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."
...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)...
Is anyone suprised by this? I'm shocked, real shocked. Who would have thought?
SecureThe.Net - Practical Resources for Securing Systems
In other news: "Scientists discover the molecular composition of water"
In other news, water still wet, fire still hot, and bears DO shit in the woods. Film at 11.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Would YOU trust an organization whose name is an anagram for "fib"?
Skype is too convoluted... Now I'm reverse-engineering the Kyoto Protocol.
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.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
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.
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.
Oh look it's the presidents speech writer!
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.
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.
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.
Even more interesting would be an investigation into the benefits of the patriot act... (as abuse was inevitable)
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
These actions were actually illegal, so they could not have been authorized by the Patriot act.
Also, from the article,
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance act was passed in 1978It seems to me that these are just old-fashioned FBI abuses of power - not abuses of the Patriot act specifically.
Perhaps the weeks following a terrorist attack are not the best time to write legislation regarding what to do about terrorism.
But all the senators were panicking, and all their constituents were panicking demanding they do something, although they (the constituents) had no idea what. So no wonder that a bad piece of legislation gets written.
My solution to terrorism? Take the amount of money we've spent in Iraq and direct it towards fusion power research. Once fusion power is achieved, we don't need to prop up those regimes in the middle east any more. At last, we will be able to leave and flip them off on the way out. Then when the middle east is still a hellhole they can't blame us.
Perhaps you did a mighty job for the "Freedom of the Americans", but chauvenism like the Americans mostly portray and force on the world is making alot of people very nervous. It's your safety at no matter what cost it seems sometimes.
You state our work protecting, defending, or supporting ignorant people who don't take the time or have the inclination to make informed decisions, which is actually considering the people you serve as morons and making decisions FOR them. That's not freedom.
You're working in a secret service, these morons are not aware of what you are or aren't doing. The paranoia solely is a result out of this not knowing and having been decided for.
You don't sound like you like your job much anymore and feel frustrated, perhaps you should find another carreer then.
The FBI and all government agencies are really composed of good, hard-working folks that are trying to serve their country in the best way they can.
;) So I've been doing it in my own personal time) and I'm concentrating on Thomas Jefferson at the moment. And I've always thought he (along with the other founding fathers) were more then a little crazy. But when I see what they stood for, and what current America is like, I understand why they had the opinions they did.
The road to hell is paved by good intentions. That's how the quote goes, doesn't it?
But it is tough for individuals to prove that when the media proclaims that the entire organization (composed of thousands of employees) seems to be bent of removing liberty and justice for all.
No, what's tough to prove it is this secrecy your organization (along with other organizations like it) demand. When government agency works in secret (which the FBI does, even if it does have to explain itself to a court, that court is also secret so therefore it doesn't count), it takes the power out of the people's hands, and once the power no longer resides in the people's hands corruption is soon to follow. From what little information that has been able to be wrest out of the FBI's hands, it depicts a picture that it they're making mistakes on a regular basis. Even the FBI who defends the report that has been public said that most of them were clerical errors. Most.
When the FBI refuses to explain itself to the people (no matter what justification it uses to keep it's actions secret), then the people have lost their power, and the FBI becomes a danger to freedom. I've been reading about the founding fathers of America (in Australia we don't get it shoved down our throats at school
Thomas Jefferson in particular fought against what America has become. And the FBI is only a small part of the problem (although I'm inclined to say it's a symptom of the problem, with the problem being the people have stopped protecting their rights).
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.
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
The Admin and the Engineer
How naive. Many whites weren't adversely affected by racial segregation 40 or 50 years ago. Though obviously that doesn't mean nobody was. Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't mean nothing's changed.
The Congress doesn't have a latin motto over the door or anything like that. But maybe now with the Patriot Act they should have one. I suggest "Inter arma enim silent leges".
As long as we have independent forums for discussion by individuals (electronic and otherwise) then people will be watching the government and discussing every minute detail of their actions. Throughout human history power has been abused and throughout human history the abusers have ultimately been bitchslapped to the dung heap of history be replaced by a slightly improved abuser who is in line for another bitchslap. That's why they call it a revolution. Power corrupts, people get pissed, corrupted get spanked, and the world keeps on spinning.
I support the Bush administration. They can't run the country but they're shortening the time it'll take before the whole regime gets an overhaul. And keep on whining people, the whiners of today become the dissenters of tomorrow.
No, but posting informative comments peppered with sarcasm might. For instance, did you know a law can be created without discussion these days in America? I certainly didn't. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (FECA) has been amended, without published notice of proposed amendments, under the authority of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. If anyone can navigate that maze of spagetti code to see how these new amendments apply, I'm sure you'll find sharing BMG's latest offerings an offense punishable by death. What next? Taxation without representation?
Yeah? How the hell are we supposed to prove it? So many of the damn details are under wraps! Asking someone to prove something that they're prevented from proving because of the very thing they're claiming is intellectually dishonest.
It is completely natural to be suspecious of something done in secret, and the more power being wielded behind that curtain, the more natural it is. In fact, it is healthy to be suspecious of this.
And even if all the spooks involved have been perfect saints, the fact of the matter is, powers such as these get abused, sooner or later. It's only a matter of time.
...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!
"The fact of the matter is that these measures have not removed or degraded ANY civil liberties in this country. If you think otherwise, PROVE IT! Give an example of how you are being restricted in exercising ANY civil right since these policies were put into place."
It's called FEAR, and it affects the excersize of people's rights in a very real way. People are less likely to speak up, or even go to the library to get information about their own government if they believe that the government will abuse its authority to monitor such activities. You don't have to change laws to take away peoples rights, you can just make them too afraid to use them. The FEAR that these laws, and the apparent abuses stemming from these laws cause is a DIRECT DEGRADATION of our civil rights.
By the way, the president now has the right to secretly arrest you, without trial or cause recourse or oversight, fly you to a foreign country to be tortured by contractors, in secret, until such time as you die. You don't have any rights anymore.
As an Australian, I can say you're right about everything except the guns. If you're a private citizen and have a valid use for a rifle, it's just a matter of paperwork, always has been even before the buyback scheme. Which, by the way, was mostly about removing automatic weapons from the public - fair enough too; I highly doubt there's many legitimate reasons to fire hundreds of rounds per minute (some that were in the business of culling feral stock from helicopter had cause to complain though). Pistols are difficult, because apart from sport there's no practical reason to have one, although IIRC if you're part of a gun club I believe it isn't too much hassel if you use pistols that are kept at the club at all times.
This might appear odd to you, I guess it's a culture difference. You have an absolutely fucking scary culture with guns over there. In Australia, we automatically exclude the possibility of using a gun against a human. Writing "Self-defence" on the application form to obtain a gun license will guarantee you won't get to own one (legally). Unlike Americans, we don't believe guns are useful just because it's a gun. We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right. A liability, a responsibility. We acknowledge that not every random bastard on the street is going to be responsible and rational enough to engage in safe gun ownership. You must have a legitimate reason to own one, this includes agricultural and sporting applications. Letting people own a gun purely because "it's teh c00l" or "self protection" does not benefit society at all.
As for the smh article, the PM does not have absolutel control. Even if his legislation does get through, it is highly vulnerable to a high court challenge. One of the fundamental parts of our constitution is a separation of powers between the executive and judicial arms of the government. His new legislation expects the courts to become "servants to the government" by "assisting where necessary" with speedy issueing of warrants etc. even in cases where suspects may have no actual evidence (in the traditional sense) against them.
This is upsetting a lot of QCs (Queen's Council - top brass barristers) and a couple of state-level governments.
It is unlikely the judicial branch will take this lying down - this won't be the first time the government will be "disappointed" by the courts not doing their bidding.
We haven't heard the end of this: Anti-terror laws: 'unconstitutional' summit
"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--
Ah yes, but if the less corrupt bastard wins, then next time an even less corrupt bastard will run, since obviously the less corrupt you are the more likely you are to win. Naturally, the time after that, Mr. L. C. Bastard will be outflanked by a much less corrupt bastard, who will win, because the gosh-darn voters keep preferring the less corrupt candidate, no matter what the other guy promises....and, by and by, you'll have bastards that are as pure as driven snow running for office. Evolution in action!
O' course, if you the predator of politicians don't do your part to cull the herd every four years, then natural selection doesn't work. That was the point, eh?
You do have a point. Trust in your government has no place in a working democracy.
If i was Bin Laden i'd be pi**ing myself laughing - it's amazing how a couple of planes and a bomb here and there can derail centuries of democracy and accountable government, where dozens of wars, natural disasters, the nuclear threat and the cold war all failed.
That's because all those threats were definable, quantifiable, and understandable. Especially to the average man. The Russians were a threat, but you knew for sure they were "over there" and there were "that many" of them. So government could only go so far with spin and propaganda. You weren't going to be stopped and searched, arrested and/or executed at will because you could plainly see that the Reds were not in fact Under The Bed.
However, with the terrorism issue, absolutely no one knows how many terrorists there are, or what their plans are. In fact, if pressed, most people could not accurately define what a terrorists actually is. No one has a clue about the manner, nature, extent, cause and/or defence against this shadowy threat. Or even if it exists at all.
Thus Governments are able to essentially use whatever smoke and mirrors they like. Usama Bin Laden; a 48 year old fundamentalist on a kidney dialysis machine, hiding out in some cellar or barn in the back of beyond of the pakistan-afganistan border, becomes Osama Bin Laden; the notorious Blofeld-like mastermind of a global network of elite fanatical terrorist cells, controlling this web through his ferociously loyal spymasters, from a secret sophisticated underground lair, connected by a network of tunnels running up and down the border, probably complete with fusion reactor and 90m high display screen used for demanding $100 billion from the UN security council. If he's never caught, expect news specials in 2057 asking whether the 100 year old Osama is still at large, and specials in 2100 asking whether his body has been cloned and his old brain transfered so he may terrorise the free world for another lifetime. I'm not joking.
The reality is probably much more mundane. Aggrieved and disenfranchised young men, see their only way out as some kind of "honorable" death in killing as many of their supposed oppressors as can. The most likely answer is that there is no terrorist network, just disparate and seperate groups sharing only common ideologies. The cells are just that. Cells. There is no network, and any connection are tenuous at best.
Of course, by pointing this out your "aiding the terrorists". This can be proclaimed, because of course, the common man has no way of knowing whether this threat is real or imagined. He's kept in a state of constant disorientation, fear and patriotism while the noose of authoritatianism draws ever tighter.
We'll all wake up one day in a changed society, where the rights of individuals are trampeled upon, and people's minds are kept coralled in the state that the ruling oligarchy desires. All who deviate will be terrorist sympathisers. And to think, WWII, the h-bomb, quakes, floods and the Soviets could never have managed what was accomplished two plane crashes and a few dozen bombs.
May the Maths Be with you!
At the same time, the House should be strengthened...
Hmm, I'm having a hard time following this...let's see, the answer to government's abuse of its power is to increase the power of government...um...drat...
[scratches head]
No,wait...now I get it! You mean we should increase the power of good government and decrease the power of bad. Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Now, all we need to do is sit down and write this nifty idea into law. A Constitutional amendment along the following lines ought to do the trick:
No part of government that is Bad shall have any power over the people of these here United States. On the contrary, all power shall reside strictly with the part of government which is Good.
Problem solved! But I wonder why Madison didn't think to write this into the Constitution itself? Maybe he was drunk?
Historically, showing faith in your government will inevitably lead to that faith being abused. The scariest examples of this are probably the communist regimes (which is why you'll see phrases like "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, Comrade" appear so often on Slashdot) - people were expected to show complete trust of the ruling party regardless of their actions. Same goes for Nazi Germany.
Conversely, the American ideal is to place as little trust in the government as humanly possible, with the result that the government is comparatively trustworthy (cos it'll get caught out if it isn't). This is why (iirc) the US Constitution contains the right to bear arms - it's cos the Founding Fathers felt that a revolution every so often was both inevitable and necessary for healthy government, and wanted to make it fairly easy to rebel.
Trust the government and sooner or later you'll be sorely disappointed. Mistrust the government and you'll keep the buggers on their toes.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
I find it hard to believe you've ever lived in, or even heard of, the US (I stalked your website). Your ignorance is simply astounding.
If you aren't doing anything wrong whats the big deal?
The big deal is that the Patriot Act gives enormous powers to the FBI and other law enforcement organizations without any real oversight. There are provisions that allow these people to arrest citizens in the middle of the night and never tell their families what happenend to them. You can be held for years without a trial (Guantanamo), and I don't think any information ever has to be made public, so it doesn't really matter whether you're "really" a terrorist, does it? You might be an anti-war activist, an outspoken anarchist, a pornographer, or maybe the head of your local FBI branch lives next door and thinks your wife is hot. If you stand in the way of the bureacracy or any part of it, you might be forcibly moved out of the way.
The lack of transparency does not make something "outta sight, outta mind" (sic).
It kind of makes me wonder what all these people who feel their rights have been violated are hiding.
Dude, you just don't get it. Do you leave the stall door open when you take a dump in a public restroom? Why not? Is it because you want some PRIVACY? By your logic, anyone who locks the stall is "hiding" something. I know that I'm not "hiding" anything, but I do feel my rights are being violated because of the fact that the stormtroopers could come in here at any minute and take me away. This is the reality that your wonderful "security" measures have created. Can you live with it?
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
"If you don't like our country, why don't you get out?"
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
2005: "If you're not a Terrorist, what's the big deal?"
1939: "If you're not a Jew, what's the big deal?"
Tweaked it for you.
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
One flaw in your argument: You base it on the population of the US, rather than the amount of investigations.
Also, you believe bad things don't matter, as long as it's to a small portion of the population.
A completely over the top example would be to say that there were 200 cases in one year where a small group of people broke into houses and slaughtered families. The rest of the time this group were perfectly normal, helpful group.
So, you calculate the 'contribution' to statistics that each family contributes, and say it's some extremely small percentage, so it's nothign to worry about, and doesn't matter.
The point is, that the Governmental Agency tasked with making the country a better place is, in fact, not doing so, and abusing new powers (which people said would happen, and is) to do it, and justify it.
The idea is to hold the Agencies accountable. If they abuse power, then remove the abused power (or at least the individuals that do abuse it). If it's widely abused by loopholes, fix the law so it doesn't have the loopholes.
If that doesn't work, strip the law away and do something that does work, as by that point, it would be demonstrated as patently unworkable.
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.
We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right.
In America, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. So, for us, it is a right. You could see how we would have a different take on gun ownership than our Aussie friends.
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.
A quick Google gives the following translation from Latin...
"In times of war the law falls silent."
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
The writers of the constitution didn't put the second ammendment in so we could hunt deer or shoot tin cans. It is so we can protect ourselves from the government and overthrow it if necessary. It is so we can have guns that we can fight a corrupt army lead by a corrupt government.
--- tangent ---
At the time, that meant you could have your flint lock musket and flint lock single shot pistol, and probably better models than the government could afford to supply the army with. Even through the civil war, people could go buy repeating rifles (6-14 rimfire bullets) and six shot black powder revolvers, same thing the infantry had (if they were lucky enough to have repeaters - most had muzzle loading rifles). Sure, they had cannons, and a few breachloading ones at that, but you had a fighting chance.
They didn't forsee one weapon that could kill millions of people at a time. Should I be able to have one? Common sense says no. The Constitution says yes.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Are you forgetting that China's population is MUCH larger than yours? By your logic, there are less abuses of basic human rights there than there are in the west.
...welcome our new FBI overlords.
an ill wind that blows no good
It helps to keep agents of the government like the FBI, ATF, and WTF off of our property.
That is the reason its in our constitution.
I presume you're joking. If you actually fired an automatic weapon at an FBI agent knocking on your door, I suspect you'd be either dead or in Guantanamo before the day was out.
Interesting that Australia's top criminologists say "The weapons/methods used in the commission of homicide have remained relatively unchanged over the years." - essentially, they say the gun control laws don't make a bit of difference, criminals still kill in the same proportions with whatever is available, be it a gun, knife, or hand. This dovetails quite nicely with the theory that individuals hold the primary responsibility to protect themselves from vermin (old US values) and the theory that individuals are weak and puny and need a big gov't to protect them (new US values, and most of the rest of the world). Politicians everywhere are in the business of grabbing and holding power, using whatever crisis du jour is available. Bush used our very real terrorist problem to invade Iraq and force the Patriot Act on the country - the only question now is, is the damage too far gone to ever be repaired? ref: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/66/02_summa ry.html#4a
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
is that the presidential order allowing to hide previous presidents info, the Iraqi war, the patriot act, the sibel edmunds gag order, and the white house traitor(s) have had very little scrutiny by our free press.
Back in the 70's (and I would assume before), the press was all over the nixon abuses as well as the abuses of our war. Even in the 80's, the gipper came under much more scrutney for the multitudes of illegal acts being committed by so many in his staff (including himself). And I am quite certain that everybody here remembers the scrutney that Clinton came under. IOW, it was a free press and was not only reporting, but also investigating.
But in the last 5 years, the free press has lost its capacity for not only good reporting, but good investigation. More work like this needs to occur, if for no reason, as to prevent the abuses such as what we are seeing. No doubt we will see more shortly about the white house traitor(s). Hopefully, the supremes will lift the gag order on Sibel Edmunds and we will get a real glimpse of how our goverment operates.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
[This comment was reviewed and removed by the FBI. Don't fuck with us.]
In Australia, we automatically exclude the possibility of using a gun against a human. Writing "Self-defence" on the application form to obtain a gun license will guarantee you won't get to own one (legally).
It's mind-boggling to me the way someone can write a post like this and still believe their country is in any way free. As Johann Goethe said, Nobody is more hopelessly enslaved than the one who falsely believes he is free.
Honestly...do no criminals own guns over there? Do they all beat you with sacks of wet noodles? No knives? No clubs? No sticks with a nail in it? Nobody bigger and stronger preys on those who are smaller and weaker?
Yet somehow, you, as a law-abiding citizen should not have the right to own the means to defend yourself agains an aggressor who has no qualms about equipping himself (legally or no) in whatever fashion to accomplish his nefarious objectives. And people call this liberty.
Unlike Americans, we don't believe guns are useful just because it's a gun.
Er...then what makes it useful? "It also has to make a nice vase." "It must go with the decor."
Honestly, do you say such things about hammers? "We don't think a hammer is useful just because it's a hammer. Just cause you can hammer nails in doesn't mean you should get to use one. After all, you might hit someone in the head with it. Maybe even in self defense! The horror!"
It is a priveledge, not a right
You may have chosen to abdicate your natural rights but some of us, you know those of us who cherish what little freedom we have left and are willing to do what it takes to keep it, have not.
We acknowledge that not every random bastard on the street is going to be responsible and rational enough to engage in safe gun ownership. You must have a legitimate reason to own one,
Despite all evidence to the contrary. Despite mountains of statistics that demonstrate that daily, yes, in fact, those who make the effort to purchase and carry firearms for self defense use them millions of times for self defense every year, nearly all of which never even involve firing a shot. With a And of course, it's always safe to let the government determine who can have the means to keep them in check. I'm guessing you have foxes guarding your henhouse too.
this includes agricultural and sporting applications. Letting people own a gun purely because "it's teh c00l" or "self protection" does not benefit society at all.
Again, don't let the facts get in the way of your wild speculation there. In fact, in every state in the US where Gun laws are relaxed or where concealed carry (or open carry) are available as options crime goes down. More than that, statistically, the fear such laws put in criminals means that for every one of us that carries a gun, 12 other people who live near them will not become a victim of a crime. Yes, no benefit to society there.
But again, I'm just talking into the wind here. After all, you've spent years reading about this stuff and developing a solid opinion based on the facts right? Or, better yet, you went to a public school and watch the news and listen to the politicians and on the news! What more could you need to form an unbiased accurate position on such a critical issue. Right?
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
You just implied one of my problems with disarming common people. The bad guys will always have guns because they are willing to illegally obtain them. In most cases, I alone can defend my family and myself from gun toting criminals. It would take a minimum of 15 minutes for police to show up at my house which I believe is statistically longer than most violent crimes take. And that's assuming I can call them without getting shot in the first place. They would come to collect innocent bodies and take a statement. I'd prefer they come to collect the criminal's body if it had to come to that.
The other reason we have guns is to protect ourselves against the government. Granted, they have better weapons, but even small arms are a deterrent to governmental violence. It's not as silly as it may sound after you think about it for a bit. The US has a significant number of troops in the Middle East yet look how poorly they've preformed. The US is bigger and has about a 100 million more people than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
http://www.marxist.com/
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?
" 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
That's true.
Senator John McCain and others were able to garner enough support to add an amendment to a military appropriations bill that made the Army Field Manual's policies on interrogation the standard by which the military would be judged. He wrote what I think is an amazing letter to Pres. Bush on the matter also.
Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don't think I'm naÃve about how severe re the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is a grim, dark business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant the service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them and their comrades, but some of what had to be done by their hand to prevail.
I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next.
What I do regret, what I do mourn, and what I do care very much about is what we lose, what we -- the American serviceman and woman and the great nation they defend at the risk of their lives - what we lose when by official policy or by official negligence - we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, our greatest strength - that we are different and better than our enemies; that we fight for an idea - not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion - but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.
I have been asked before where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in Vietnam draw the strength to resist to the best of their ability the cruelties inflicted on them by our enemies. Well, we drew strength from our faith in each other, from our faith in God, and from our faith in our country. Our enemies didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention. Many of my comrades were subjected to very cruel, very inhumane and degrading treatment, a few of them even unto death. But everyone of us knew, every single one of us knew and took great strength from the belief that we were different from our enemies, that we were better than them, that we, if the roles were reversed, would not disgrace ourselves by committing or countenancing such mistreatment of them. That faith was indispensable not only to our survival, but to our attempts to return home with honor. Many of the men I served with would have preferred death to such dishonor.
The enemies we fight today hold such liberal notions in contempt, as they hold the international conventions that enshrine them such as the Geneva Conventions and the treaty on torture in contempt. I know that. But we're better than them, and we are the stronger for our faith. And we will prevail. I submit to my colleagues that it is indispensable to our success in this war that our servicemen and women know that in the discharge of their dangerous responsibilities to their country they are never expected to forget that they are Americans, the valiant defenders of a sacred idea of how nations should govern their own affairs and their relations with others - even our enemies.
Those who return to us and those who give their lives for us are entitled to that honor. And those of us who have given them this onerous duty are obliged by our history, and by the sacrifices - the many terrible sacrifices -- that have been made in our defense - we are obliged to make clear to them that they need not risk their or their country's honor to prevail; that they are always, always - through the violence, chaos and heartache of war, through deprivation and cruelty and loss - they are always, always America
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
There are many interesting issues revolving around - if the US government can ignore the "right to bear arms" section of the constitution, then what else do they feel obliged to ignore when convenient.
0 5.pdff
Besides that, however, you can't use your own atmosphere of fear and extrapolate your reasoning and beliefs onto another culture.
As much as Austrlia is trying its best to absorb the "American Way (tm)", one thing we don't want is a constant feeling of fear.
I can't imagine what it must be like to think that your only ticket to safety is to own a lethal weapon that hopefully you'll be able to use sooner than the "predator" can.
I can't help but think that the "we have to protect ourselves", "it's our right to protect ourselves" thing is just a self-fulfilling prophecy. A kind of positive-feedback system, feeding itself.
But for all the guns, people wouldn't need so many guns.
I did some research for an ethics (engineering ethics, of all things) debate topic at university (not to demonise america - something to do with personal vs professional responsibility). In the same year 2,973 people were killed on 9/11 [1] - Americans felt obliged to "protect themselves" against fellow Americans, lethally, in 11,671 [2] homocides using guns.
America supposedly has the highest rate of gun deaths per capita in the world, and is home to something like 40% of the world's firearms.
Isn't this just a little bit alarming? Are you saying this is the "best way"? The "way it should be"? Is there no room for improvement here?
[1] pp2, http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/kadidal0526
[2] 2,749 (WTO) + 184 (Pentagon) + 40 (Flight 93) - pp552, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pd
Hey! Thanks for patronizing me! I really appreciate it.
Perhaps the reason we're paranoid and ungrateful is simple: we've been lied to by what some consider the highest power in our government-- the President. We've been lied to by the last several administrations, really.
The most recent, most aggregious lies were told us to lead us into a war that gained us, the citizens of the United States, nothing. It had nothing to do with protecting us. It had nothing to do with anything that matters to 99% of the population. That other 1%? It gains them profit. And it's killed tens of thousands of people, thank you very much.
So, perhaps it's not easy for us to trust our government right now. When secrecy leads to human rights abuses (Abu Ghraib, Gitmo), war (Iraq), and a steady deterioration of our basic rights, it's hard to fucking take you guys seriously!
I mean, c'mon! If you want to defend the US, cool. That's great. I really do appreciate what hard-working, honest government employees do for us. But if you're going to defend it, by God, you'd better defend the Constitution, and not be pleased when a law is passed that is in direct opposition to the principles on which this country was supposedly founded.
When I joined the Army 20 years ago, I took an oath to defend our country from all enemies, foriegn and domestic. I took that oath seriously; I still do. And when I see enemies of the principles of the Constitution, I get a little upset.
So sue me. Tell me how ungrateful I am. That's fine. I just have 5 words for you:
Fuck you, you hypocritical lout.
I question the basic trustworthiness of our government. That doesn't make me a traitor, or ungrateful, or a bad person. It just means that I've heard enough lies from those who are supposed to be serving us. I've seen enough abuse of power to know that it not only happens, it happens often. And I'm fed up, and pissed off, angry, and kind of hungry.
How about this concept - freedom is the ability for you as an individual to have the means to have a better life by your OWN definition, not to decrease the ability of OTHERS to enjoy their own life.
How about this concept: my idea of a better life is one in which liberty is the driving political principle, and corporations are nothing more than charters granted by the citizens of the US (and may be dissolved when the corporation goes against the greater good), and everyone has food to eat, and the United States doesn't go to fucking war every time some fuckwad President wants to play armies, and those selfsame butt-reaming Presidents who lie to us fucking go to fucking jail for fucking warcrimes.
Geez. Thanks for listening. I'm sorry you had to sit through my therapy session.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Pistols are designed for shooting people. Sometimes this is necessary.
This is Insightful?!?
Yes it is sometimes necessary if you are in the police force or army or whatever but an ordinary citizen? In what situation in your everyday life is it necessary to shoot people?
Maybe I'm naive but it boggles my mind that there are people that think like this, and other people that think this idea is "Insightful".
Again, another one who just doesn't get it.
My original post was in response to a post that implied that Australia doesn't have guns. We do. They're restricted.
Secondly, massive culture difference here. Nobody needs "self defense" of lethal force. We don't have even a fraction of the gun deaths per capita that you do.
As a human being, you have a right to safety. Apparently, Americans think this means sleeping with a gun under your pillow. I would despair if it ever got that way in Australia.
Most of the time, I don't worry about locking my house at night. How about you? Burglers here just don't have guns. I bet most city criminals have never even fired a gun. Because chances are the people they're robbing haven't either, so why bother?
The point is, the society as a whole is made less safe when irresponsible people with inadequate training and lax handling/storage protocols are given lethal weapons.
Firearms meerly serve to make this right equal for those with more/less physical strength.
No, firearms just up the ante.
You think that once everyone has a handgun it is even? So then the bad guys get semi-automatic weapons. So everyone gets them. All even again. Until the bad guys get automatics and so on...then what?
Maybe everyone should get one nuclear weapon each so we are all even. Problem solved.
I hate to get involved in a hot-button US article of faith like gun ownership, but could you please name me one occasion from your personal experience where you were required to shoot someone?
This should be an occasion where you were required to shoot and/or kill another person, and where you couldn't escape, allow them to continue with their action without risk of your death or injury, or secure help from qualified third party, who optionally may themselves have been in posession of a gun (eg, police).
Nobody has any doubt that in any given society occasionally deadly force (or at least the threat of it) needs to be used. Where the rest of the world apparently differs from the USA is in assuming that these circumstances crop up often enough in any kind of civilised society that it warrants keeping (sometimes multiple!) firearms in the family home, and enduring the (empirically-demonstrated) consequence of numerous accidental shootings, homicides, cases of mistaken identity, suicides and accidental deaths of children every year.
And yes, I'm fully aware that there's also the argument that a well-armed polulation is essential to protect against the government. However:
1) You elect the fuckers. If you don't like them, elect someone else, don't shoot the poor bastards they employ to do their bidding.
2) When that phrase was written, it was eminently possible for a state of the USA to secede from the USA - the entire "country" was much more modular. Just try it today, and you'll have the federal authorities breathing down your neck faster than you can say "Waco". These days your freedom to resist is a myth, so it's no longer a good reason to permit weapons.
3) When that phrase was written "modern" weapons were pretty much uncontrolled, and it wasn't unreasonable for militia members to have weapons on par with a professional army. Assult weapons are already banned, and does anyone really believe a pistol (even a semi) is going to be worth shit against a fully-automatic assult rifle, grenade launchers, cruise missiles or nukes?
If the federal government decided tomorrow to move into your back yard, there's no a damn thing you personally could do about it. Given this state of affairs, you should either be pushing for drastic political reform to re-institute your succession rights, or face facts and give up your 9mm security blankets.
Have I missed anything here?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
Did anyone here actually read the article? The Patriot Act is mentioned two times in the whole thing, both in the first two or three paragraphs. Most of the cases disclosed appear to be about FISA related violations, not necessarily violations enabled by the Patriot Act. Most are said to be administrative in nature (late renewal filings, late annual reports, etc.). Some minor types of violations, such as getting information after a warrant had expired. Very few major violations (5 year long spying on an individual without proper oversight notification was mentioned in the article). Also in the article is that these relatively few cases were investigated within the justice department and reviewed at both executive and legislative levels and action has been taken as appropriate. More often than not the solution was simply to update the paperwork and berate the people responsible for missing deadlines. In cases where there were material violations the information attained illegally can not be used in any court proceeding and will be destroyed (yeah... I don't believe that either).
... I'll rephrase: the government may very well be running amok, but this article and the documents at the center of it are not indication of problems above and beyond any other area of problems in regard to how government is working or even how law enforcement or the justice department is working.
The point is that there is oversight taking place, both internally through justice department investigation and through legislative review of exiting laws and abuses. Also it isn't at all clear from this article that there were any violations that were enabled by the Patriot Act. Regardless of the law or regulation governing law enforcement there will be violations. The question to be asked is if the frequency of these kinds of problems are greater than violations of other regulations and laws, this acticle doesn't touch on that bit of necessary context. This article is talking about a few hundred investigations over a three year period with 13 looking to be worthy of being called violations. This is not government run amok.
Unlike Americans, we don't believe guns are useful just because it's a gun.
:(. So, while I might not want to own a gun (I don't trust myself yet, given I've not had the training), I realize it's me who has to make that decision. If, after all, the majority of people are not rational enough to limit themselves, then a democracy is by definition doomed.
Americans believe guns are useful for what they can do. This means from hunting to sports to self-defense, be it one's home or one's country. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "useful just because it's a gun".
We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care.
Most any sane person recognizes this. There's even a nice Simpsons episodes, where Homer gets a gun, that rather mocks the idea that the NRA is perfectly happy with nuts owning a gun. That's not to say the NRA is going to start a court battle to stop "the crazy people", but that's because many in the NRA don't believe (and past legislation is good proof of this) the government is good at filtering out gun ownership for that purpose.
It is a priveledge, not a right.
It's a right in America for the same reason owning a rock is. That is, it's a right to own just about anything (people aren't a thing), but it's not necessarily a right to use it for its intended purpose. Valid laws are, after all, intended to punish people for their actions, not their state of being or ownership of things.
A liability, a responsibility.
Yes, guns are a liability. And misusing them is very much a responsibility, for which the law holds people accountable. You do realize we have laws against murder, right?
We acknowledge that not every random bastard on the street is going to be responsible and rational enough to engage in safe gun ownership.
I'd acknowledge that too. At the same time, the majority of those people who aren't responsible enough to engage in safe gun ownership are likely to commit a crime and be thrown in prison before being able to purchase a gun, so for them the discussion is moot. For the rest of the "crazies", there's no single test to weed out whether or not someone is competent to own a gun. Nothing about your discussion of paperwork sounds like it actually filters out those peole, just those who aren't smart enough to lie. So, while the amount of people who are simply unable to be responsible with gun ownership might be in the 2-3% range, the rest shouldn't be barred arbitrarily nor does requiring them to get a piece of paper change anything (especialy given that 2-3% can just as easily get said paper). It's a pointless hassle, except for possible tracking purposes.
You must have a legitimate reason to own one, this includes agricultural and sporting applications.
Does defending one's country count?
Letting people own a gun purely because "it's teh c00l" or "self protection" does not benefit society at all.
The same could be said for owning a TV, the free press, or just about anything. One thing to remember is that the Constitution wasn't written only to benefit society--governments had long been claiming that as their basis for their actions well before the Declaration of Independence was written--but primarily to benefit the individual. It requires a much stronger argument than "it's a fad" and "people might misuse it" to start banning something in the US--at least in theory
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
I believe there were armed Kurds, though I'm not sure if you'd consider that genocide. I'm pretty certain there were many people with guns in Iraq under Saddam's rule. The problem with your argument is you're only partially right. What is often missing is the fact that if you lose the ability to talk and congreate like minded people, you lose the ability to form an effective fighting force to overcome those who would do you harm. Even so, a larger army can still conceivably wipe you out, no matter how many guns you have. Guns are, after all, not the end solution. The key is to realize that guns are merely one tool towards redefining the problem. If the problem is an oppressive regime, then yes guns can possibly help. But if it's an oppressive culture, then attacking the other culture will be a blood civil war. But speech can turn the oppressive culture into an ally, by making it clear that the oppression in the end will hurt them as well.
So, please do not be so short-sighted to say that guns are a panacea. Nor is speech. Nor are guns and speech combined. But even from a purely ulitarian perspective, one needs at least those tools to overcome oppression. And one can only hope that by recognizing that every person has such rights that such oppression will not reform or when it does that it'll be more easily defeated. Of course, supporting it as a pure ideology is another way to think, since clearly that's a world perspective many people view through.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
The other side of the story is almost never told. You will almost never hear (either because its un-newsworthy or because it could jeopardize other investigations) about the patriot act doing good things, like catching terrorists before they strike... Who wants to read about that anyway? If in all of 2004 there were only 100 some odd "abuses", I like to call them mistakes, I think thats not a bad record. If this act helps prevent even one case of terrorism, in 2004, then it was worth the 100 + mistakes.
Remember, we had suspicion about something like 9/11 happening but had our hands tide in legal restraints because we couldnt obtain the court orders to track and monitor those guys.
The cowards who think that our entire world must be changed because a couple fanatics did something fanatical, and that Freedom should be outlawed because it interferes with the safety of the populace deserve every bit of malice they get.
I can't get over how beautifully ironic it is that the terrorists won under the mantle of "The terrorists may have already won!".
It's been a long time.
This could just have easily been expressed "The Washington Post has obtained documents indicating that the FBI aggressively investigates any reports of their agents violating Federal law in pursuit of their duties, maintains extensive records of these investigations, and provides them to the press in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act."
But that wouldn't do.
Ah, Sibel Edmunds. Most people I know haven't even heard of her, never mind know that she was fired for complaints she made about incompetence in the translation unit she worked in. To be fired for pointing out problems then to be slapped with a gag order when she files a lawsuit and having the info "classified" after testifying before congress.
FalconShould there be a Law?