Slashdot Mirror


Significant FBI Abuses of the Patriot Act

Noksagt writes "The Washington Post is reporting that recently discovered documents indicate serious intelligence violations by the FBI. This comes just months after the U.S. House voted to extend the Patriot Act, EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act of thirteen cases of possible misconduct in intelligence investigations. The case numbering suggests that there were at least 153 investigations of misconduct at the FBI in 2003 alone."

34 of 672 comments (clear)

  1. once again... by utnow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...we show that a program with the best of intentions gave too much power to one tenticle of government, and now it's being abused. I'm not sure how many times we need to figure this one out before we stop gravitating to one part of gov't, giving it tons of control, ending up in a one-sided system, and then complaining about it (rinse, repeat)...

    1. Re:once again... by TheUser0x58 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The best of intentions? I hardly agree that the PATRIOT Act was signed into law with the best of intentions. It was a huge power grab by federal law enforcement authorities from the very start, legislating control to the FBI et al. way beyond what they really need to combat domestic terrorism. 9/11 was just a convenient pretext to make this power grab.

      --
      -- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
    2. Re:once again... by thetejon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And cutting taxes is going to mean cutting Homeland Security, right? Naturally, if we cut taxes right now, the first organization to feel those cuts is Bush's legacy.

      I'm all for a less intrusive government, but simply cutting taxes is not going to do it.

    3. Re:once again... by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The problem is not the USA Patriot act. The FBI couldn't even be bothered to stay within its restrictions, and obtained information illegally with expired warrants. This could happen with any investigation, with or without the USA Patriot Act. Whatever you may think of the act, misplacing the blame won't fix anything.

      In other words, blaming the USA Patriot Act for FBI abuses is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:once again... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is what i don't get from the article. I see alot of procedural abuses by the FBI, but what did they have to do with the patriot act? I am sure that stuff like this went on all the time before 9/11.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    5. Re:once again... by jambarama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is such a patently false idea I don't know where to start. 'Starve the beast' is one of the most idiotic GOP strategies in decades. This is what is wrong:
      1. The programs that suffer lost funds aren't the ones we want to. You know what suffers? Education, NPR, et cetera. All you have to do is argue that this agency or that one, is in the interest of national security and you actually protecting all the kids who are losing funding for a theater department.
      2. The beast has been starving for years. We've run massive deficits for years, and not had a problem continuing. We haven't even had a problem expanding spending. The beast will not be starved into submission, we have to take political action.

      Write your legislators, tell them you want them to cut spending, kill the patriot act, or kill certain *ahem* agencies.

  2. Power only exists to be abused by shanen · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I think the subject pretty much sums it up. Doesn't matter if the current holder of the power is the most righteous guy on earth. Once the power is concentrated and usable, it's just a matter of time until it gets abused by some person or some gang.

    The American idea of dividing the powers up and setting them at each other's throats was really clever. Unfortunately, no one knows the future, and things have evolved in a way where the powers are bigger and more concentrated than any English king's powers ever were. Unanticipated side effect of the 17th Amendment. (Yeah, the idea of an evolving document was pretty good, too, but it also got misused...)

    Today's FBI example is relatively minor compared to all the dead bodies in Iraq.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Power only exists to be abused by ip_fired · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something does need to change. It seems that it has become too easy for politicians to give away our rights in the name of fighting terrorism. However, I don't think those suggestions will help the situation.

      The Senate is there to provide each state with equal representation. Each state gets 2 senators. If it were reapportioned as you suggest, California would have 50 senators, New York would have 40 and the remaining 10 would be split among the other more wealthy states.

      In addition, the White House (the Executive Branch) needs to be a part of the budget process because they need to inform Congress about the amount of money that they need to do their jobs. After all, they "execute" or actually enforce the laws and actually "do" stuff. Without them, gov't would be pointless. Congress still passes the budget, so the money generally isn't given to the executive branch if there is a disagreement (ie, when the gov't is shut down for a week or more because the budget hasn't be decided yet).

      --
      Don't count your messages before they ACK.
    2. Re:Power only exists to be abused by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Something does need to change. It seems that it has become too easy for politicians to give away our rights in the name of fighting terrorism. However, I don't think those suggestions will help the situation.

      If only because corporate bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying efforts will always flow to the place where they can do the most good for the corporations. If you weaken the Senate and strenghten the House the corportations will simply refocus their lobbying efforts to the place with the most power. It would make more sense to emburden the Senate, the House and the President with strict anti corruption laws and I am sure that will happen.... some day.... perhaps even the same day that pigs fly?

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    3. Re:Power only exists to be abused by cas2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and another electoral reform you really need is preferential voting - so you can vote for an independant or minor-party candidate WITHOUT just throwing your vote away. if your first preference doesn't win, your vote goes to your second pref, and then to your third, and so on until someone wins.

    4. Re:Power only exists to be abused by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Something does need to change. It seems that it has become too easy for politicians to give away our rights in the name of fighting terrorism.

      Yeah! Lets write a letter to our congressman. Or at the least be sure to get out and vote for the "right guy". Or donate to the EFF.

      Or were you thinking more along the lines of coup d'état or something?

      Its a shame that our excellent constitution, the longest standing one in the world, will outlive the government and the country that it is supposed to frame. Yes, there are newer political parties that have names like "Constitution Party" and "Libertarian Party", but they get almost no popular support.

      I'm not saying this to be the almighty doom and gloom guy or because it empowers me in some way, but if something does not fundamentally change with the people in the United States in the next 100 years, then they can and will have many changes imposed upon them.

      Historically, dominant societies do not last longer than 200-400 years. So much of our economy and well being is dependent on our country's population growing. We are the only industrialized country that has a significant population growth. We talk lip service, and annoy our own citizens in order to fight the new "war on terror", yet let if not even encourage _millions_ of Mexicans to illegally enter our country every year. Its a good thing that none of the Mexicans are terrorists or terrorist-like and that the real terrorists have never heard of the country either. This growth helps mask our deficit spending, but neither can last.

      Americans should focus on stepping down as the world leader and policeman, and becoming more like the established countries in Europe or similar. Yes, those people live much differently than we do now. Much more modestly and conservatively. We can't afford to hype the bling bling too much longer, because it is setting us up for failure.

      I could be insane, but this is how I see things, and I hear little to no mention of these issues. I have never heard of a country loosing a "war on terror", but I've heard of plenty that have crumbled from within based on their own perpetuation of short-sighted ideals vs gaining new sights. Ever hear of people wallpapering their houses with money because its cheaper than anything else? Or buying a loaf of bread with a shopping cart of money? Think about how that might affect your life or your families. But do nothing about it.

  3. Absolute power corrupts absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton

    1. Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely by MadMoses · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
  4. It's been said... by dirtsurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
    - H. L. Mencken

    *sigh* :(

    Well, there goes that. I guess it was good while it lasted.

  5. To the sarcastic Americans by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To the Americans who are posting comments like "wow. I never thought that would happen" I ask one question. What have you done to protect your rights, that the FBI are trampling? Posting sarcastic comments isn't doing anything to protect your rights.

    Did you vote? For the fraction of you that did, what else have you done? Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing anything else until the next 4 years. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said once the people stop fighting for their rights, the government willl take them away.

    So people posting here obviously do care. But what have you done to protect them? I'm betting the majority of you haven't done a damn thing (except vote). Well this is what happens when you do nothing but vote. You've got no-one to blame but yourselves.

    1. Re:To the sarcastic Americans by scsirob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what happens when they *do* vote. Where do you think the bumper sticker with the text "Don't blame me, I voted for the majority" came from...

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    2. Re:To the sarcastic Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But what have you done to protect them? I'm betting the majority of you haven't done a damn thing (except vote). Well this is what happens when you do nothing but vote. You've got no-one to blame but yourselves.

      I'm still working on becoming a billionaire so I can do something. Not quite there yet. But if you have any suggestions on something to do in the mean time that isn't standing outside with a sign and being laughed at by people with power, I'm all ears.

    3. Re:To the sarcastic Americans by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To the Americans who are posting comments like "wow. I never thought that would happen" I ask one question. What have you done to protect your rights, that the FBI are trampling? Posting sarcastic comments isn't doing anything to protect your rights.

      Did you vote?


      Spoken like someone who has never voted before themselves.

      Lets see, do you want to drown in water or be burned to death? Whould you prefer your table lean too far to the Right or too far to the Left? It's not like there's always a choice that will make things All Right. Sometimes we can only choose between a devil with blue horns and one with red ones. Many of the people who I would be quite interested to see as President, Congressman, ect don't run. And is it any wonder? Would you want to be blamed for problems of at least a third of the country at any one time? How about that electroral college. Why the fuck do I go to the polls as part of the only blue city n a red state, I might as well not vote at all. Yeah, you heard me. It literally DOES NOT MATTER if I vote. When the reciepient of "my" support is already a forgone conclusion.

      Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing anything else until the next 4 years. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said once the people stop fighting for their rights, the government willl take them away.

      And what would you suggest we do? A massive political movement only works when it is massive. There are too many people who like things as they are. Too many who aren't even aware of any of this because they are too distracted by mass entertainment. And too many more who are afraid to do something. More afraid of what would happen if they did something than if their rights be stripped away instead. Maybe it's from seeing those Eastern bloc countries that have revolutions or civil wars get plunged into a Third World status for a decade while they recover.

      People have retirement nest-eggs locked up in mutual funds and kids about to graduate college (or just being born) and the last thing they want is someone to overturn the boat and flush the economy and the country's infastrcture down the tubes over something they really aren't that worried about (even though they should). People are frightened of change.

      Maybe wherever you are it's normal to hear mortar fire at night and have a differnt President get overthrown every nine months, or have friends die fighting the police but to the people of a country that hasn't seen a war on it's own soil in several decades the idea of doing anything drastic with our nation's leadership is downright terrifying.

      So people posting here obviously do care. But what have you done to protect them?

      Becoming one of a few who end up as martyrs is not nearly as productive as staying alive to work for change other ways. Until the sentiment is held by a larger view all we're asking for is to be labeled paranoid fools by acting up. Another Ruby Ridge for the 11 o'clock news.

    4. Re:To the sarcastic Americans by bm_luethke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I ask one question. What have you done to protect your rights, that the FBI are trampling? Posting sarcastic comments isn't doing anything to protect your rights."

      I agree with this statement. Talking is worthless from a strict point of view. Sarcastic, while amusing to Believers, isn't productive in the long term.

      "Did you vote? For the fraction of you that did, what else have you done? Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing anything else until the next 4 years."

      First, I assume that since you asked it is more than 4 years. At the very least the congress critters are every two (and are arguably more important than the president). Local is based on local laws, which around here are every 6-12 months. I would argue that local is more important - they affect your life more - but that is another discussion.

      As to what else to do? Do you think that protests do any good? Calling your congress critters? No, it doesn't - all they care about is votes. If they are protested all the time and 98% of thier calls are negative but are voted in by 75% nothing other than that "75%" counts to them. Everything else is just to sway potential voters, and IMO talking about it in real life or on message baords is amongst the best ways to get to a lot of people. Protests tend to be ignored (see the last few decades vs voting patterns) and I am assuming you are not violent.

      "But what have you done to protect them? I'm betting the majority of you haven't done a damn thing (except vote)."

      Like above, I suppose what do you mean by that? First off I figure I'm probably the other end of the political spectrum from you (though my advice so far - and never really in this post - is left or right) so some things may be different. Convincing the greatest number of people you are right is what you need to do, voting is just the culmination of that. Some protesting does this, but I highly suspect getting a decent rank on google with your *reasonable* ideas, speaking truth in message boards and blogs (not spin), and other things where you impact non-belivers (that the convinced agree is worthless - you already have them) is the best.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    5. Re:To the sarcastic Americans by Loonacy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the fuck do I go to the polls as part of the only blue city n a red state, I might as well not vote at all.

      Because if you never bother, then it will never change. There might be more blues than you think, just all of them are too jaded to vote, so it comes out overwhelmingly red every time. And if the blues get more and more jaded, then the margin becomes wider, although in reality the margin could be becoming smaller if only you just spoke up.

  6. What percentage of abuses were discovered? by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the Slashdot article: "The case numbering suggests that there were at least 153 investigations of misconduct at the FBI in 2003 alone."

    What percentage of abuses were discovered? That's the next question.

    The U.S. government's FBI, CIA, and NSA agencies, and others too secret to have public names, are the world's most well-funded world-wide secret police and surveillance agencies. When I read the many stories like the one in the Washington Post, I think those agencies are in many cases out of control.

    Many of the present problems the U.S. has in the Middle East started in 1953 when the CIA overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran. The CIA calls those problems "blowback".

    There is a conflict of interest. CIA employees get raises and promotions if there are more problems. So, the actions of the secret U.S. government agencies tend to favor the creation of blowback.

    Weapons makers favor blowback, too. The profits are very high in weapons making, because a lot of negotiations can be secret.

    There are two kinds of oil business. One is the normal kind. Another is the kind that involves extremely high profits allowed when there is secrecy, such as when there is a build-up of war-making capacity.

    You can read how the problems in the Middle East were created in this short and incomplete article: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories.

  7. Re:More Paranoid Rhetoric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    300 steps? If it's already that much trouble, why not make it 301 steps by... say... going through the judicial branch to get a warrant? Actually, I have a feeling doing it that way might take out about 200 of those other steps. But then you'd actually need -evidence- to invade people's privacy, so nevermind.

  8. Re:This is all about FREEDOM by loggia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Translated:

    FREEDOM to keep FAMILY VALUES that we approve of. They are all protecting YOU unless you are one of them. We decide if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from a little surveillance (unless you have something to fear) from your protectors. Next sunny morning, go outside, take a deep breath, and thank GOD(R) for your unalienable FREEDOM or else.

  9. Re:More Paranoid Rhetoric by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What determines probable cause to monitor possible terrorist suspects? From your post it seems obvious that it takes a lot less paperwork to monitor a suspect. How much paperwork does it take to make someone a suspect once you have probable cause? How many weeks or months of investigation goes into finding a terrorist to wiretap into oblivion?

    And of course, you'll never tell the guys you're watching that they're being monitored, because that'd totally defeat the purpose of trying to catch them and anyone they might associate with.

    Meh. I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories or civil rights deterioration rants, but I can see bad ideas when they present themselves. The Patriot Act has the potential to turn anyone the government feels like watching into a terrorist, whether they've actually done anything or not. That doesn't mean anyone actually DOES that, but the potential exists. I think that's where most of the outrage exists. That and all the general dislike of anything George W Bush thinks is a good idea.

  10. Big Burger and Big Tobacco by catmistake · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Concerning some of the earliest abuses I read about, prosecuting crack dealers under the Patriot Act is creative... but the same principles would apply to McDonald's and the tobacco companies... if only crack dealers would wise up and get a powerful lobby, maybe the FBI wouldn't have to abuse the Patriot Act so much.

    You know what happens when prosecutors and law enforcement break the rules and abuse power? That's right, kids... nothing.

    There are innocent people in jail. Innocent people have been sentenced to death in America. When a district discovers an error, or DNA evidence becomes available that wasn't previously, and clears a person who has been rotting in jail for ten years, mostly there is no follow-up... innocent man goes free, end of story. No bloody lawsuit. No prosecutor disbarred for grievious abuses of presecutorial discretion (which, btw, is absolute). No shit.

    Our legal system is supposedly based on "Innocent until proven guilty," but there is no "innocent." The best you can do is "not guilty," which isn't the same. And a problem exists in that being accused is the same as being guilty... because prosecutors don't make mistakes.

    scary stuff

  11. Okei, I will be smart... by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...crtitic, and sorta like basher. Well...

    I can't.

    I can't handle jokes about this anymore. I'm not living in US, nor even was fan of this country (however, lot of people are smart, clever, etc. up there). I just wonder isn't US a big example of that, when you just start to ignore (for sake of better life, working long hours to achieve somethingt) what in your country all four powers do. Yet, in some time, lot of guys just bet high-profit game (like creating war or conflict, nothing hard, I would say) and get billions.

    Problems is here not only with US, but with capitalism in whole. Capitalism in theory is good and I really don't wanna wave communism or socialism flag. However, in reality, both capitalism and communism is so much abused systems that I see that they simply won't work in future. There will be always some Enron, there will be some weapon guys who would like to create conflict, instead to solve one.

    What to do? Get these guys to court? Don't make me laugh. They work in envorement out of laws reachability. Get them shot? Would work for some people, and not for all, and who will be this who will judge them?

    What we have in creation here is simply modern feodalism. In fact, it never got away, just it was adjusted for new situation. However, there is problem that in feodalism there was some kind code of justice. I guess nothing of that exists today. It is just brutal anarchy.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    1. Re:Okei, I will be smart... by aaronl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right, there is no perfect government. You would have to change fundamental things about how humans think to have a definite stable society, and if you did that you probably wouldn't need government anyway. There have been many books written about this, and they all end badly, for good reason. People, as a group, aren't trustworthy, and they are greedy, and the type that want to lead tend to want people to do things their way.

      The US had tried to come up with the most favorable set of compromises towards having a stable and honest government. I still think they did a better job of it than any other government in history. While the US government is now out of control, it is still possible to fix it within the confines of the Constitutional system. The catch is that most of the population seems too lazy or contented or scared to actually do something about it. They keep electing horrible leaders time after time (I think we're up to about 12 of those), and accepting ridiculous laws and changes.

      A lot of people like to blow a lot of wind about pure democracy. Honestly, that would be a total and complete nightmare. If you think pure democracy would work, then take a look at what the population of the US would agree to as a majority. Basic human nature would tell you why you don't want to do it in a pure form. Like I said, people are greedy, untrustworthy, and want everyone to be like themselves. Pure democracy will never work for the same reasons that communism will never work.

      Basically, you have to admit that no system you choose will ever be perfect. Then you try very hard to make it flexible enough to deal with whatever you can come up with, and then whatever you can't. At some point you will always have a failure; you just make sure your system can recover, and deal with it appropriately. The original US system, for example, is about preventing the government from doing something, not the people or some company. To have freedom, you make the crime punished, not prevented, and you hope that, over time, people will stop committing crimes. Of course, that doesn't happen, being people and all, but the amount goes down a whole lot. You'll always get something like an Enron, but that is true under any system. As you pointed out, the problem is keeping the government honest enough to do something about it.

      One of the problems in the US is that the Federal leaders don't change. We get a new President, but, by and large, the Senators and Representatives stay the same for decades. That is the major cause of corruption. For an interesting lesson in why pure democracy would be a failure, the corrupting and massive aggregation of Federal power, the empowerment of things like the FBI/CIA/NSA, the loss of a backed currency, and creation of a "nanny state", all took off with the 17th amendment, which was to have Senators directly elected by the populace. Whoops.

  12. Jefferson should be required reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Why suspend the habeas corpus in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well defined crime; of course, the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against the government for damages. Examine the history of England. See how few of the cases of the suspension of the habeas corpus law have been worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treasons, wherein the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots, where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the few cases wherein the suspension of the habeas corpus has done real good, that operation is now become habitual and the minds of the nation almost prepared to live under its constant suspension." --Thomas Jefferson--

    "The following [addition to the Bill of Rights] would have pleased me:...No person shall be held in confinement more than __ days after he shall have demanded and been refused a writ of habeas corpus by the judge appointed by law, nor more than __ days after such a writ shall have been served on the person holding him in confinement, and no order given on due examination for his remandment or discharge, nor more than __ hours in any place of a greater distance than __ miles from the usual residence of some judge authorized to issue the writ of habeas corpus; nor shall that writ be suspended for any term exceeding one year, nor in any place more than __ miles distant from the station or encampment of enemies or of insurgents." --Thomas Jefferson--

    "Our [legislators should not] be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes and conclude that... unlimited powers will never be abused because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this as in the country from which we derive our origin will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on each side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes." --Thomas Jefferson--

    "By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson--

  13. Re:pwned by grimJester · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do have a point. Trust in your government has no place in a working democracy.

  14. Mod parent UP, please! by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Loonacy brilliantly said:
    Because if you never bother, then it will never change. There might be more blues than you think, just all of them are too jaded to vote, so it comes out overwhelmingly red every time. And if the blues get more and more jaded, then the margin becomes wider, although in reality the margin could be becoming smaller if only you just spoke up.
    I couldn't agree more, and I understand very well what it is like to become apathetic about voting. In 2000 (when I was still living in the US), I voted. I voted Libertarian (not because I agreed with their final goals, but because I thought that given 4 years they could push things in a better direction). I was in Florida at the time. Talk about feeling like a vote was wasted, but I absolutely refused to vote for either of the major parties. The result? Harry Brown got something like 0.2% of the popular vote, IIRC.

    So I took what may be considered the coward's way out (and if you call it that, I won't disagree) and simply left the country. Now I am living in a place where I have absolutely no voice at all. On the plus side, I am living under one of the most peaceful governments in the world (at least until they try to remove the war-renouncing ammendment from their constitution). But on the negative side, there is nothing I can do to fight their corruption except voice my concerns to those who can vote.

    But for those of you who are still in the US fighting it out, it is not only your right, but your DUTY to vote for who you think is RIGHT, not for who you think is the lesser of two evils. If the person you want to see as president is not running, write them in! Get your like-minded friends to do so. Start a grass-roots campaign.

    Worst case? (and probably what will happen) Nothing changes, but at least you have the clear conscience of voting your heart. 2nd Best case? The person you wanted to run takes notice that he/she has support and actually runs next time around. Meanwhile, assuming he/she is already some sort of representative, that person will feel he/she has a stronger voice in the legislature and hopefully start using it. Best case? Not only does the person you want take notice, but those who are running also take notice and actually realize that people aren't happy and maybe, just maybe (I know...I am WAY out on a limb here) they change their ways and policies to match what people want.

    If you start nothing, then nothing will ever change. If you start something, things may not change, but a.) at least you have a clear conscience, and b.) there is at least a chance for change.

    I know this doesn't mean much coming from a person who decided to run away from the problem. I also know that it is pretty naive. However, I also know that if people don't even attempt to effect a change, then nothing will ever change.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  15. Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard by SQL+Error · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pistols are difficult, because apart from sport there's no practical reason to have one

    Pistols are designed for shooting people. Sometimes this is necessary.

  16. Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard by jweage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How can something as fundemental as self defense not be a right? Firearms meerly serve to make this right equal for those with more/less physical strength.

  17. Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard by sgtrock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, don't emulate the US gun laws, emulate the Swiss! Tell me again, what's the rate of violent crime per person there? How does that compare to the rest of Europe?

  18. Wasn't there a famous quote about this? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    " The best of intentions? I hardly agree that the PATRIOT Act was signed into law with the best of intentions."

    And once again, we demonstrate that "sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice".

    (With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

    --
    Everything in moderation, including moderation itself