial evidence. You obviously have access to a computer and Internet connection. And everybody knows that the most common material on line is pornography, sometimes with children. Does this make you a pedophile? Not until they find the kiddie-pron on your hard drive.

      The fact that he converted to Islam has no bearing - this is a free country. Nor does his marriage to a Saudi have any bearing on the case. And I'll bet you know, and may even be related, to someone who was arrested for some crime. Are you an accessory simply because your friend or relative is a criminal?

      I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but the simple fact is that there is no evidence, and no legal (constitutional) right for the government to hold him more than 48 hours without charging him. The constitution and laws were created very specifically to prevent this abuse of power, and the government has apparently decided that it isn't subject to the very laws that give it legitimacy.

      Simply put, if the government doesn't abide by the constitution, then the government is not a legal government, and deserves to be overthrown (by voting them out, or by legal action - an armed "revolution" simply isn't going to succeed, nor is it necessary). In fact, it's our duty as American citizens to do this if our government fails to follow it's mandate.

      America is based on the principle that the government is given rights by the people, not the people given rights by the government. Civil rights are not given to us by the government - we are born with them and the government has no right to take them away. The American justice system is based on the principle that "its better the guilty go free than the innocent are imprisoned", and "due process" is the procedure that ensures that. The Patriot act is nothing but a way for the government to avoid "due process" and illegally remove civil rights - which apply not only to Americans, but to all people regardless of nationality, race, gender, or religion.

      But I guess you slept through Social Studies and American History. While you could probably find all this info with Google, it would be far easier to just go to your local library and brush up on exactly how America is supposed to work. Unless, of course, you're just an "Idiotarian" and incapable of understanding concepts like "Rule of Law", democracy, and the Constitution of the Unites States of America.

      I have an idea. Instead of bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east, lets bring it home to the US first.

      Tommy
      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    4. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by ifwm · · Score: 0

      One possibility is that trying him will endanger operatives.

      If he gets a trial and talks about who helped pinch him, they're useless and quite possibly dead.

      Now, I'm not sure, but aren't the morons who are barking about divulging a (former) CIA operative's info the same morons barking about this padilla idiot?

      Why yes they are, trapped in an incredible web of their own hypocrisy.

    5. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by sjt-24 · · Score: 1

      He married an Egyptian? He must be a terrorist!

    6. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by thelexx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many would argue that whatever further value an operation these fictitious 'endangered operatives' are involved in may have, is outweighed the very fucking ideals that make the USA worth fighting for to begin with. Those ideals are being destroyed with cases like Padilla. And I'm quite sure that the same fascist dipshits who are overlooking all the Bush regime lies, distortions and manipulations that affect the entire nation in the long run, are the same ignorant retards who had a fit when Clinton got a bj.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    7. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by c0n0 · · Score: 1

      Well, see...the issue is not whether he is guilty or not.

      Another issue is that he was caught in CHICAGO, not in Afghanistan. He is now in jail because he was a *terrorist*, and USA is considered war zone when it comes to terrorism. Question is, what are the criminal charges? did he even had a gun when they caught him? Anyone in USA could go to jail, not being charged with anything, and be kept there forever, just like him. Doesn't matter if you are guilty or not, nobody will be there to prove it.

    8. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I guess the question is, if its okay for agovernment official to out an agent, why would you worry about a "known terrorist" doing the same?

      You can't have it both ways, either.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    9. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      Exactly. We're talking about dipshits who, on the one hand, think citizens have some sort right to trial by jury, but simultaneously insist that people who disclose classified information should be fired. You blew the lid off their contradictory and mutually untenable positions. In any case, the real answer is that no you don't have a right to trial AND the president's advisors can disclose whatever classified information he sees fit. In other words, the executive branch can do whatever the fuck it wants and everyone else can go fuck themselves. What is wrong with this? N-O-T-H-I-N-G

    10. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by Holi · · Score: 1

      One possibility is that trying him will endanger operatives.

      So what, thats not anyone's fault and in no way affects every citizens "right to a speedy and public trial".

      If they are so worried about sensitive information, the courts have provisions to deal such situations.

      I fail to see this hipocrisy you speak of.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    11. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by Oniko · · Score: 1
      You can have a trial and still protect the operatives.


      Don't turn it into a media circus. Sequester the jury. Let them decide if the evidence, some of which would be presented without revealing the source, holds water. Put him in solitary if convicted.


      I agree that he sounds like a scumbag. I agree that, in all likelihood, he's guilty. But he should still. get. a. trial.


      And taking a risk on outing an operative in order to preserve someone's right to trial is orders of magnitude away from delibarately releasing a name.

    12. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "One possibility is that trying him will endanger operatives."

      Then they shouldn't have arrested him, they should have waited until their "operatives" were done with their work and arrested whoever was invloved and then try them.

      not to mention the fact that you are spouting "possibilities"...

      We don't arrest people for what they might do in this country.. we arrest them for what they have done...

      But i guess as long as fox news tell you differently you have no problem with people having their rights stripped away.

      Just wait until it is you, by then everyone else will have been locked up already and then no one will be left to fight for you.

    13. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "I guess the question is, if its okay for agovernment official to out an agent,"

      I never said it was, so fuck you. It's not ok in either case.

      If you want to have a reasonable discussion, STOP MISREPRESENTING WHAT I SAY.

      "You can't have it both ways, either."

      I never tried, so to reiterate, FUCK YOU.

    14. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      alleged means someone says he did it, but no-ones offered any proof of that. It they had any proof, they would have pressed charges. Instead, all they have is circumstantial evidence.

      This is exactly one of those things that I am personally afraid of.

      There are messages and posters on NYC the subway (for some time already) saying "If you see any suspicious activity, do not hesitate to notify a police officer or an MTA [=Metropolitan Transit Authority] employee".

      What one needs to realize that this, combined with the revived Patriot act means that any stupid moronic idiot, any person who doesn't like your fucking face, any one who thinks that having a beard and a turban makes you a terrorist, and any other misguided, misinformed or otherwise fucked-up-in-the-head person can be the sole cause of your absolutely legal detention (not unlikely a permanent one).

      Because based on current law, it's enough for the police to receive a tip and they have all the rights they need (most likely even a "probable cause", but IANAL, so I can't tell exactly) to take you off the streets.

      When in NYC, I am afraid to ride the subway. Not because of terrorists or the government, but because of ordinary everyday people who with their fucked up mind have the power, motive AND opportunity to literally ruin your life!

  113. blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess no one found it odd that a terrorist attack occured in London THE SAME FREAKING DAY the united states has a session on extending the patriot act?

    They essentially now live with more freedoms than us in their own homeland.

  114. chill out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people can 'consider' whatever they want no matter how stupid it is. its called freedom. u sound like bush.

    1. Re:chill out by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      The problem with freedom is that idiots are free to take it away.

      Sure, people can consider these things, but when that consideration is enough to get a majority vote, it says one thing, that our freedoms are toilet paper.

      I didn't say that they can't 'consider' this, just that you should be offended that they did.

  115. Re:Thank GOD for the Patriot Act by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
    Libraries? One of the 9/11 hijackers had used a library computer to check his flight reservation on the Internet. So yeah that's needed.

    The Patriot Act states that Law Enforcement may find out what BOOKS you checked out at a Library, not what you did on their computers.

    Ignorance is bliss I guess.

  116. **Whoosh** by CommandoB · · Score: 1

    It was a literary device. Without needing to agree with the implication, I understood the grandparent's intent. You missed it.

    --
    Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
  117. Wow, how stupid can you get. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I live in the UK and we're getting the same things happening to us as the US is getting, doesn't it just make you want to walk up to Bush/Blaire and go

    "Oi idiot, Terrorism is already illegal, you can make all the laws you like, but you're not going to stop some nutter slapping bombs to his chest and blowing himself and anyone else near up".

    Most suicide bombers are prepared to die, if they kill 1 or 100 guys. They'll blow themselvs up at the slightest chance of them being caught, so why the hell do they think this does anything but endanger police and security officers?

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:Wow, how stupid can you get. by GauteL · · Score: 1

      I live in the UK too and I would say, possibly, but to a smaller extent. You see a lot of the same legislation being suggested in the UK but it rarely seems to actually get through, except in minor castrated versions.

      Yesterday a possible 3 month detainment without charge (as opposed to 14 days currently) was suggested by the police in order to combat terrorism. The media immediately attacked it, and it will have a hard time getting through the system.

      As much as I detest the house of lords, they have actually strongly opposed laws that go to far with removing civil rights.

      Some anti-terror laws will get through, but not the worst ones.

    2. Re:Wow, how stupid can you get. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yea, I find that funny myself. So many people think the house of lords is a joke but they are the last line of defence against a truely idiotic government.

      We used to be able to point and go "look at them silly yanks, isn't it funny" now we're in the same position with insane laws being pushed at us for no reason at all.

      Only difference here is they admit it'll cost us £100 (per card ffs), even though we all know they'll do nothing.

      If ID cards come into the country then I'll refuse to carry one and won't pay (if it's taxed then theres not much I can do about that). I'll carry my driving licence and my old college ID (both have pictures of me), but nothing more.

      These things are as insecure as any other card and can/will be cloned and faked over and over. If I refuse to carry one and am in need of some emergency medical attenction (for example) I highlight doubt the NHS will refuse to fix me up if I don't have it on me. I can see on the other hand it being a lot of hassle to go see a doctor but I'm willing to make allownaces for what I see as idiotic government trying to force something they'll find profitable on us.

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Wow, how stupid can you get. by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      "As much as I detest the house of lords, they have actually strongly opposed laws that go to far with removing civil rights."

      Exactly. The house of lords is a bad system since all the positions are either appointed or hereditary, but we need them there because without them Tony and his cronies in the commons would have got all sorts of dangerous rubbish through, it's just a by voting something through twice anyway.
      Not that the lords will be making much difference anymore, what with all the appointments effectively being made by Tony

      --
      FGD 135
  118. No *this* is how karma is whored: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    1) Post the Natalie Portman quote in every single Slashdot article involving civil liberities
    2) ???
    3) Profit!

  119. omg... I can't believe this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're STILL getting away with this!!! I just realized something... the 4 dud bomps in London this morning, as well as the previous bombs a week or so ago.... were completely set up by the US gov... because they wanted the Partiot act to be extended 10 years...!!!! isn't it obvious!!! o_o/ omg... They're using scare tactics to get these kinds of things renewed... >_> And I still believe there is plenty of info out there to prove that 9/11 was also an act of our government...

  120. Look at the bright side by UnapprovedThought · · Score: 1

    At least it didn't pass unanimously, with no debate, in the middle of the night and with the Congress out of session.

  121. I got a cold knot in my stomach... by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Those in power wanted the patriot act extended, but last i heard congress was dragging it's feet.

    Then "terrorist" attacks in london.

    Not the act is being extended 10 years (!).

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  122. Flamebait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move along. Nothing to see here. Watch your step. Mind your karma. We apologize for the incovenience. In a perfect world, those reponsible would be sacked.

  123. Quotes to consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here are a few of my favorites... it's almost as if the founding fathers were speaking of this very bill.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Ben Franklin

    "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison

    "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." James Madison

    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson

    If you want to change things, visit http://www.lp.org/

  124. Mod down by CommandoB · · Score: 1

    As much as he'd like it to be, that post was not insightful.

    The grandparent's quote was not "fake" - it was just out of context, as Bush used it jokingly. In contrast, Clinton, never equated Hitler and Jesus in any context.

    --
    Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
  125. Suck it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what we need to? More cameras, less rights, and FUCK YES- Let's racially profile. I'm serious. If you aren;t doing anyhting wrong then you have nothing to worry about. Suck it up

  126. Why are you complaining? by supachupa · · Score: 1

    To all of you out there that are whining about our loss of freedoms/privacy.. what are you doing to help stop it? Have you at least written a letter to your senator?

    1. Re:Why are you complaining? by 0xC2 · · Score: 1
      --
      Be heard || Be herd
    2. Re:Why are you complaining? by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 1

      What? And get on the list?

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  127. actions speak louder than words. by Maxhrk · · Score: 0

    funny thing is that action speak louder than words.. i guess, action alone prompt this extended of law. :)

  128. John Titor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I have to say, "Way to go Congress, you're proving New Age conspiracy theories correct."

  129. Senate Bills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's worth noting that the Senate Judiciary committee unanimously recommended a different PATRIOT reauthorization act on Thursday. It's discussed in the Washington Post. Excerpt from Post article:

    "Earlier in the day, however, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that goes significantly further in modifying the Patriot Act. It would require greater oversight of the Justice Department and would place new restrictions on secret searches and surveillance in terrorism probes [...] would allow people to challenge warrants approved by a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and would require that subjects of secret searches be notified within seven days unless an extension is approved by a judge."

    This was an 18-0 vote in a committee which includes some of the Senate's most vocal conservatives (Jeff Sessions, Sam Brownback) and, on the flip side, some of its most liberal members (Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold). Feingold was the *only* Senator to vote against PATRIOT in 2001, and even he found this version palatable.

    The bill which was reported out of committee was a substitute for S.1389. Thomas should have this new version up in a day or two. PATRIOT is going to be reauthorized - that's a given. Accepting this, liberals and conservatives alike should be backing the Senate Judiciary version of this legislation. As the Post notes, it is significantly more contrained than any of the others under consideration.

    Call your Senators and Representatives. Support S.1389, the Specter/Feinstein/Kyl USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.

  130. From TFA... by ajservo · · Score: 1

    "Another successful amendment sets a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle; a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material; and life imprisonment -- with the possibility of the death penalty -- if anyone is killed in such an attack."

    So, if I put a penny on the train tracks I go to jail? OH CRAP! (runs off...)

  131. Re:Democrats are wusses ("Dude, where's my country by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

    Check again- almost everyone who voted against it was Democrat.

    Only 21% of Democrats voted for this. 4 out of 5 voted against.

    On the other hand, 96% of Republicans voted for it.

    That said, if every single Dem had voted against it, we'd be 1 vote short. We'd have to convince 1 of those republicans who voted "yes" to vote "no."

  132. Re:'merciful' atomic bomb !? by Forbman · · Score: 1

    I'd say that Britain won against the IRA, as far as getting them to stop their terrorism. N. Ireland is still pretty much a British territory, and the IRA has been declawed, both militarily and politically.

    but Israel has sort of capitulated w.r.t. Gaza Strip & Sinai Peninsula, but the numbers were certainly against them in Gaza if it were to come down to a vote. At least there is some semblance of moderate sanity trying to finally prevail in Palestinian politics. Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah are getting kind of desperate.

    But this will all be small cookies if China finally decides to get seriously physical about Taiwan.

  133. On the speedy reduction of freedom on earth by Haiku+4+U · · Score: 0

    Is it ironic?
    As we imprison ourselves -
    we are what we fear.

  134. Re:it is not really asymmetrical warefare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you even know what asymmetrical war is? As a fellow political science student I am aware of the terminology but it is hard to imagine unless taken into abstract consideration how you can apply this to a conflict of terrorism. You do realize that by your definition the United States was engaged in asymmetrical warfare when it was fighting against the British (revolution).

    If fundamentalist groups were really capable of causing complete disorder the United States would have been brought down years ago by our own Christian hate groups. Those traitors have been scheming for years to destroy the United States government. It still is the number one problem in the states.

  135. View from the Hill by OakLEE · · Score: 1

    Ok so I've been interning down here and gotten to watch this whole thing unfold, albeit from a distance. The basic gist is that the judiciary committee actually did a pretty good job of creating a compromise, by allowing a lot of ammendments to the bill to be brought up, many of them specifically reinstating sunset provisions on all of the controversial sections. This in effect would probably have meant the demise of the Patriot Act the third time around because, even though a lot of Republicans voted for the bill, many of them had reservations as can be seen by the motion to recommit the bill (ie send it back to committee, which would have effectively killed it) which only lost by 9 votes.

    The main problem came in the Rules committee, which marks up the bill and sets up procedure for its debate. Rules basically gutted out all of the significant amendments and only allotted time for the consideration of rather menial ammendments that would either not pass at all or be so inane that their passage would not make a dent in the bulk of the text. This is what effectively killed any effort to affect meaningful change in the Patriot Act. I have no doubt that the reinserting of the sunset provisions (at least) would have passed if it were allowed to be offered. Of course, that's probably why it was never offered.

    --
    The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
  136. UNpatriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Patriot Act is an oxymoron. Patriotism is the last thing it supports or enhances. It would be far more appropriate to name it the Facist Dictorial Police State Act. It's just a powerplay by politicians and seedy (at best) government organizations to get the stalinistic powers they so crave.

    Extending this wholesale trampling of the rights and freedoms of the american peoples (and any others caught in the crossfire) will catch a sum total of ZERO terrorists. It seems to me, that it will make it even easier for them to get away with stuff. After all, it's about 10 million times more likely that George from down the lane will have the wrong weight on his drivers license than Mr Allard Whittson from Birmingham Alabama Age 46, and the tragedy of this is simple. George is your everytown guy. Mr Whittson is a falsified cover identity with identity papers that won't be detected as falsified (even IF they are), even though he will happily stroll through customs without a single red light, until he blows up the airplane he later boards.

    Ok, that example was a little simplified, but I'm sure you understand the gist of it. No halfway decent terrorist is going to be stopped by the stupid stuff in the patriot act. They get through for the same reasons they always got through before. Short of doing DNA ID at every entry/exit to public accessible buildings, and the ability to absolutely prevent any US citizens from being terrorists, it won't work. Even then, they'll find someway to get entry into the system.

    To any fools who might suggest that I might be unamerican, why don't you go and read the Constitution and Declaration of Independance. You might learn something about being American, and it's not cowtowing to petty fear mongers, or attacking others who point out what's wrong in our system, or have dissagreements with you.

    And if you're curious, I was in the US Military for 2 terms (that's 8 years) as a Munitions Systems Specialist. I've served my time, and was on bases that were active for both Desert Shield and Operation El Dorado Canyon. I earned several USAF Ribbons/Medals, and one from the USNavy. I did not re-up after my hand was mangled by a fool that shouldn't have been allowed on heavy equipment. If you want to criticise my desire for a better America, first ask what you've done in support of this country. (And no, I don't consider politicians as important, just as power seeking scum that pull the strings. Well, 60% of them. There are some good ones, but you just never notice them. By the way, I believe bush to be part of the 60%, an incompetent part of it.)

    Ok, enough babbling for now, you may start your flamethrowers or whatever...

  137. Hook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hook, Line, and Sinker.

    Whether a plot by the US to distract the public/justify the extension, or a legitimate attack, congratulations...thanks to London, we just lost our right to privacy. You know as well as I do that this will be used for more evil than good...

  138. Re:Thank GOD for the Patriot Act by uprock_x · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (quick, who is occupying PAKISTAN?)

    America's tentacles are already all over Pakistan. Setting up Musharaf as the next Saddam.

    Difference is Musharraf already has home grown WMDs and had his own people selling nuclear secrets, or was that your point ?

  139. Re:Democrats are wusses ("Dude, where's my country by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    indeed what you say is true.. still this party has the truth on their side 9 times out of ten and don't stick it to the dirt bags who are making their party values a "dirty word". As my family always says to me.. it's not "democrat".. it's one word "liberaldemocrat". I can't really commiserate with a party which allows itself to be bashed with it's own name, while their opponents have so much juicy dirt just waiting to grace the pages... every paper across the nation could print a different piece of filth.. and they still would not run out (and that's just bush)

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  140. US being able to view others information by VEGETA_GT · · Score: 1

    one interesting question I have is, if I am Canadian, but some of my data is stored on a US database, then dose this Patriot Act give the US government full rights to view this information at there own accord. If that's true, then its interesting to see how even though I am not in the US, they can still do things to me. Time to relay look at where companeys I deal with store there records.

    Um, thought the US the land of the free. Honestly I feel sorry for some of the crap that US citizens well have to go through and loss of freedoms this Patriot Act removes from you.

    I am reminded of what a US senator said a few years back, though this is not word for word, or can I find a reference.

    "Canadians have to many freedoms"

  141. Whoever voted yes... by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    Needs to be removed from office and/or killed.

    The end.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  142. On this day by jafac · · Score: 1

    Let us look to our brothers and sisters across the pond. Suffering from two attacks, have they cowered in fear, begging the government to take their rights?

    We fought for independence from them over 200 years ago. Now, we're not fit to carry their collective jock straps. Instead, we flee in terror like herd animals, gladly trading our liberty for security.

    In 200 years, history will not look favorably upon the cowardice of THIS American generation.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  143. Face it... by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    The very ideals that this country USED to stand for, once upon a time, are long gone.

    Things change. Times change. Motives change.

    Loopholes are found in protections and are exploited by those who know how.

    People (masses) are getting stupider and are kept in the dark about most things. Hell, I bet most don't even know that this is coming back up, and I bet most don't even know wtf the Patriot Act even is.

    Either people start getting together and FORCE change, or... this country is gonna keep heading down the path it's on and will inevitably crumble.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  144. Really old fashioned !!! by jalet · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is so 1984 !

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    1. Re:Really old fashioned !!! by klang · · Score: 1

      no, it's so 1939 ..

    2. Re:Really old fashioned !!! by jalet · · Score: 1

      Ouch ! I'm glad I don't live there.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    3. Re:Really old fashioned !!! by klang · · Score: 1

      I am glad to live in Europe.

  145. The U.S. involved? by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if the detonators went off but the explosives didn't because of some fuck-up in converting metric units to Imperial... then maybe you could believe the U.S. was involved.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  146. Place blame where due.... by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    G. W. Bush or a bunch of right-wing wackos didn't turn America into a totalitarian state... that has been happening for 50 years, with the cheering support of the left.

    It was the left who brought us the welfare state, which gave us a national ID system (they say Social Security numbers aren't part of a national ID system, but it IS a national ID in practice).

    It was the left who supported massive government spending that could only be sustained through a government agency that tracks ALL your financial transactions, can request an financial record from any instutution you do buisness with without a judges permission, and can assume you are guilty of a crime until you are proven innocent.

    It was the left who demanded that citizens be disarmed in violation of their constitutional rights.

    It was the left (Wilson and Roosevelt), that built up our military for foriegn adventures, and who rounded up certain ethnic groups into prison camps (Good ol' FDR rounded up about 20,000 japanese).

    It was the left who cheered on the police blowing up children in Waco Texas, and who demanded a whole slew of government programs to monitor "terrorist groups" (see, back then they expected the terrorist groups would be right-wing like OK City bomber, so it was OK to have a police state to go after THOSE criminals).

    It was the left who pioneered the concept of "judicial activism" (i.e. Judges "creativly interpreting" the law in order to bring about desired political ends that doesn't have the support of the public to pass into law), which is now being used to attack abortion, or squelch protest.

    It was the left that called for draconian police powers to be used against protesters (remember when it used to be right-wing anti-abortion protesters outside clinics who needed to be stoped? What, you didn't think all those laws restricting protest would be used against you!?)

    Sure, Bush is a right-wing crazy. But if you are on the left, you have only yourself to blame for the situation. G. W. Bush isn't smart enough or talented enough or popular enough to have brought about some sort of drastic change in American policy since 9/11/2001. Our path to Facism has been paved by the polices and laws of left-wing socialists who have systematicly been disassembling our constitution and our freedoms for years, thinking that they were going to somehow be the benevolent dictators of a new state-run scoialist utopia to America.

    Well, suprise suprise, things didn't turn out as you planned it, and now you are running and screaming like this is not somehow your fault.

    If people want to be taken seriously opposing Bush , the Patriot Act, etc., etc., then you are going to have to take responsibility for what has happened. The left need to realize, and apologize, for giving all the tools to facism to G. W. Bush. Once people on the left accept their responsibility in this, then we can move on to worry about G. W. Bush.

    1. Re:Place blame where due.... by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      I was mentally working up a point-by-point rebuttal as I read your rant, but I'm not going to bother because I don't think you want to hear it anyway. You have such a skewed perspective on history (particularly, it seems, as it pertains to liberalism and what liberalism is all about) that the best I can really do is tell you to read up on history a little more thoroughly and drop this pretense that you're fair-minded. You exhibit an almost irrational hatred of liberalism that has allowed you to accept some very shaky premises about its history as well as making some laughable--if not embarrassing--leaps in logic.

      My guess is that you're in your early 20s or late teens, and you don't realize that there are many here who recognize the way you've run down the standard-issue litany of right-wing accuastions and revisions of history intended to demonize liberals. Well, on that you're wrong. I've heard this diatribe time and time again from others, and it never fails to come off looking more like a desperate search for a scapegoat instead of the knowledgeable perspective on history that it pretends to be.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    2. Re:Place blame where due.... by hitchhacker · · Score: 1


      It's a really simple principle. Power corrupts.

      The things listed by the grandparent all have one thing in common.
      They all gave the federal government more power.

      Placing the blame solely on GWB isn't valid because the problem isn't the abuse of power.. it's the power to abuse. Blame needs to be asserted on the principles that centralized those powers. If anything, for the sole reason of warning future generations. Don't you see? The US Constitution is one such warning that we are increasingly ignoring. The founding fathers were warning us of the dangers of a powerful government.

      Blame the principles that have either ignored or misinterpreted that warning.

      At least that is how I interpreted the grandparent.

      -metric

    3. Re:Place blame where due.... by bluGill · · Score: 1

      He was perfectly correct. Very one sides, but correct. There is plenty of blame to go around, and reading his rant you miss many things the right needs to take responsibility for, but that doesn't change the fact that the left has done plenty of evil things.

    4. Re:Place blame where due.... by RexRhino · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am hardly "right-wing", and in fact consider myself a "classical liberal", who is pro-gay-marrage and sexual freedom, who is pro-choice (on abortion, but also on just about everything else anyone wants to do to their own body), who is against the war on drugs, against imperialism, against racism, and I want the strictest seperation between church and state. And I am certainly fair minded if you mean that I hate both the "left" and the "right" equally (which is a total false dichotomy... real political thought should not fall on a one-dimential spectrum). But to have me attack the right-wing on Slashdot would be pointless, because the politics on Slashdot clearly lean to the left.

      You should have done a point-by-point rebuttal. I would have liked to hear someone on the left say something other than "you just don't understand, do you?". Perhaps it would have waken you up to see that the left has betrayed it's own liberal ideals, and has embrassed statism and totalitarianism. Look for any problem that might exist, and the lefist will give you a solution that involves massive government. Health care? Solution is to put health care under the control of the government. Polution? Massive regulation by the government. Education? A massive centralized government controlled education system. Violent Video Games? We need the government to regulate them. The ideaology of the left nowadays is simply the ideaology of the supreme infallible state.

      The left have been creating a leviathan state that has control of almost every aspect of our lives, and want that state control over our lives to increase... and then they want to complain when G. W. Bush uses that state power to his own destructive ends. Power swings back an forth, and the Frankenstien state that you thought you could control is now out of your hands. Had you stuck to a TRUE liberal stance, supporting individual rights, supporting decentralized government, supporting checks and balances and limitations to government power, supporting strict adherence to our constitution, G. W. Bush would not have the tools to do what he is doing, period.

    5. Re:Place blame where due.... by greythax · · Score: 1

      G. W. Bush or a bunch of right-wing wackos didn't turn America into a totalitarian state... that has been happening for 50 years, with the cheering support of the left.

      Ok, I'll bite. I am about as liberal as they come, but am in no way capable of speaking for all liberals, nor do I consider myself the typical liberal. I will, however, try to lead you through what I consider some gross errors in your post.

      It was the left who brought us the welfare state, which gave us a national ID system (they say Social Security numbers aren't part of a national ID system, but it IS a national ID in practice).

      And just what is so wrong with welfare? Have you thought of the alternatives? I understand that our welfare system in this country leaves a lot to be desired, but on the whole, it accomplishes it's most important goals. Namely, keeping children who's parents are mentally incompetent, physically handicapped, just plain lazy, or dead from starving to death on the streets, breeding diseases that you yourself could catch, or having to resort to prostitution or theft to survive. Many of those welfare dollars you lament having removed from your check go directly to the housing and feeding orphans. Sure, there are some things that could be done to make the system much better, but they are unlikely without EXPANDING the current system, and that won't be happening while the far right is around, will it?

      Now, perhaps I misread your comment, and it is the Social Security Card that you are actually mad about. Well, without it, we have to prepare for massive amounts of fraud sapping public projects. But as far as the standards of a national id are concerned, it is a pretty poor one. You see, the real outrage of a national ID is WHY you have to have one. Nobody cares if they have to have a card, but they start to care if they have to present it to travel, obtain food, that sort of thing. As it stands, all you need a SSN for is to take advantage of government programs. They also help when paying taxes :) I am not sure if there is a way to pay taxes without using your ssn, if anyone reading this knows of one, I would love to hear it.

      It was the left who supported massive government spending that could only be sustained through a government agency that tracks ALL your financial transactions, can request an financial record from any instutution you do buisness with without a judges permission, and can assume you are guilty of a crime until you are proven innocent.

      Umm, you know, until the right took power in 2000, we were doing pretty well at keeping the spending within our control. Since 2000, we have been spending like it is going out of style. If you look at a graph of deficit in the U.S. budget by president, almost without fail, the deficit goes down in democratic administrations, and up under republican administrations. I used to have a link around here somewhere, but I can't find it.

      The rest of that is about the IRS, right? So let me make sure I have this right, Liberals created the IRS? All on their own? Funny I don't see wave after wave of conservative trying to dismantle the IRS. I think I am going to call fud on that one.

      It was the left who demanded that citizens be disarmed in violation of their constitutional rights.

      Um, nope. Your constitutional rights are thus:

      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      You have the right to be part of a well regulated militia. Ideally this would fall under the authority of your local government. It was never stated, nor was it intended that you and your drinking buddies can start your own little band of thugs that can push whatever agenda they are brave enough to pull a trigger over. To encourage you to help protect your local, lawfully elected government, you are also allowed to keep weapons on your self and in your home.

    6. Re:Place blame where due.... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      You are not a "classical liberal", you are a libertairian, small 'l'. Why the libertarians are wrong is well - here -
      Health care? Solution is to put health care under the control of the government.
      See here is the deal, I let you sit in a room for oh, let's say 12 hous, the room is 92F ... I come back to the room and I say -


      Me: Hey, um, did you drink from that faucet over there?
      You: Yeah, I was thirsty - what of it?
      Me: Well, it was poisonous
      You:What in the hell? ... - Jesus Christ who has an unmarked tap in a hot room?
      Me: Well we do, I am afraid you have 2 days at the most and it will be very painfull at the end.
      You: Jesus! How the hell does this happen?
      Me: Well, truth is, we voted out the "nanny" State ages ago, and it is not poisonous for the people that work here, sorry
      You: I am going to sue you bastards into next week!!
      Me: Good luck, there is a $100k cap now
      Me: By the way - there is an antidote.
      You: Holy crap - where is it - give it to me
      Me: Well, here is the thing - it is well, um, 1 Million dollars, cash. But of course you dont have to buy it
      You: I dont have that kind of money
      Me: You can make payments - we finance
      (And in your world)
      You: Screw You ... I dont need massive government regulating you, I can fix it myself
      Me: Well, enjoy the last 3 hours of your 48 left

      Truth is that health care is very much a government thing. you would do *ANYTHING* to get that drug - anything. It needs to have the big hand of government to step in to be on your side.

      The government should be about the public good - that is a liberal idea. I admit, the "public good" has run amok lately - but I would rather have "PC" language socially forced on me (liberal Democrat) than "PC" language forced on me through law (Neo-Con)

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    7. Re:Place blame where due.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are not a "classical liberal", you are a libertairian, small 'l'. Why the libertarians are wrong is well - here -

      absolutely. and "libertarian" is just a word meaning "too embarrassed to call myself a right winger." these so-called libertarians need to come out of the closet and just embrace the neocon agenda that they sleep with every night.

    8. Re:Place blame where due.... by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      You should have done a point-by-point rebuttal. I would have liked to hear someone on the left say something other than "you just don't understand, do you?"

      Why? The simple fact is that you don't understand. And you can take that personally if you want, but it's not intended that way. I can deduce that you don't understand what you're talking about by what you've written. A passing familiarity with American history would debunk many of the premises you have already clearly accepted as fact on some leap of faith. Why on earth would I bother? When you accept some premise on faith, you cannot be argued with. It's like arguing with Christians about whether God exists or not. It's pointless.

      I've heard your rant before over the last two decades, from right-wingers trying to demonize liberals and hoping that those hearing them out don't have an understanding of history (and sadly, most people don't.) Your point of view is nothing new and that tells me that you're just parrotting someone else.

      Also... please be clear that you are not a liberal. You sound more like what has been recently termed a "South Park conservative." If you really want to understand liberalism, if you really care to know the truth, read up on history and get the propagandists out of your ear. At that time, you can critically discuss history without a lot of political slanting.

      Then maybe I will engage you in real debate.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    9. Re:Place blame where due.... by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Exuse me?

      Libertarians are AGAINST the Patroit Act, were as liberals and the left wing attacked anyone who didn't vote for John Kerry, who SUPPORTED the Patroit act (and said it didn't go far enough).

      Your post is an example of the hateful, intollerant, close-mind self-rightousness of the left that has alienated so many people. Anything that disagrees with the "One True Worldview and Philisophy" can be dismissed as right-wing. No need to make any kind on rational arguement, no need to refute points or try to win people over. Simply show disgust and disdain for anyone who disagrees with your narrow viewpoint.

      This is why G. W. Bush was able to win the last election. The "if you don't agree with everything we say you are only worthy of our disgust" attitude alienates everyone but the "true-believers".

    10. Re:Place blame where due.... by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      This is why G. W. Bush was able to win the last election. The "if you don't agree with everything we say you are only worthy of our disgust" attitude alienates everyone but the "true-believers".

      You have got to be kidding me. The irony of that statement is hilarious. I think I'll print that out and hang it on my fridge.

      Just curious: how old are you?

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    11. Re:Place blame where due.... by inkswamp · · Score: 1
      I think any objective, unrevised view of American history would lead most people to understand that liberalism played a minimal (at most) role in the mess we're in right now. It has traditionally been the political right that has expanded government's reach into personal lives and privacy--and not just in America. I can think of very few instances where liberals advocated more government power over personal freedoms and privacy. It's not liberals who try to outlaw certain sexual practices between consenting adults. It's not liberals who try to ban music and books. It's not liberals who make the argument that the Constitution doesn't say anything about personal privacy (and yes, I've heard my rightie friends make that argument many times.) It's not liberals who advocate federals bans on marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage--all private, personal decisions.

      Bear in mind too that I don't consider Bill Clinton and Janet Reno and the politically correct whiners we saw emerge in the last two decade to be liberals. That's not liberalism. The fact that the OP equates them with liberalism tells me that he's just towing some line of propaganda that appeals to him for some unknown reason.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  147. Reichstag Fire: by Amiasian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring arrived soon after, and when they were shown Van der Lubbe, a known Communist agitator, Göring immediately declared the fire was set by the Communists and had the party leaders arrested. Hitler took advantage of the situation to declare a state of emergency and encouraged aging president Paul von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, abolishing most of the human rights provisions of the 1919 Weimar Republic constitution.

    I think this strangely appropriate. Ideologies, not countries, always seems to be the common threat under which liberties are stolen by states.

    1. Re:Reichstag Fire: by egrinake · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Reichstag fire is widely believed to have been started by the Nazis themselves, as a pretext for declaring a state of emergency, reducing civil rights and starting an anti-communist campaign. From Wikipedia:

      At Nuremberg, General Franz Halder claimed Göring had confessed to setting the fire: "At a luncheon on the birthday of Hitler in 1942, the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building [fire] and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Göring interrupted the conversation and shouted: 'The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!' With that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand."

      Some people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the US government were somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks - either by direct action or by lack of action - precisely to have a pretext for 1) reduction of civil rights, and 2) launching a large-scale military campaign in the middle east. I'm not saying this is correct, but it sounds a bit less far-fetched when knowing that stuff like this has happened several times before.

  148. I will NOT calm down... by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    People said the same damn things about PATRIOT in the first place and about DMCA, etc.

    This law should NEVER have been suggested, voted upon, etc. as it's completely in violation of the Constitution which gives the Government it's authority to pass laws in the first place.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  149. And the pot gets hotter. by Captain+Scurvy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "It's only temporary!" Lying scumbags.

    Who wants to make a bet that they'll just keep on turning up the heat in this pot of water we're all sitting in? Er, what's that? It's already boiling?!

    So let's jump out already. Seriously, we're being cooked alive.

    1. Re:And the pot gets hotter. by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's the problem - their never going to push it up high enough so that the general population complains. They're no Hitler's - they won't start rounding up specific religions and gassing people because that would be too obvious, they will do what most people will find as reasonable as possible given the situation, but as the situation progresses 'reasonable as possible' will mean more and more. There may not even be a 'conspiracy' here, they could just honestly think they are doing the right thing, im sure Hitler did.

      In fact there are two things you can learn from Hitler:

      1) He was a basted, never let it happen again.

      2) He went over the top too fast and tried to be too extreme, if he had just turned it down a little notch then many more people would have accepted him. sad but true.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:And the pot gets hotter. by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      Ribbit.

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    3. Re:And the pot gets hotter. by swiftstream · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even worse, my representative publically stated that he would vote against renewing the provisions that were set to sunset (even though he originally voted for the Patriot Act), and then he voted to make them permanent. Lying scumbag is indeed how I feel about him at the moment.

      Let me tell you, he had better have a very, very good explanation for his actions.

      Otherwise, I wonder if there is any provision to impeach or otherwise remove a representative in the House?

      --
      Be a PATRIOT--because the only thing we have to fear is the lack thereof.
  150. Re Not really out of context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember this, the context of this quote was entirely in line with Bush's character as I know it.

    When someone says something you don't like, in a clear parody of your own words or web site - sue them and then whine about losing.

    A parody is (or was) a protected form of political speech.

    Get a clue.

  151. new kind of law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I some how understand the reason to tap a person's phone or watch him/her directly or indirectly for national security. but halting his/her life by arresting him without showing any proof is NKL(New Kinda Law). Not letting him/her see the proofs.
    Not letting his/her lawyer see the proofs. i wont mind using a cop as a driver if i am a suspect. but i do want to go to work and pay my bills.

  152. Get a grip america by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am 38 years old and I live in the UK and have done so all my life, from the first point at which I was able to understand this planet and how it functioned I was terrified by the prospect of nuclear war between America and Russia, up until the end of the cold war I had NEVER met an American, I had however met plenty of Russians.

    During this time, we were also being attacked by the IRA, not by one consolidated group of IRA terrorists but several who all had their own agendas and their own morals about what constituted a valid target, some stuck to military only targets, some groups saw everyone as a valid target, during this time I met lots of Irish, some of whom no doubt supported the bombings, the majority of whom did not.

    For about 10 years in the UK it has been reasonably quiet, no bomb alerts, the rubbish bins have been appearing back on the streets over the past few years (they were all removed as they were used for bombings), everything got back to normal and people settled back into a fairly norma way of life, forgetting how they lived when we were being actively attacked or threatened by the IRA, forgetting the worries of nuclear war.

    Now we are under threat from criminals posing as moslems attacking us in the name of islam, what worries me more than the possibility of getting caught up in one of these bombings is the fact that people see this as an attack by the moslem nation against whites, thats what I can see written between the lines in the cleverly worded newspaper articles, these criminals are achieving exactly what they set out to do, they are stirring up racial hatred and a large majority of people are falling for it... America included...

    What really scares me today is not the threat of getting bombed, not the threat of nuclear war although that is always in the back of my mind (Korea, China), no what really scares me is America, America sits their proclaiming itself to be the worlds only superpower, the nation who shall deliver all mankind from evil, a nation that appears to be on its own holy crusade to cleanse the world of poverty, death and famine, well I'm sorry but I havent seen any of that happen yet, all I see is a small country with only 260 million people that likes to go pillaging in other peoples back yards, and thats what scares me, who gave America the damn right to determine how other people should live, if someone invaded America and tried to tell you how to live your lives would you not defend your right to your way of life ?

    Who is America going to go after next ? Iran ? Syria ? North Korea ? China ? - What have they done to annoy America ?, I know most Americans still think the world is flat but these countries are thousands of miles from America, their people have lived they way they live now for centuries and the majority oif their peoples are quite happy, or at least they will remain happy until you Americans started sticking your noses into things that dont concern you.

    I can imagine that what I have written here is in violation of your PATRIOT ACT, I am however writing this in the UK, I am a white Christian male who lives in a multicultural town in the UK where Asian, Indian, Chinese, African, English, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Russian, Polish, Afghan, Iranian, Croatian, Serb etc etc etc all live together quite happily, we dont all speak the same language but we manage to get along, most of the people here were born here and are descendents of people who came from the countries mentioned, some are immigrants who came here for work, the majority have British citizenship, there is no real ethnic minority in the town I live in but we all manage to get along quite happily together.

    Strange thing is I've never come across any Americans here... Perhaps there are some Americans in the town where I live, perhaps they are the minority in MY world, perhaps they are the ones who should bugger off back to their own country and leave us British citizens alone...

    I would publish my name but I have a *terrific* fear that some secret American organisation may illegally kidnap me in the middle of the night and on the basis of what I have written declare me a terrorist and lock me up with no hope of ever seeing the light of day...

    A British Patriot...

    1. Re:Get a grip america by bmantz65 · · Score: 1
      Perhaps there are some Americans in the town where I live, perhaps they are the minority in MY world, perhaps they are the ones who should bugger off back to their own country and leave us British citizens alone...

      Are Americans invading the UK with a hostile takeover in mind? No, so why do you think we are bothering you?

  153. Libertariansim by Nightspirit · · Score: 1

    This is why libertarianism, or classical liberalism, is such a depressing philosophy. The more one understands about what is going on, the more depressing the situation is IMO.

    More and more I get the desire to turn off the news and ignore fark and /. Everyday it's something new (increasing the scope of eminent domain, the fact that what someone does in their backyard falls under the interstate commerce clause, etc).

    I've tried writing my congressman, voting for people who understand the constitution ,etc, but it seems I'm outnumbered, and no-one is listening.

    I'd move to Ron Paul's (R-Tx) district, because at least he knows what he is talking about, but my medical practice (naturopathy) is not yet liscensed in Tx. Oh well.

    1. Re:Libertariansim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This country would be better off with more Ron Paul'a and less Democratics and Republicans. There is a need to keep hounding 'your' current representatives to represent the people and stay within the guidelines of the constitution while supporting Libertarian candidates, the LP party platform is not perfect but appears to support American freedom and stay within the Constitution unlike some other party's imho.

  154. My letter to my Congress Critter by $FFh · · Score: 1

    Dear Congressman Sodrel:

    I am appalled by your vote in favor of HR3199, "USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act". As I am sure you are aware, and as can be found from http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =17920&c=206 and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/m ain564189.shtml (as well as many other places), The USA PATRIOT Act has been misused several times. This sort of reactionary bill passing is a disgrace to our country, and should not be tolerated.

    Respectfully,
    [...]

  155. I hope they at least read it this time by C0d1ngM0nk3y · · Score: 0

    they didn't last time.

  156. Oh No! Not the library records! by ReccaH · · Score: 1

    It makes me wonder how many people this would actually effect. I'm in my local library about three to four times a month. Whenever I'm in the library there are more employees than anything else. Most of the people at the library are using the public computer terminals. Public libraries are underfunded resources with mostly out of date information. They get little public support. Library funding is almost always the first cut. So why is it suddenly that everyone is up in arms over violation of their rights to use a public resource that they never use to begin with?

  157. Check this out.... by beaubell · · Score: 1

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

    Check out the rest of the stuff on that site... pretty scarry.

  158. Whats happening now won't be felt for a long time by i_ate_god · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've been reading the comments to this article and I've seen a lot of US vs. , tin foil hattery, people for the patriot act, people against it.

    The Patriot Act, and Canada's similar (but no where near as bad) Security Certificate Programme, give law enforcement officials the ability to imprision people indefinately without charge or proof or anything of the sort, so long as the government has deemed them a threat to national security.

    There has been very few reported cases of these measures ever being used though. So it makes me wonder if the people who were indeed arrested are actuall threats. There are reasons why intelligence communities won't divulge any information. Even the slightest leak could be potentially dangerous and undermine a sensitive operation.

    Now, a lot of people are saying that these new measures can be used against any anti government body, whether it be a terrorist, or just someone who is on the other side of the political spectrum. This idea is flawed. It's important to have the opposing political side. It is a risk to have it, but the gamble can pay out if you convince people that the other side is just stupid. We all see the left vs. right debates. The two sides NEED each other for power. They need to be able to show that they are better than the alternative. It's the way they control the mob.

    So using the patriot act or anything else of the sort to eliminate opponents just wouldn't work out.

    I still question certain government motives however. It's quite clear that north american governments are heavily influenced by corporations . The US turns a blind eye to the economy, Canada subsidizes bombardier and nortel and air canada with billions instead of investing into social programmes. The abuse of the freedom revoking laws would probally stem from such influences, and that worries me the most. Remember when the RIAA wanted to throw in anti piracy nonsense into the Patriot Act? It failed, but it's not the end.

    If anything, it's corporate influence that has done more to revoke freedoms than terrorism....

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
  159. Bad Idea by Boronx · · Score: 1

    The last century should have taught everyone is there is no limit at all to how bad it an get before it turns around. The worse it gets, the bloodier a price we have to pay to do it.

    To those who say we have to balance security with our freedoms: we had more than enough info to break the 9/11 plot. The government doesn't need more powers, they need leaders that are more interested in getting terrorists than getting Saddam or kissing Saudi butt.

  160. Mod parent down - Patriot Act unrelated to Padilla by Dobeln · · Score: 1

    The issue of Padilla (aka "Abdullah al-Muhajir")and the designation of enemy combatants has *nothing whatsoever* to do with the Patriot act.

  161. So is there anyone with something intelligent by ifwm · · Score: 1

    to say about this, because I would prefer not to wade through 500 posts about how my freedom is disappearing.

    Wait, I'm on slashdot, never mind.

  162. Indeed - but why stop there? by Dobeln · · Score: 1

    This is a great idea - but why limit this to the USA PATRIOT act?

    Let's really get accountability back into the legislative process: If there are any murders or shopliftings in the next ten years, let's repeal murder and theft statutes and refund, say, 20 percent of tax revenues to the people!

    Keep those sweet ideas coming!

  163. Not at Nuremburg by kt0157 · · Score: 1

    Actually, those words were written by Goering's US Army "handler" who wrote them from memory in record what Goering said. They were not said at Nuremburg.

    Picky pedantry while people rot in prison without trial or access to lawyers in the Land of the Free.

    K.

  164. Representing? by Kizor · · Score: 1

    The only question I really want answered is, "House of Representatives: Who the heck are you representing?" Because I don't believe that the majority of America, let alone 60% of us, want the government to be able to get search warrants without a judge's consent. To force us to keep quiet about a search. To invade the privacy of our medical and library records. I'd like to attempt to derail this topic and turn it into a vaguely related philosophical discussion.

    Does the public know what's good for it? Large portions of it don't really know or care about politics, and yet they have voting rights. As much as it's maligned politics would appear to be vital to a country's survival. Many of the blacker ops the US has conducted over the years would have caused great public outcry, but the public is not in possession of nearly all of the facts and assuming that some genuinely were for the good of the country would fiercely oppose their best interests.

    On the other hand, is the good of its country synonymous with the best interests of the public? And isn't decent politics that fabled mythical yet much-sought thing? Is there any chance of implementing it? Gah!

    - Kizor, who doesn't know whether or not even he agrees with this

  165. obligatory but meaningless required subject header by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 1

    Hrmm... All duds you say? Patriot Extended now you say? What interesting timing between these two events.

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
  166. Little new under the sun by Dobeln · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can find a summary here: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/powerofnightmares/ one.html

    My favorite quote, that pretty much sums up the whole thing: "Senior American civil servants and politicians came to believe their view that the Soviet Union was an evil force against which the U.S. should be presented as a force for good."

    The fools! - All Good Liberals (TM) know that the Soviet Union was a great force for Good in the world! 100 percent literacy and free healthcare! 100 percent literacy and free healthcare! 100 percent liter... erm, in any case what is interesting here is how little is new in the world.

    While the "Liberals" (aka Socialists) used to carry water for the Soviets in the old days, now they have make do with the brave Mujahedeen. I guess whoever hates The Great Satan the most gets the loyalty of the Libs, no matter what... (Few things gets a Lib going as much as thinking about the poor, innocent Jihadis locked up at Gitmo.)

  167. Remember these words... by uohcicds · · Score: 1

    Benjamin Franklin:

    "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

    Think about what that means. In order to, 'protect our freedom' our governments (I'm British, BTW) seem hell-bent on depriving us of the liberties they are supposedly trying to preserve.

    Liberties like the right to go about your lawful business without hindrance by agencies of the state and the right not to be detained without recourse to due process or legal representation, are pretty much essential rights.

    But when we live in a climate of fear, constantly stoked by those who have something to gain from it, the mob become ever easier to control and mainpulate; they will surrender to whatever measures will protect their security

    Or will they? Only time will tell.

    --
    It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
  168. ^^give it five minutes by mbius · · Score: 1

    3 hours later (maybe 4 for the 30kbs download) SCORE: BAJILLION, _INFORMATIVE_

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
    1. Re:^^give it five minutes by LakeSolon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd really like to just mod up what's already been said so far, but lacking mod points I'll just reiterate what others have mentioned:

      It's incredibly good. Even though it's not trying to be bullet-proof the whole time, that doesn't make those points any less valid.

      EVERYONE should see it, and at the very least THINK about what it presents. I personally think it's amazingly accurate and expounds upon a lot of what I've had going through my mind lately.

      Burn CDs/DVDs of it and give them to your friends.

      ~Lake

  169. A related quote by chato · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Never leave people in peace, because when they are in peace, you are a nobody. They do not need you; your very purpose is not there. They need you when there is danger. Create danger. If there is no real danger, at least create the climate of a false danger."
    --Adolf Hitler

  170. TIMING IS EVERYTHING!!!! by o517375 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is most telling about this legislation is the timing. Politicians are extremely savvy about when the public is most willing to accept legislation they don't want. The London bombings provide the perfect event for getting Americans in the mood to accept this, and our politicians know it very well. They took advantage of 911 the same way to sell Americans (I was never sold) on the Iraq War. Of course later when then euphoria wears off and the hangover sets in, poll ratings begin to drop. But politicians don't care about poll ratings. They care about grabbing power. That's why we have checks and balances. But now that right-wingers own all 3 branches, checks and balances are playing second fiddle to the biggest power grab from the people since WWII.

  171. Re:Whats happening now won't be felt for a long ti by will_die · · Score: 1

    Not sure about the Canadian law but the US PATRIOT ACT does not allow the "ability to imprision people indefinately without charge or proof or anything of the sort".
    Also a part of the US PATRIOT ACT requires that certain provisions in it be reported when used and reported to congress on a regular basis, the reason that you don't hear about them is because they have not been used. The things that people bring up, library searchs, no-notify search and bug placing and others have already existed for other crimes. The US PATRIOT ACT just extended thier use into crimes that dealed with terrorism. Which is the reason police pushed for them.

  172. Well, at least we have his name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Harry Tuttle. Buttle. Eh, whatever.

  173. Re:'merciful' atomic bomb !? by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

    Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. The reason there isn't political progress is precisely because the IRA weren't defeated, are still around, are still training and recruiting, still have weapons, and still make a fortune every year controlling much of the black economy in Ireland (north and south).

    Certain youths all around Ireland, particularly in rural areas, still participate in activities akin to going off on boy scouts but a lot more serious and damn scarier.

    The IRA are a very serious threat not just to peace in the North, but to the Republic. They style themselves "Oglaigh na hÉireann", that is the title used by our national army. They see themselves as the rightful army (and government on the political side) of all Ireland (Republic administration seen as illegitimate as the North).

    Their political wing is not failing, rather than being beaten, they are the second party in Northern Ireland, and manage to poll about 10% or more in the Republic (that percentage is very high for an extremist Marxist party - it's damn scary - and no wonder our govt's ditched the soft approach since the Sinn Féin/IRA electoral successes).

    Yeah. The IRA was beaten. HAH! They may have realised they aren't likely to acheive what they want by force alone, but they didn't stop fighting because they'd lost.

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
  174. The first rule of the PATRIOT ACT ... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    ... you do not talk about the PATRIOT ACT. The second rule of the PATRIOT ACT ... ... you DO NOT TALK about the PATRIOT ACT. Third rule of the PATRIOT ACT ... ... if someone yells "Stop!", goes limp, taps out, he's a suspected terrorist. Fourth rule, only two suspected terrorists to a cell. Fifth rule, one terrorist at a time. Sixth rule, no clothes if it helps with the interrogation. Seventh rule, the war on terror will go on as long as it has to. And the eighth and final rule, if you're arrested for the first time under the PATRIOT ACT, you're screwed.

  175. It would make no difference by Beautyon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    where it probably most needs to be seen is where it isn't getting any significant play.

    The american people are just not listening at the moment. Michael Moore's film was widely played and seen in plenty of time for the last election, and it made no difference at all.

    If you were to play the (excellent) Power of Nightmares twice on NBC ABC and CBS not one mind would be changed in the US. They actually dont want to hear anything that contradicts their new religion.

    The reality is that FOX is the perfect reflection of the american mentality, and the pulpit of this religion, and that evil fountain of poision is what the majority want to hear and what they want to believe.

    No documentary will be able to break through this.

    --
    ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    1. Re:It would make no difference by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      That's because Michael Moore has proudly and publicly stated that he never lets the facts get in the way of telling 'his story' in his 'documentaries'. Kinda hard to take him seriously after seeing him say that on national television.

  176. Whats the point in checking library accounts anyw? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, honestly - does anyone believe that there will be any money left for public libraries in a few years? Damn, the one who cant afford to buy a book doesnt need it anyway. You know, if a child is left behind it can still enlist to the army for the wars to be.

    And it is not even unfair - just make sure that you belong to the top 1 to 5 % of the population and there are no problems for you.
    Just make sure that you are already in there ... otherwise life might become somewhat more tricky in the future.

  177. Re:Allow me to be the first: Rule ? by Azzhole · · Score: 0

    Hello Dubya. I didn't know you did /. ? I'll be glad to leave my doors unlocked so your regime of clowns can go through my undie droor and search my computer. I'm a Patriot, by God ! God Bless Amerikka ! The Bible tells us to conduct ourselves as if God is right there watching. The Patriot "act" tells us to move aside, sit down, and shut up because THEY ARE watching.. in the name of " FreeDumb".

  178. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS ... quest to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why dont you point out FIRST how this law has made the US a better place to live?

    Why dont you explain first, why the existing laws were not good enough?

    Why dont you tell us how many and how often this law has been used in order to safe the life of a US citizen?

    You see - before anybody here needs to show that this is a bad law - why dont you show us first that it is a good law; a law that is really required?

  179. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    So, we should refrain from defending ourselves from communism because ... Hitler also hated communists?

    I heard the Nazi's also weren't fond of the Bubonic Plague. Stick it to the man! Plague-infested rodents for everyone!

    1. Re:haha by aml666 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points for you.

      The paranoid fear that these "people" on Slashdot exhibit would be funny if I, a computer programmer, was not lumped in with them when seen from the outside.

      --
      www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
    2. Re:haha by tootlemonde · · Score: 1

      I heard the Nazi's also weren't fond of the Bubonic Plague.

      In fact, they were fond of plague.

      Nazi Germany built a biological weapons research facility at Posen, in 1943. Hitler's scientists worked with aircraft spray-tank dissemination of plague and other germs, but without success.

      Your point still stands, of course, but it might lead someone to conclude that just because the Nazis experimented with biological warfare doesn't mean it is wrong.

    3. Re:haha by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Excellent. Hitler also used the de-humanizing of those who opposed him in order to get his way.

      So is it OK when you do it, but not OK when others do it?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:haha by aml666 · · Score: 1

      I love the way people attempt to link things they fear to Hitler. I'm sure that if you feared dogs you could come up with some nazi story about the use of dogs in prison/death camps.

      We should destroy every dog on earth because Hitler used them to control people!

      --
      www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
  180. Re:Bullshit by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Bullshit. States rights is an attempt to reduce the red tape in government by decentralizing it, on the theory that people who live somewhere and are actually familiar with the local conditions might (gasp! blasphemy!) be better suited to deal with local problems than the kind of useless career politicians that are requred for national government. The philosophy itself has little to do with specific local policies, though seeing the federal government royally screw up managing local matters is usually what motivates people to push the philosophy. Also, you're overstating the ACLU's role in our history. It did some important things, but it was far, far away from being solely responsible for any of your points, except perhaps the abortion one. (Not that anyone from the organization will admit as much... this is one of the reasons I tend to think they're a bunch of pretensious jerks. The other reason is that most of them actually are pretensious jerks.)

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  181. freedom by cowboyplumber · · Score: 1

    "It is important for all of us who love freedom to understand that this is a war being fought against ideologues that use terror to advance an agenda. This is a war against killers, cold blooded killers, who embrace an ideology of hatred. Their vision of the world is the opposite of our vision of the world. " Quote from GW Bush after latest bombings Could equally come from bin Laden, speaking about the USA/UK. Enjoy your freedom chaps while you can, there's a hard wind coming.

  182. We welcome people from everywhere. by hummassa · · Score: 1

    Ouviram do Ipiranga às margens plácidas
    de um povo heróico um brado retumbante
    e o sol da Liberdade em raios fúlgidos
    brilhou no céu da Pátria nesse instante.

    Se o penhor dessa igualdade
    conseguimos conquistar com braços fortes
    em teu seio, ó Liberdade,
    desafia o nosso peito à própria morte!

    Ó Pátria amada, idolatrada, salve, salve...

    It's been heard at the placid shores of the Ipiranga River
    a thundering shout of a heroic people
    and the sun of the Freedom in strong rays
    shone in the sky of the Land in that instant.

    If the distrain of this equality
    we got to conquer with strong arms
    in its heart, oh Freedom,
    defies our chest to the death!

    Oh beloved, idolized, Land, hooray!

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  183. Re:Your post by hummassa · · Score: 1

    If Bush can get away... he can. ...our freedom is in more trouble... it is.
    Americans themselves have to be accountable... I agree.

    Re:Your sig.
    Will slashdot ever drag itself into the year 2005 and provide the ability to edit posts? I hope not. Editing posts (even withdrawing them) makes extremely weird threads, where people edit what they say a lot. If you want to correct yourself, or withdraw some nonsense you just said, apologize for the record. It's far more mature than editing.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  184. Great move! I give it full support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I still think there are a few things missing.

    First of all, the requirement of having a search warrant for certain cases is way too limiting and time consuming. By the time a court order has been issued, a terrorist conversation might already be over.

    Secondly, most conspiracies and plans are most likely hatched in private houses or apartment buildings. Therefore, this law is half toothless unless we also grant the government the right to install surveilence equipment in apartments and houses, private as well as corporate.

    And I hope to god they link all this information together and make patterns of non-terrorists, so that terrorists behavior will automatically cause an alarm to ring. This would give our enforcement agencies up to the minute ability to respond to any potential terrorists and quickly remove the threat from the streets.

    As I said, there are still some bits missing before I feel completely safe. The government however has made a lot of progress so far as to ensure that I can sleep sound at night.

  185. Global substituion by DragonHawk · · Score: 1

    DrMrLordX: "Replace 'constituents' with 'campaign contributors' as you please."

    mrmeval: "Replace republican with democrat as you please"

    Replace "Republican" and "Democrat" with "politician" as you please.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
  186. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do realize that the beginning of the states' rights movement was an alliance between the anti-abolitionist movement in the southern states and the machine politicians in the northern states (for instance, Gov. Clinton of New York) during the Constitutional debate?

  187. I'd argue Repubs have never been pro-states rights by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1
    After all, the Republican party prevented the secession of the South in the 1860s, which was ultimately a battle about states rights and the sovreignity of the state.

    Slavery was a convenient way to frame the debate on a moral standing (Iraqi Freedom anyone?) but the true issue was never slavery.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  188. here's an egg? by mbius · · Score: 1

    Not to be bitter, but Congressmen don't care about what individuals in their constituency think anymore. Every vote they cast on hot-button issues is tabulated by some special interest group. If you vote the right way, they will make your career. If you vote wrong, they will crucify you.

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
  189. Nope by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    States rights wasn't about red tape. States rights was a fundamental concept to the framers of the constitution, hence the 10th Amendment reserving all powers not explicitly enumerated as the states'.

    This is different from efficiency. . . this is about the liberation from a monolithic government (England) and the safeguards to prevent such a power from controlling too much in America.

    To claim it's a an efficiency enhancer cheapens the original intent and purpose.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of what is enumerated in the Constitution, I read a very disturbing quote from a senator the other day. He said that they wanted a Supreme Court Justice who would strictly interpret the Constitution, and not create any rights that weren't enumerated in it.

      I did a double-take at the totally un-American, anti-freedom stance of a US Senator. The Constitution does not restrict the rights of citizens to what it allows, it restricts what rights the government can regulate. I think there's even a clause in there about how it should not be interpreted as an exhaustive list, and the people reserve all rights not mentioned. Yet a US Senator's view is that if the Constitution doesn't say that X (where X=abortion) is a right, then it isn't.

      Sadly, I have not seen any articles about said senator being bitch-slapped and thrown out of office.

      (Hey, Sandman reference. My "confirm you're not a script" word is "delirium", written in three different fonts.)

  190. Re:Parry, Riposte by Jim_Callahan · · Score: 1

    "The only thing worse than war is the degraded moral state in which nothing is worth fighting for." ~Sam Clemens

    --
    ...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
  191. So... about 230 years. by SpotBug · · Score: 1


    It was nice while it lasted.

    --
    cygnuhchur
  192. They exists because the goverment wants them by hevo · · Score: 1

    The "Terrorists" exists because the goverment wants them. They are a really good excuse to increase power over their citizens. Without them their fascist agenda doesnt work. They could stop all of this years ago and didnt. They can still stop it and they will not do a thing. The more fear they instigate the more power the people give them.

    1. Re:They exists because the goverment wants them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The "Terrorists" exists because the goverment
      >wants them.

      They are afraid of bombs so they setup tables to look for bags of marijuana.

  193. raises hand by mbius · · Score: 1

    What if you're on the left, but you haven't voting for the past 50 years? I know it was my duty as a citizen, but I sort of thought not being alive was a reasonable excuse.

    So yeah--the American Socialist Party begat the neocon philosophy, which produced students who wrote policy for Reagan, Bush and Bush. If today's GOP wants to own up to being politically liberal and using religion as a smokescreen for a radical agenda that revolted mainstream conservative voters in '92, I'll sign anything you want. Get America's conservative party back on track and we'll talk. The compulsive liar, constitution-wrecking-zealot problem is slightly more immediate than the socialism / free enterprise paradigm.

    --
    you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
    Prime UID Club
  194. wrong by Weezul · · Score: 1

    Like the AC said, the modern states rights movment began with anti-abolitionist and rich guys who wanted to buy more legal favors. It picked up a lot of steam in opposition to the civil rights movment.

    Here is a hint: very very very few government officials mean it when they talk about removing red tape, as that would mean reducing their power. They just want to do it locally when doing so is an exercise of their power, usually to aid a constituent, frequently to the detrement of the majority.

    Now its interesting to consider real states rights, like the founders did. For example, you would probably remove the "enforcment" power of the FDA, and end the war on drugs, but you might keep the FDA's research and certification part. States
    laws would usually say "Do what the FDA says or else!" but sometimes states would make exceptions, like making pot or abortion illegal/legal. Now the interstate commerce clause would piss conservatives off bigtime: states would not have the power to regulate people crossing boarders to get abortions/pot (just like in Europe). So almost anything reasonable would be effectively legal if you had the money to travel. Leftists see this as unfair, liberal "right" wingers like myself see it as a chance for evolution. Trust me, New Yorkers would be happy for all the homosexual living in some worthless town in Kansas to move to NYC, as they will be more economically productive than your average citizen of Kansas.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  195. A load of crap, oft repeated by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...is apparently mistaken for truth.

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Benjamin Franklin

    Is freedom of movement an essential liberty? I'd say so. Yet I can't drive my car across the sidewalk, over your yard, or for that matter through your house. Oh wait, you must be one of those naive tools who traded away some of your Essential Liberty (to drive anywhere you want) in exchange for Temporary Safety (ie. not having you or your family driven over).

    But hey, just keep repeating aphorisms, it's a pretty good disguise for real thought.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:A load of crap, oft repeated by Rew190 · · Score: 1

      "Yet I can't drive my car across the sidewalk, over your yard, or for that matter through your house."

      Driving your car is a privilege, not a right. Driving your car across the sidewalk endangers the lives of others. Driving your car through my house invades on my privacy, would probably prove destructive, and would again be endangering lives.

      you must be one of those naive tools who traded away some of your Essential Liberty (to drive anywhere you want) in exchange for Temporary Safety (ie. not having you or your family driven over).

      Driving is a dangerous thing that kills lots of people. Putting regulations and laws into it that keep people from doing what you were trying to use as some sort of related example directly saves lives, which is a benefit for citizens. This is what a democratic government should be doing, it serves for the overall benefit of the people. To re-iterate, the government's job is to serve the will of the people, for the overall good of the people. If terrorists really do hate us for our freedom, they're doing an excellent job taking it away. Every time they blow up a bomb somewhere, our government is showing them they will respond by diminishing our freedoms. No amount of cheerleading for the government and calling it patriotism will change this.

      The Patriot Act does clearly not serve the people, it does them a disservice by allowing the government to snoop on, arrest, or detain American citizens for however long they see fit. This sort of thing will not stop terrorism. It serves no purpose that benefits you or I.

      But hey, just keep repeating aphorisms, it's a pretty good disguise for real thought.

      Alternatively, feel free to continue to make ridiculous comparisons that carry no weight and attempt to pass that off as some form of real, rational thought.

  196. You know what? by huge+colin · · Score: 1

    You're all right. This won't only be used on/against terrorists. Innocent people will be negatively affected by legislation such as this.

    But holy shit -- what did you expect? People do have too much freedom. Every day, countless innocent people die because somebody else didn't have enough judgement to know where their own liberties stop and the rights of others begin.

    Driving irresponsibly, driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs, gang violence in neighborhoods, terrorism, etc. -- right now, society basically tolerates these things.

    Of course, you could argue that the PATRIOT act is poorly written and won't actually do anything to help. (That's probably true, but that's an implementation issue and not a theoretical issue.) No one should really be surprised that it exists.

  197. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this discussion dominated by one-line "5, Insightful" polemics?

    1. Re:Bullshit by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      So, in 1980 when Reagan kicked off his general election presidential campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia MI, the annual gathering that was famous for its diatribes by segregationist politicians and the site of the infamous 1964 'Mississippi Burning' murders of three civil rights activists, he was just advocating decentralization? When Reagan stood up and said "I believe in states' rights," he wasn't passing a coded message to American's who resented the Civil Rights Act? Do you honestly think Reagan was advocating decentralization a la G. K. Chesterton?

    2. Re:Bullshit by miu · · Score: 1
      States rights is an attempt to reduce the red tape in government by decentralizing it,

      The states rights movement is an attempt to give businesses the ability to use jobs and taxes as a bludgeon against state governments.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    3. Re:Bullshit by Politburo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      States rights is an attempt to reduce the red tape in government by decentralizing it

      Ha! I invite you to come on down to New Jersey, where each municipality gets to write their own zoning and planning laws. Yeah, it sounds great.. the local people get to decide what they want their town to be, blah blah.

      In reality, it means there are 600+ different sets of regulations that can vary wildly. And this is just New Jersey. Multiply that across 50 states. You haven't reduced ANY red tape.

      Furthermore, especially in North Jersey the municipalities are so small that a town may not actually have control over their own town! If, for instance, the neighboring towns don't want to limit development, but a main throughfare passes through the town, they're going to have the increased traffic from the development of the surrounding towns, despite the fact that they have limited development in their own town specifically to avoid this.

      I'm not saying local rule should be eliminated. I'm saying that it is not the panacea that it's made out to be. Centralized government avoids these games that municipalities and states play against each other. Take tax breaks.. after 9/11, Citibank was going to move their HQ out of NYC (not due to 9/11.. it was just the timing). To combat this, Bloomberg gave them massive tax breaks. So, the residents of NJ or CT or elsewhere are hurt because Citibank doesn't move (as might have happened with a freer market). The residents of NYC are hurt because not only are they losing the tax revenue (which they would have lost anyway if Citibank left), but they keep the burden of Citibank on their infrastructure! It's a Lose/Lose/Lose situation. Except for Citibank, of course. Some people speculate that Citibank was never going to move and that they hinted at it just to get the tax breaks from the city.

  198. Re:It's for the children! - call me crazy by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    Call me crazy, but I don't ever remeber Congress ever giving a "Declaration Of War". They had to get one for WWI, WWII... Technically this -IS- a World War - a World War on Terrorists right? So why has there been no declaration of war? Oh wait, you have to declare war on a country/countries not a "group". Ok whatever!

    I seem to remember it was "Government of the people, by the people, for the people"

    Nowadays it's "Government of the Govenment, by the Government, for the Goverment."

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  199. Re:'merciful' atomic bomb !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the political wing of Al-Qaida? The one you can negotiate with? And first agree on a cease fire?

    Not that I don't think that most of the current actions are counterproductive but it's a bad comparison.

  200. Thanks for choosing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for choosing our rights for us ... IF ITS SAVES ONE LIFE is the worth fing excuse. If it saves one life stop selling motorcycles if it saves one life stop driving cars if it saves one lift don't do just about anything and it will save 1 life. What is important is that we have freedoms. In columbus they just banned wepons which our goverment decided were legal for LAW abiding citizens to own. now if it saves one life has taken another right away. IF it saves one life kill your self.

    -LNXGOD

  201. I understand this is not the majority opinion here by argStyopa · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    but...while I understand it's a gut reflex to say "OMFG!!!!" like all your friends, precisely what is bad in any of the Patriot Act specifics? I mean, take off the tinfoil hat, set aside your ASSUMPTION that Bush 43 & crew are the personification of (your particularly secular version of) Satan on earth and read through the Patriot Act.

    Personally I don't find a single thing SPECIFICALLY to object to. I don't mind the US government looking through my library withdrawls - not that they actually ever have even used that power - oh noes! they are going to see that I read David Sedaris' latest book! So? And yes, I WOULD like them to know if my neighbor has checked out lots of books with blueprints of government buildings as well as books on explosives. And I don't mind at all if they search his house and don't tell him about it immediately.

    "BUT WAIT" the hyper liberals say "WHAT IF THEY DECIDE TO INVESTIGATE YOU BASED ON YOUR READING LIST?" First, that's pure speculation and in my experience ALL the real criticisms of the Patriot Act RELY on such a flight of fancy as their first step - it's never specifically about the Act, it's about what the government *might* do with the information. That alone should be enough to bankrupt the critics.

    But let's run with the supposition for giggles. Hey, investigate away. Tap my phone. Search my garbage. Read my email. Plant a camera to watch me have marital relations with my wife. My only objection is that it would be a waste of my tax dollars but aside from that? No problem here. Funny, perhaps my lack of concern has to do with my lack of DOING ANYTHING WRONG?

    I understand that reflexively a lot of people will knee-jerk that this is a horrible restriction of 'civil rights' but color me unconvinced at the overreaction of a bunch of near-professional-level drama queens.

    IMO nobody's restricted your ability to vote with your feet. Please. Go to Canada if you're so unhappy. (Sorry Canada)

    Until someone can point out a specific application of the Patriot Act as unfair and hurtful, I'll just lump all of you guys in with the gang that's been telling us that the world's going to end "any moment now" since what, about 1970?

    Until I see something myself, I'm simply not going to believe your speculation that the Sky is Falling.

    --
    -Styopa
  202. Re:I understand this is not the majority opinion h by tigerknight · · Score: 1

    You obviously live a life of perfectly sheltered normalcy.

    The part about invading privacy without being told is that they can then ACT on it for whatever reason they deem fit.

    Have porn on your computer that is deemed illegal in your area when they happen to do a sweep? *WHACK* In you go.

    Been to any websites that the government says are fringe? Wow - you're on their 'watchlist' now.

    Live a lifestyle that the government doesn't approve of (bdsm, polyamory, etc)? Get ready to have a living hell for a life.

    So while YOU may not have anything to hide, and none of the rest of us have anything we're ashamed of either as we live our lives as consenting adults - the fact of the matter is that if the government doesn't like what they see when they go snooping around without your consent, your life can become a living hell.

  203. That link is to Moussaoui by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the dis-info
    and play again soon!

  204. thank you, fucktards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To ALL the sanctimonious, diminutive, Limbaugh-and-700-Club-watching christian fucktards, who scream:
    for more war, killing and death and against sex education,
    for selfish corporate greed and against sharing,
    for capital punishment and against women's choice,
    for religious belief and against testable, observable facts,
    for blathering opinions and against journalism,
    for more social control and against freedom,
    for building more nuclear warheads and against disarmament,
    for more fear and against love and tenderness...
    Thank you, fucktards and your fucktard overlords,
    for giving us this country we have to share with you.
    You've taken the only things that mattered:
    a chance at peace and freedom.

  205. what's with all this "TRUTH"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    come on... these people are not interested int the "TRUTH" [except, maybe, to obscure it]. they are interested in power.

    if they were interested in "finding the TRUTH", why do they play so fast and loose with it (e.g. WMDs, Rove, &c.)?

  206. Good ol' NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My rep voted in favor. I wrote him an email. I can't wait to get out of this Bush favored state.

  207. Re:It's for the children! - call me crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what?

  208. Offend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..or horrify?

  209. Tragic but interesting by Ih8sG8s · · Score: 1

    All things considered and put aside for a moment, it could be said that one act of terror against the US has cuased it to surrender, at least in the eyes of the terrorists. Their goals are now achieved are they not?

    Considering the relative power of the US its famously patriotic populace, this seems like an unusually easy win for the evil. The question is, considering once again the considerations I asked we we put aside, what and who is the greater evil? The overt evil? Or is it the evil that would use the tragic deaths of patriots to achieve a personal end.

  210. Oh... by m3talsling3r · · Score: 1

    Shit. Well this man is moving to Africa. It's been nice knowing you guys in America. I'll have an internet connection there but no taxes, the ability to fight for my life with a gun, etc... My fortress will be well made.

    --
    My sig is as boring as you...
  211. Re:I'd argue Repubs have never been pro-states rig by bombadillo · · Score: 1

    I don't like the current Republican platform. However, I won't compare the current party to the 1860's Republicans. Parties change over time. What really concerns me is that the current Republican party is being run by people that started their political career in the 1960's and 1970's. This was a time when the Republican party ran pro-segregation as a wedge issue in the south. The Northern Democrats did the the right thing which was to abolish segregation. The Republicans saw it as an opportunity to gain a foothold in the South. Not suprisingly the South which was once solid Democrat now votes Republican.

    Politcs is a dirty game. All sides have their problems. However, I find it very hard to support a party which is led by people that did not have an issue with segregation and the civil situation of minorities when they started their political careers in the 1960's and 1970's. A northern Republican may have an excuse as they may not have seen the real problems in the south. Any Southern Republican that is in power now has no excuse as they saw the affects of racism and segregation first hand. I would question any Southern Republicans morals and ask them why they chose the Republican party during the civil rights movement.

  212. This isn't Funny. It's Insightful. by mindaktiviti · · Score: 1

    And my subject is Depressing +5.

    (On a completely related note, my confirmation script says "cracker")

  213. Walks like an Egyptian by theolein · · Score: 1

    So, if marrying an Egyptian makes him a terrorist, would marrying a Southerner make me a racist retard with a love of white bedsheets?

  214. "The house cat can get shot in a fox hunt" by Tungbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    perhaps that can serve as a pithy one liner come back.

    1. Re:"The house cat can get shot in a fox hunt" by AnotherEscobar · · Score: 1

      Ladies and Gentleman, Dan Rather reads Slashdot!
      "If you try to read the tea leaves before the cup is done you can get yourself burned."

  215. Obligatory follow up quotes by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

    A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither" Thomas Jefferson Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson Jefferson ruled.

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
  216. OMG by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

    OMG I *can't* _believe_ -this-, it's _so_ *WONDERFUL. I AM A HAPPY AND FULFILLED CITIZEN. MOVE ALONG.

    abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
    abcdefghijklmnopqrst uvwxyz

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  217. I've just submitted this to my senators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dear Sir,

    I am absolutely ashamed of the House of Representitives for passing the extention of the "Patriot" Act. This bill is offensive to all the ideals of what America stands for. Please Sir, do all you can to defeat this Bill in the Senate, or at the very least insure that it is ammended to remove Section 215 and insure that equivelent language is not re-introduced. Please press to include language for universal rights of habeas corpus, and end to "secret" warrants, an end to library record searches, and an end to "gag" warrents that supress freedom of speech and prevent discovery of abuses of power.

    If the bill can not be defeated in it total, and the most unamerican parts be struck down, at the very least please try to insure that the additional powers granted by the Bill are restricted to ONLY ongoing terrorist investigations, and each application must be fully vetted and approved by judge in an open hearing. I strongly believe that our current justice system is well equipped to handle terrorism just as it does any other crime.

    He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146 German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

    I am not a big fan of Neitzsche, but that quote has always struck me as very appropriate for any nation in conflict.

    Thank you for hearing my concerns on this important matter. I hope that you and Senator Durbin can act together to help prevent the errors of the House from being repeated in the Senate.

    Sincerely,

  218. interestingly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing


    ...interestingly, so do the terrorists...

  219. Well, by that logic.... by gosand · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

    I have always thought : "If I haven't done anything wrong, leave me the F*CK alone!"

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  220. Mmmaybe by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    Oh, well, that's why I'm making plans for Canada next year. :)

    Seems that the last bastion of freedom and privacy is the Great White North.

    --
    Yeah, right.
  221. Medical records? by DoctorBubba · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one am glad that the government has access to medical records, in the name of fighting terrorism. We all know how important those medical records are, and damn that doctor-patient confidentiality--this is national security! If the government says it needs to know about my hemorrhoids, psoriasis and ingrown toenail, then let it!

  222. I feel safer already! by homebrewmike · · Score: 1

    Of course, we're still living with the Yellow Elevated threat level.

    With these new found protections, the feds should find it easier to go after those anti-freedom bastards running those terrorist networks called Bit Torrent and Freenet.

    Good Hunting.

  223. I can see your faces now... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    When George Bush starts his 3rd term in office, for the good of the people of course...

  224. Don't be silly by demigod · · Score: 1
    Oh and remember there will be an additional gas ration card for anyone that turns in a suspected terrorist this month.

    Don't be silly they will never ration gas. Gas consumption must increase, profits for oil companies are way to important to this administration.

    Mayby you could get a pass that lets skip the anal probe when boarding public transportation.

    --
    "The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
    Major Major
  225. hmm.. by WasII · · Score: 1

    Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither!

  226. now = then by floodo1 · · Score: 0

    just remember, be ever vigilant against the communist subversion plot.

    oh wait this is 2005? sorry sorry, beware of the TERRORIST subversion plot!
    you neve know who it could be... maybe its you!

    --
    I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
  227. Recently seen bumper sticker by Ann+Elk · · Score: 1

    Oh well, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway...

  228. 257-171??? by ghostunit · · Score: 1

    well, at least they had some debate about it, it seeems, unlike the first time in which only 1 rep stood against it... too bad it has been extended though.

  229. What I have to hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Some info to hide:
    social security number
    mobile phone number
    credit card numbers
    home address
    bank account numbers
    medical information
    private communications with family, coworkers,...

    Not from:
    law-abiding law enforcement officials for valid reasons related to protecting our country

    But from:
    corrupt politicians and their strategists
    data and identity thieves
    people that might sell the info to anyone who pays

    If a intelligence officer's role is publicized in order to punish her husband, how much respect would average American citizens get regarding their privacy? If we post a blog message a politician doesn't like, would all our info published anonymously on the internet?

    Access to private information of innocent Americans should be justified and there needs to be procedures in place to prevent abuse. If it cannot be justified, then the citizen should be notified so that they can take appropriate legal action against any abuse or misuse of their private information.

    1. Re:What I have to hide... by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Access to private information of innocent Americans should be justified and there needs to be procedures in place to prevent abuse. If it cannot be justified, then the citizen should be notified so that they can take appropriate legal action against any abuse or misuse of their private information.

      Absolutely. Recently signed up to pay my electric bill online and they wanted my SSN. Why do they need my SSN, no one else that I sign up for online bill paying needs it? Appearantly it's a security issue intended to establish my identity. I wasn't sure I wanted to give my SSN to the electric company where any employee could potentially steal it. I ended up giving it to them for the convenience, but where do the 'additional security precautions' start creating more security risks than they solve?

  230. Padilla is relevant to discussion of Patriot Act by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

    The discussion of Jose Padilla illustrates the blantant disregard the executive branch has for civil liberties and demonstrates that, yes, even in 2004 under the leadership of St. Bush, we still need strong government checks and balances. Jose Padilla demonstrates to the naive that we still cannot trust the government. Hence, we need to give extra scrutiny to provisions in the Patriot Act that expand the power of the executive branch.

  231. It Aint Over Until Hillary Sings by bayers · · Score: 1

    The House always passes it. It's packed with repubicans.

    The Senate will carve it up.

    The worst thing I've heard is that the fed can request your library records. What the screaming meemies don't often tell you is that a judge's warrent is required.

    This applies for citizens of course. Non-citizens and resisdent aliens are screwed.

  232. Nothing to Hide if You're Not Guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Interesting)
    by Mattcelt (454751) on Friday July 22, @05:31AM (#13133439)

    I wrote about this a while ago. Here's the text:

    "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

    Reminds me of this scene from Matt Bracken's novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic , which is a fictional account of how that line-of-thinking would actually work in practice. It's not much of a spoiler to say that the novel is about a terrorist incident staged by government agents so they can expand their powers (since that's obvious in the first chapter). The following scene takes place at an anti-terrorist checkpoint on the highway:

    The young father in the white Ford Taurus, the second car from the front of the line said, "No sir, I won't open my trunk without a warrant, and I do not 'consent' to be searched."

    The Virginia National Guard corporal standing outside his driver's side window looked around, confused. This situation had not come up before. Could this guy just refuse? Was that allowed?

    The holdout's young blond wife said, "Martin, just do like he says. Don't make trouble; the girls are frightened."

    "Honey, it's the point of it. This is still America, and there's still a Constitution."


    "Daddy, why are there soldiers here? Is there a war?" asked seven year old Danielle from the back seat. Her four year old sister Ashley next to her in her booster seat sucked her thumb, afraid without knowing why.

    "No sweetie, there's no war. The soldiers are helping the police to look for some bad men."

    "Criminals daddy?"

    "That's right sugar plum, criminals."

    Another man walked up to their window. Martin Palmer could not tell if he was from the military or the police: he was dressed in black from his helmet to his boots, with no badge or insignia in sight. The man in black rapped on his driver's side window with the steel muzzle tip of his black submachine gun. "Open up! Get out! Now!"

    "Officer, do you have a warrant? What's your 'probable cause' to search our car?" Martin Palmer was trying very hard not to show the fear he felt, holding onto the wheel to keep his hands from visibly shaking. He hoped he did not sound as afraid as he felt. He remembered reading about the Eagle Scout in Maryland who had had his face shot off a few years ago by an FBI undercover agent with an M-16 rifle after a mistaken traffic stop. Palmer had not yet heard about today's accidental police shooting in Virginia Beach of the man in the black pickup truck. His wife could not stand listening to news talk radio and they played soft rock music CDs instead.

    "My 'probable cause' is you're an asshole who refuses to give consent for a search, that's what! Now get out! Out! Out!"

    ATF Special Agent Alvin Bogart was having a bad day, and now he was angry enough to chew up barbed wire and spit out nails. He was angry because it was Sunday afternoon, and he was pulling the absolute shit duty of all time manning a FIST checkpoint, instead of kicking back on his recliner in his den with a cold Budweiser in his hand, watching the Eagles play the Carolina Panthers. For this he had become a Federal Law Enforcement Agent?

    He was angry because he was pulling his second consecutive day of twelve hour checkpoint shifts, which really meant a 14 hour work day, only with no overtime pay like the State Troopers were raking in. And worse, he knew that he had to do it again tomorrow and the next day and it looked like forever. If he had wanted to pull this kind of shit duty, he would have joined the Border Patrol!

    He was angry because he had to walk around all day in full tactical gear in almost 90 degree he

  233. Tinfoil hat theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its interesting how these London attacks just happen to happen right before this vote comes up....

  234. Great by EllisDees · · Score: 1

    >Says the people whose job it is to know. What possible gain would there be to imprison him for no reason at all?

    It's the "He's a bad person because bad people are in jail!" argument. If he's guilty of a crime, try him already!

    >However, I don't automatically distrust the government either, which woul be just as stupid.

    The government lies about everything. The only safe way to deal with it is to assume lies unless they present some evidence to back up what they are saying. It's supposed to be the very foundation of our legal system - that the government is wrong about someone committing a crime until the prove otherwise in open court.

    --
    -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    1. Re:Great by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      Guess what? People opposed to the government lie all the time too. If you always blindly believe them and never believe anything the government says you're no better off than the guy who blindly believes everything the government says. I gave several reasons the government might not want to proceed to trial in this case earlier in the thread.

      Presumption of innocence has nothing to do with assuming the government is lying. Take off your tinfoil hat and try looking at reality for about five minutes, it might be a shock to you..

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    2. Re:Great by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      I gave several reasons the government might not want to proceed to trial in this case earlier in the thread.

      Unfortuantely, the US Constitution makes your reasons moot. You can come up with reasons all fucking day, but if the result is unconstitutional behavior, you are the bad guy.

      Try him or let him go. These are the ONLY two legal options for the US government. At the very least, American citizens are entitled to speedy trials in the case of criminal accusations.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    3. Re:Great by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. He should get a trial.

      I was just pointing out some of the complexities of the issue that were being glossed over. It's not such a simple situation. Going to trial could lead to people's deaths, and so could letting him go. I don't agree with the government's actions in that case, but I can see why it's not a simple "Try him or let him go" issue. It's much simpler for those who view the US government in complete blacks and whites, they have decided who the bad guy is without needing to know any facts.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    4. Re:Great by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      But we have rights in this country to protect against this very type of abuse, right to a speedy trial, remember that one?

      It helps guarantee that the government can't just put people in jail because they "might" be a threat or because they don't like what they believe in.

      You have already convicted this guy in your mind by saying what his motive was in coming back to this country, when there is no way you could possibly know what he is thinking.. but yet you trust people who say "the government wouldn't hold him if he didn't do something wrong?!?"

      If he has done something wrong charge him, if you aren't going to charge him, let him go, i'm sorry if this isn't the way you would like things handled but it is the way our government has been setup to work and it has worked just fine for the past 200 years, or are you saying we should throw away our rights at the first sign of trouble?

      That's what the patriot act is doing... think f all the people who died for our rights which you so freely are willing to piddle away.. or is it just because it isn't you whose rights are being trampled on?

  235. Ya gotta laugh... or else. by abb3w · · Score: 1
    He also once said (after becoming president) that a dictatorship would makes things much easier. He was joking, of course, but it's not comforting to have your leader say that.
    "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes." --Ronald Reagan, 11 August 1984
    In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed, at least in part due to the policies Reagan initiated. (The cost to the US of said policies is another matter.)

    Don't you find Bush's little joke much more humorous now?

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  236. feh. by lysium · · Score: 1
    Don't worry. The patriot act won't intrude on your TV, slashdot, beer, or masturbation time, so you can continue spewing your digusting opinions on this forum.

    At least you get the Flamebait mods you deserve, loser.

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    1. Re:feh. by Ravatar · · Score: 1

      Where are the +mod points when you need them.

  237. Ridiculous by paranode · · Score: 1

    States' rights means not allowing the federal government to pass laws that exceed its authority. The recent Gonzales v. Raich is a great example. The black-robed tyrants have told us that 'interstate commerce' includes home-grown marijuana for personal use which will not be sold and is done so under the laws of California with a doctor's prescription. Now, 'interstate commerce' is almost always the excuse the federal government uses to justify about any law they want, including our federal drug laws. SCOTUS didn't have the balls to do its job and stand up for the Constitution because it would overturn so much of the DEA's power. States rights is what the Constitution used to have a lot of interest in, but the SCOTUS has slowly erased the 10th amendment from relevance.

  238. Temporary ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aw come on, you didn't really expect it to be temporary did you? Remember that income tax was supposed to be a temporary measure to fight the Great War. The government never gives up anything it has stolen voluntarily.

  239. The terrorists hate us for our freedoms! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    And the Patriot Act is how we address the problem.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  240. Any alternatives? by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

    Are there any Free alternatives to the U.S.? Canada seems out of the picture, since they apparently put people in jail for speaking against sexual perversions. US has this stupid Patriot Act and Copyright Law junk, not to mention allowing murder for mere trespassing.

    --
    Luke-Jr
  241. (2A) Re:Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

    That's what the gun-control crowd has been telling us for decades.

  242. The partiot act is not about terrorist. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    it is best to have a small group of ppl who are trained in terrorism dealings as well as covertness. CIA and NSA have been the right groups. The patriot act basically gave the DOJ the ability to use CIA/NSA resources to track down anything that they want in the name of terrorism. well, the DOJ is dominatly concerned with local criminals. In addition, it is easy for the admin to control this branch. The practical side of this, is that the DOJ can now do anything that they want in the name of terrorism. For those republican types, it means that future clintons will be able do to you exactly what the bush admin is doing to us today. For the domocrats out there, it means that future GWB's will do to us exactly what GWB is doing. And for those that did not understand the last 2 sentences, Google for Sibel Edmunds/ Karl Rove/ the american in Gitmo who is being held illegally/ the american invasion of iraq/ our current deficit/....

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  243. Huh? by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

    Canada seems out of the picture, since they apparently put people in jail for speaking against sexual perversions.

    Example/Source?

    1. Re:Huh? by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Oops, looks like it wasn't jail after all (heard about it from someone else and didn't read the article until now).. Rephrased: Canada suspends earned teaching licenses (which shouldn't be necessary anyway) if they speak against sexual perversions off duty.
      http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05061408.html

      --
      Luke-Jr
  244. Brazil, where hearts were entertained in June... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
    However, it may be argued that the existence of 'terrorists' in the film (i.e., Jill Layton, Buttle/Tuttle, and Sam are all accused of being terrorists) and various 'terrorist' acts (i.e., the restaurant and shop bombing, the blown up car) are deliberately made ambiguous - it is very probable that the central threat of terrorism is the government's way to silence deviation, provoke fear, cover up its multiple errors, and provide a scapegoat enemy. Viewers must interpret this central theme of the film for themselves - and recognize the fact that ironically -- there may be no terrorists at all.

    Interviewer: What do you believe is behind this recent increase in terrorist bombings?

    Helpmann: Bad sportsmanship. A ruthless minority of people seems to have forgotten certain good old-fashioned virtues. They just can't stand seeing the other fellow win. If these people would just play the game -

    Helpmann: - they'd get a lot more out of life.

    Interviewer: Nevertheless, Mr. Helpmann, there are those who maintain that the Ministry of Information has become too large and unwieldy...And the cost of it all, Deputy Minister? Seven percent of the gross national product.

    Helpmann: I understand this concern on behalf of the tax payers. People want value for money. That's why we always insist on the principle of Information Retrieval charges. It's absolutely right and fair that those found guilty should pay for their periods of detention and for the Information Retrieval Procedures used in their interrogation.

    Interviewer: Do you believe that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?

    Helpmann: Oh, yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs. We're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.

    Helpmann: Why should decent law-abiding citizens have to subsidize criminals?

    Interviewer: But Mr. Helpmann, the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year.

    Helpmann: Beginner's luck.

    "Uhm, I do assure you, Mrs. Buttle, the Ministry is very scrupulous about following up and eradicating any error. But if you do have any complaints you wish to make, I'd be, well, only too happy to send you the appropriate forms."

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  245. something smells here .. by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

    '.. in the wake of 4 dud bombings ..' ..the act was extended.

    right. Something so obviously wrong here: Were I a fed, i would arrange an incident that would gaurantee passage of the act's extension.. and what better way than to stage a bombing that killed nobody.. a 'dud' bombing ... Surely these terrorists are not that unsophisticated in their bombing technology!!! It does not pass the sniff test .. Let us review previous incidents of falsification of circumstances by this dishonest administration!!! WMD's ?? Uranium deals in Africa? ..

    Of course we can count on the press to investigate this, right? Dont hold your breath!

    --
    "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
  246. Re:I'd argue Repubs have never been pro-states rig by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

    The funny thing was that it was originally states in the north who ensured that the constitution allowed the secession of states from the union.

    --
    Luke-Jr
  247. Very wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Our gov. understands freedoms and rights all to well. Who does not, is the pandered american who believes in the rhetoric. Good examples
    I will lower taxes, increase the military, and balance the budget. From the man who overall increased taxes (but started the shift from the wealthy to the middle class), increased military spending (but most of the developed weapons systems have since been discarded or have seen major problems), and his budget set records that have only been beaten by the current admin.

    GWB spoke of balancing the budget (like all republicans do), but his actions were like reagan's rather than his fathers (did not balance, but at least started the process).

    It is sad that so few Americans understand what so many non-Americans have had to live. That is absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Very wrong by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "GWB spoke of balancing the budget (like all republicans do), but his actions were like reagan's rather than his fathers (did not balance, but at least started the process)."

      The budget was already balanced, in fact we had a surplus which was paying off our national debt... pre-GWB that is...

    2. Re:Very wrong by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      While it was balanced (kind of), he said that he would keep it so. But like Reagan before him, he spent like there was no tomorrow.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  248. Well said by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

    It's not unpatriotic to want to keep the freedoms that where fought for so long ago.

    I've been accused of "hating America" by the local neoconservative here in the office. What he and others like him just don't get, is that wanting America to remain free is not hating America. You don't have to put up with an overbearing police state to be 'safe'. The same tired old arguments get dredged up again and again... our founding fathers blah blah... good christian values. He misses the irony is saying that they wanted a strong christian government. Seems to me that they had seen just how poorly that worked and were fighting to get away from that.

    The old saying is true, those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

    1. Re:Well said by archangel77 · · Score: 1

      ... and those learning from history are doomed to watch others repeat it.

    2. Re:Well said by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      Well then, nothing for it but burn the history books and get that lobotomy I've been eyeing.

  249. Was I the only one? by BytePusher · · Score: 1

    Who read:
    U.S. House Votes to Extend Parannoid Act?

  250. More relevant to GWB by WindBourne · · Score: 1
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  251. Re:I understand this is not the majority opinion h by Danzigism · · Score: 0

    thats cool if you like being fucked in the ass by your government.. you have the freedom to enjoy that..

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
  252. come again? by codehoser · · Score: 1

    Did you just claim that it's Bill Clinton's fault that Republicans voted the devil into office?

    Priceless!

    Democrats voted against this extension by a very large margin, yet you seem to be way more angry at them than at the party that actually managed to push this through.

    1. Re:come again? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "Did you just claim that it's Bill Clinton's fault that Republicans voted the devil into office?

      Priceless!"

      Yes, I did. Are you saying that the Monica Lewinski scandal did not play right into the GOP's hand? Why do you think they were such pit bulls about it? It was definitely a drag on Gore's campaign and he tried to distance himself from the president because of it. I'm hardly the first one or the only one who subscribes to this theory.

      "Democrats voted against this extension by a very large margin, yet you seem to be way more angry at them than at the party that actually managed to push this through."

      I'm far more angry at the GOP and the Bush administration in particular. I'm probably just jaded enough to expect that the GOP will stand blindly behind its leader. It's a disappointment that the Democrats are not acting as a party when the GOP so clearly is.

    2. Re:come again? by codehoser · · Score: 1

      Obviously, Bill Clinton had his personal faults. Don't we all. It was crazy the way the GOP handled the situation, and yes they were trying to milk it for all they could.

      Sure, people were fed up with Clinton's misdeeds. Was that a decent reason for the voting public to elect the current imbecile in his place? Gore isn't Clinton. And even beside those two choices, there are others to vote for.

      All I'm saying is that it makes sense to blame Clinton for screwing up his marriage, but the blame for our current situation lies squarely with the (slim majority of) voters.

    3. Re:come again? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "It was crazy the way the GOP handled the situation"

      It was no surprise though. As the leader of his party, he did them a great disservice. Whether or not the affair makes a difference is irrelevant. He knew what the perception would be if he got caught. He should not have done it, and if he hadn't, there's a good chance that Gore would have beaten Bush in 2000.

      "All I'm saying is that it makes sense to blame Clinton for screwing up his marriage, but the blame for our current situation lies squarely with the (slim majority of) voters."

      People have different ideas about what's important. I may not agree with them, but they have a right to their beliefs and to their votes.

  253. Wave your flags upside down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The flag should never be displayed with the union down,
    except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
    --THE FLAG CODE, Title 36, U.S.C., Chapter 10, 176 (a).
    As amended by P.L. 344, 94th Congress, approved July 7, 1976.

  254. Patriot Act has Helped Us??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    No Patiot Act is just as good as having the Patriot Act when it comes to terrorism. The Patriot Act has done nothing to protect us from terrorists since its inception. In fact, the terrorists from 9/11 should have been caught with the existing infrastructure at the time. There really is no need for The Patriot Act to catch terrorists.

    Yeah, and Osama's my uncle. Pull your head out of your ass and listen for a minute.

    Because of the PATRIOT ACT, the government has foiled a number of attempted or planned attacks against our country. Take for example, the (never accomplished) bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge. Because of the ACT, the gov't was able to obtain warrants to search for plans to blow up the bridge. It wasn't because they had concrete recordings saying "We're gonna blow up the bridge". It was because they had recordings that said "It's time to celebrate the party. Let's light the candle." Now, if this came from some guy in suburbia who wasn't being actively monitored by the gov't then there's no call for a warrant. But when this message is being left by a potential terror suspect, that raises alarms. So, they take this to a judge and the judge gives a warrant because the PATRIOT ACT allows that. Without the ACT, there's a good chance we wouldn't have the Brooklyn Bridge.

    So when you say it does nothing.. do some research before putting your foot in your mouth -- only so I can come along and put my foot in your ass.

    Sheesh.

  255. Terrorists.... by VectorSC · · Score: 1
    Terrorists do not win by blowing things up!

    Terrorists win by undermining the people's confidence in their governments, in an effort to get them to change their policies.

    Well, guess what! My confidence in my government has gone down MARKEDLY since they have decided to implement "protective" policies that fuck me out of my Constitutional freedoms. Like that whole right to a trial thing! And no unreasonable search and siezure! So who is winning here!

    That's right...the terrorists ARE winning here. Why? Because our government is too stupid to realize that the ONLY proper response to terrorism is dignity, and unity! Instead, they have chosen to follow their inborn political instinct to steal more freedom from their sheeple.

  256. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brilliant! Simply brilliant!

  257. Our bunch want to do the same thing... by ewe2 · · Score: 1

    ...says our "Justice" minister

    So now Australia is a copycat police state...how pathetic

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  258. Bushites bomb London? by Wolfger · · Score: 1

    Considering the timing of the London bombing, just before the "PATRIOT ACT" would expire, the question needs to be asked... Just how far will those with power go, in order to keep that power?

    1. Re:Bushites bomb London? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, it should be interesting to see what 'dissaster' occurs when Bush's term is about to end...

  259. Re:I'd argue Repubs have never been pro-states rig by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

    This is also what comes to my mind when I hear people trying to bash Republicans whenever they do something contradictory to state's rights.

    However, many Republicans would like to return to the day when states could pass their own laws banning abortion, etc(which was the way it was prior to Roe vs Wade). They aren't ALWAYS against state's rights.

    Also, as many other respondants have noted, the Democrats can also have rather arbitrary support for state's rights in their own special way. Neither major party really supports state's rights consistantly.

  260. "Charge it!" policies by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    You are correct. "Tax and spend" doesn't really cover the current Republican party. At the very least taxing to raise revenue first instead of putting off revenue generation off until that debt has had time to accrue interest would be too fiscally responsible to describe the current government.

    I prefer, "Charge it!" over "Tax and Spend."

    The GOP is acting a lot like an irresponsible teenager with a credit card. They're piling up debt recklessly without regards for the future. The only difference is that a teenager can't rewrite the law so that someone else will have to pick up their share of the debt when they're done like the Republican leadership is doing to the middle class by slashing taxes for the rich. That money's going to come from somewhere, and the Republican politicians and their friends are dedicated to making sure that it isn't them all while feeding at the trough of taxpayers money.

    Party of small government, my ass...

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:"Charge it!" policies by Pentavirate · · Score: 1

      People who say this don't understand economics. It isn't a zero-sum game. Tax cuts increase revenue until you hit an optimal point. It's happening as we speak. Check out this article. We still have more spending to cut and Bush's latest budget does that. We'll just have to see if congress will give up their pet programs to be able to do it.

    2. Re:"Charge it!" policies by k96822 · · Score: 1

      You have to believe that, if the money is in the public's hands, that it will not grow, in order to found such an argument. It is small business that contributes MOST to this economy, not these large, corrupt corporations. Do you think that most people are lazy cattle that, once they get their money, they'll put it under the matress instead of invest it or take a shot at the American dream by becoming their own boss?

    3. Re:"Charge it!" policies by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1
      At the very least taxing to raise revenue first instead of putting off revenue generation off until that debt has had time to accrue interest would be too fiscally responsible to describe the current government.

      Fiscal responsibility would be cuts in spending to eliminate the deficit, not tax increases.

  261. Closer to full-fledged fascism by moxley · · Score: 0

    Before long I think that they will stop even trying to dress it up as democracy. Democracy in Amerca is dead unfortunately. It makes me really sad and very angry. It's strange when I talk to people about the sad state of affairs in our country and the level of criminality, corruption, and outright treason in the highest levels of government in the US today (especially in the White House). If the people I am speaking to have one their homework and have good reszearch and critical thinking skills then they understand that we are in a very bad situation right now. If they only get their information from the mainstream media and don't have a good grasp of history (and I mean history as in "the reality of what has really happened" vs sanitized history from an American perpective only) then they generally get hostile or act annoyed and like I am paranoid, or am simply Anti-Bush. The most ignorant/least educated/least informed among them think it has to do with a dislike for Bush or Kerry losing the election. Kerry in my opinion was only marginally better. In any event, the point of my post is to tell people who think this is all about security and that the patriot act is a good thing or is doing ANYTHING AT ALL to keep us safe to get a clue and to really do research on these things and what they're being used for and look historically how how terrorism is used by governments as a method of control in a "Problem Response scenario. People need to realize that the facts are all out there, and that they are facts, not speculation, facts from reputable credible sources that prove that elements of the US intelligence community were well aware of 9/11 before it happened and short sold stocks on the chicago exchange among many, many other things. The official story has fallen apart, and it's only by the de facto control of the manstream media that more people aren't aware of just how many holes have been ripped into the fabric of that scary fairy-tale. The goal is total control. You, me...all of us will be controlled and under suspicion constantly. There are detention camps built. These are not paranoid ramblings, these are facts. You are mostly educated people here on Slashdot, check it out for yourself. Fascism is here and it's wrapped in the American flag. SO either watch your TV, buy into the lies and don't ask questions and be sheeple - or get your act together and ask questions and insist upon the truth and upon the constitution being respected and followed tot he letter of the law. Insist that a president who lies in order to send our young people to war is at least impeached if not prosecuted for some of the other things his family-criminal-private intelligence-network has done. Please - think, read...Do something - otherwise we'll live in a full fledged fascist police state where corporations run everything.

  262. cautious to draw conclusions by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    I'd phrase the US gov involvement issue with the same cautious consideration.

    But if i had to point out which issue is most in need of extra caution, I'd point to the clustering of answers surrounding 9/11 and answers about the aftermath.

    - the white house was involved in 9/11 and PATRIOT act is bad.

    - White house was not involved in 9/11 and PATRIOT act is acceptable.

    - the white house is not explicitly targeting civil liberties and PATRIOT act is acceptable.

    - the white house was not involved in 9/11 and they did not use the event to restrict civil liberties and to invade the middle east.

    and, well, lots more. The white house lied itself into war, and they went to war for no good reason. The analyst Sam Gardiner approves of Bush's war. Stinnett thought Roosevelt did right.

    Now don't jump to conclusions about my conclusions :)

  263. Other cases went completely the other way by spitzak · · Score: 1

    Just searching around for info on this quickly led to what sounds like a much larger case that went absolutly the other way. Possibly the article you quoted is being somewhat selective, it did quickly mention that the defendant did not show up in court, which hurt his case:

    Trinity Western University
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    Trinity Western University is a private Christian liberal arts and sciences university located in Langley, British Columbia, Canada, enrolling approximately 2,850 students.

    Most notable about the school is its requirement that all students sign an agreement that prohibits, among other things, premarital sex, and homosexual behaviour.

    In 1995, TWU attempted to certify students going through its teaching program, but the British Columbia College of Teachers denied accreditation of TWU's program, arguing that the agreement students must sign is discriminatory and that those graduating from Trinity Western's program might discriminate against gay students. The lower courts in British Columbia and, later, the Supreme Court of Canada, ruled in favour of Trinity Western, stating that there was no basis for the BCCT's decision.

    1. Re:Other cases went completely the other way by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Thanks for that info.

      --
      Luke-Jr
  264. Who's childish rhetoric? by spun · · Score: 1

    Please, you have done nothing but engage in ad-hominem attacks for this entire thread. You have called anyone who disagrees with you childish, an idiot, or worse. You play the game of excusing the behavior of one party by comparing it to the behavior of the other, as if two wrongs somehow make a right.

    The only people you are going to impress with those kind of arguments are small minded, bigoted idiots who have already made up their minds anyway. Preaching to the choir may be fun, and yes I'll admit I do it to, even up to and including the things I have accused you of, but not for EVERY SINGLE POST IN A THREAD, for crying out loud! Here's an idea: try making at least one rational, well reasoned post per thread.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Who's childish rhetoric? by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "You play the game of excusing the behavior of one party by comparing it to the behavior of the other, as if two wrongs somehow make a right."

      This is a lie.

      I NEVER excused anyone's behavior, and if you can find ONE example of when I did, I'll eat my shoes.

      But you won't, so fuck you.

      BOTH sides suffer from a lack of accountability. I stated that very clearly, yet you trot out falsehood in an attempt to discredit what I've said.

      Does the idea that government accountability is lacking not strike you as a reasonable, rational idea?

      Oh I get it, I didn't slam Bush, so I must be an apologist. Fuck you again.

      "The only people you are going to impress with those kind of arguments are small minded, bigoted idiots"

      Which explains why I'm posting on slashdot.

      Sorry man, but you're a liar, and I hate liars like you.

  265. Froth at the mouth a little more, why don't you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's hilarious how mad you get. Your poor little head must be one steaming pile of cognitave dissonance right now. Must... support.. MY... side.. at... ANY... cost! I bet this whole PlumeGate thing has got you in a tizzy, too. CIA good! Cheney... bad? No! Cheney good! GOOD! CIA Bad!

    Do you ever masturbate over pictures of Ann Coulter? Because that's how I picture you, red faced, frothing at the mouth, stroking your tiny member furiously while drooling over pictures of the Coultergeist.

  266. I voted for GWB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I even voted for GWB twice.
    That's nothin'. I voted for him five times last election!

  267. Patriot trump constitution by rodgster · · Score: 1

    "The Patriot Act can never, under any circumstances, supercede the Constitution of these United States."

    Sure it can. You just have to stack the court (supreme court) with people who will authorize just such actions.

    --
    Who will guard the guards?
  268. Though I am agree with your first paragraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Besides, if the terrorists hate freedom, then why haven't the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc..., countries that are arguably more free than the U.S., not been turned into parking lots by droves of suicide bombers?
    Because the US is the symbol of all that western. Terrorists will always find an excuse. Why Japan hasn't been "turned into parking lots by droves of suicide bombers?" Japan also got troops in Iraq. It is not the american/british/spanish/egyptian(check the news) policies and actions. It is a clash of civilizations.

  269. More Clinton Quotes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [How come I have the feeling that many people complaining about Bush just lapped this stuff up in the mid-1990s, and craved more?]

    ...I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government....

    ...I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

    But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy....

    ...But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong....

    ...How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny....

    ...[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government....

    President Clinton. May 5, 1995.

    ...But do not condemn people who work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City....

    ...And I think the most important thing we can do to make your father safer is to have everybody in this room, whatever their political party or their view, stand up and say, it is wrong to condemn people who are out there doing there job and wrong to threaten them. And when you hear somebody doing it, you ought to stand up and double up your fist and stick it in the sky and shout them down. That is wrong. It is wrong....

    President Clinton. June 1, 1995. (Note the weasely way which "condemn" is combined with "threaten").

    [W]e can't love our country and hate our government.

    President Clinton. December 30, 1995.

    I remember seeing that May 5 speech posted here once, except attributed to "the President" (no date given), and people believed it was a Bush statement. It was modded up, until somebody pointed out that it was actually Clinton. It was then modded down to it's "proper" place.

  270. Re:Thank GOD for the Patriot Act by sillybilly · · Score: 1

    The reason why we are in Afghanistan is not because of Pakistan, but because it provides a cameleon double view towards India and China. Taking the high-ground in any strategy battle is an advantage.

  271. Osama said U.S. is Great Satan, not America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are just a troll, I know... There are the several states that have always existed, and forbid union by their constitutions. There are the united States of America, as unanimously declared. There are the United States, which existed fifty or more years before the so-called Revolution. And then, in the Articles of Confederation, there is The United States of America. I can exist in only one place at one time, so I'll choose a Citizen of California, a church-state that existed before 1849. Anyone that chooses a citizen of the United States is slave to Great Satan. At least in a church-state, the people are neither civilian or military as there is no class other than the people. That "We the People" crap has baked many minds. the people, not We the People, created the United States, yet there are We the People of the United States dictating a constitution to the United States of America. For those of you with bad English grammar, you can go along smoking your crackpipes; I see a paradigm shift.