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."
to welcome our new American Overlords
Gotta love the excuses that cost us our freedoms...
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.
pWned!
didn't want those civil liberties anyway.
"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.
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.
Get a free Ipod!
To cheers and thunderous applause.
RTFA again for the best results.
Hm, maybe I should brush up on my national anthems.
*ahem*
Oh, Canada,
Our home and native land,...
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
As the ratio of people per square mile increases, the rights of that population decreases. It is a harsh reality.
"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
Dang, they've taken out the libraries... If only there was some other place I could find subversive information...
Why not?
/hates politics and stupid people with no priorities or ability to think for themselves.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
Electric Monkey Pants
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
...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?
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
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.
... its one step closer to Titors predictions...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
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 ]
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.
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.
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
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.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
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!
Mod parent down, "-1 liberal liar". That goes for 90% of the posts on this topic.
0 ,-5158572,00.html
"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/0,128
Care to post your source? As if you had one.
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.
"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.
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
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...
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!
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.
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.
Every time the government uses an excuse like this to restrict the freedom of Americans...
...the terrorists win just a little bit more.
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...
(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.
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.
His name is no longer Jose Padilla.
= article&node=&contentId=A28493-2002Jun10¬Found= true
... what the food?
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
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
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.
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.
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....
Open Source Sushi
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.
(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 ?
This is so 1984 !
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.)
"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
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.
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
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. ~
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 . .
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.
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
perhaps that can serve as a pithy one liner come back.
I believe it is in the interest of the world that a truly free state develop. I know it is in the interest of the Palestinian people that they can live in a society where they can express their opinion freely, a society where they can educate their children without hate, a society in which they can realize their dreams if they happen to be an entrepreneur. I know it's in Israel's interest that a free state evolve on her border. There's no other way to have a lasting peace, in my judgment, unless we all work to help develop the institutions necessary for a state to emerge: civil society, based upon justice, free speech, free elections, the right for people to express themselves freely.
Yes, freedom is a great idea for other people, isn't it?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
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!
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.
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.