ACLU Joins Fight Against Internet Surveillance

aychamo writes "The American Civil Liberties Union today joined an expanding group of organizations filing lawsuits against a new rule that increases the FBI's power to conduct surveillance on the Internet. The rule being challenged is one the Federal Communications Commission adopted in September, granting an FBI request to expand wiretapping authority to online communications.he ACLU charged in a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the ruling goes beyond the authority of CALEA, which specifically exempted information services. "The ACLU seeks review of the CALEA order on the grounds that it exceeds the FCC's statutory authority and is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to law," the organization charged in its petition."

Comments

Colleges' costs for CALEA compliance

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

Separately, The American Council on Education filed a court challenge arguing that compliance with the rules would require colleges and universities to spend $7 billion in upgrading switches and routers.

Here's a good reference on just what will be required for universities to comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA),and the resultant costs involved.

Re:Colleges' costs for CALEA compliance

[rhyskegtapper]

At this point the only people monitoring my University's network traffic are bored CS students. However, if that kind of deal came into effect I don't think the already cash strapped department could handle the added weight. Hell, half their staff or more at this point are student oncampus work-study jobs.

Encryption

[jimmyhat3939]

I avoid this problem altogether by encrypting my phone conversations with AES-256 grade encryption. It took a few months for me and all of my friends to learn to do the encryption on our voices in real-time, but now it works great and we have no fear of the FBI whatsoever!

Re:Encryption

[knightinshiningarmor]

Yes, but do you run linux?

Re:Encryption

[sparr0w]

Good luck when they start a brute force attack! :)

Re:Encryption

[ggvaidya]

NRF-256? Un! Gung'f crnahgf! Jnaanorr! JNAANORR!!

Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[thekel]

After all, how long can we maintain the 1st with out it?

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[IAmTheDave]

Unfortunately, aiming your 2nd protected piece at an FBI agent or other government official wiretapping your email/phone conversations will pretty much strip you of all 10 - including that fair trial one.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[pwackerly]

Well, according to the text of the amendment, only as long as we find it neccessary to the security of a free state to maintain a a well regulated militia. Which would be, what, 1865?

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't count on it. ACLU supports random identity checks by Miami police.
Papers Please! ACLU approves of it so it must be good. Think of the terrorists!

The only civil liberties union(s) worth supporting in USA is NRA and Gun Owners of America

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[Anonymous Coward]

your forgot the rest. it goes - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.".

notice that part about "the right of the people". if you read the constitution you will notice that the framers mentioned "people" everytime they were refering to 'the general public'. also when reading the revision history of the 2nd you get a beter idea of what is intended by it. it was very long originaly and sepereated out each of those sentance parts into full sentances, but was later shortend to what it is now. many of the founding fathers later clairified its meaning in letters and speaches to mean that you and i should own weapons for the case we should ever have to defend ourselves from invaders, our governemnt, or just criminals.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[thekel]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It is stating it is necessary. What law school did you go to?

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[linuxrunner]

You're kidding right? I hope so, but just in case:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Let me break it down:
  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Basically says, that any country (state, etc) to remain FREE must have a well maintained army (militia).. Ok... Now with that out of the way

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Means that, just because we have a military, doesn't mean we're safe, so thereofre the right of "the people", that's us, the average person, will not be infringed. Why? Because the Brittish just tried to take our guns away so we couldn't win the war. We wouldn't give them up, and fought back.

Without guns, we could not stand up against our government.

The 2nd Amendment is actually quite simple. If you just read it. This is why they use "the people" in the Second Amendment, to mean everyday people.. you and me... just like they used in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment too!

Or maybe the right to free speech was only really meant for government officials?

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[pwackerly]

I go to good one. That doesn't matter, though.

Isn't it pretty well estbalished that the federal government can abridge our rights to gun ownership, provided that it does not relate to the use or estbalishment of a well-regulated milita. Check out U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 at 178 ("In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of [a shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.")

So, the government can restrict your gun ownership if it doesn't relate to milita use, right? And what well0-regulated milita do you belong too?

Also, check out United States v. Parker, 362 F.3d 1279, 1283 (10th Cir. 2004) (same), and United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) (same)

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[FhnuZoag]

That's a comma, not a semicolon.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Isn't it pretty well estbalished that the federal government can abridge our rights to gun ownership"

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

it also appears the government can abridge our right to illigal search and seizures even though the constitution is against it. obviously what the constitution says and what the laws are differ sometimes.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation , the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of"-James Madison

so, what "people" was madison refering to here when he was refering to "americans"? hes not talking about militias or governments here, hes talking about the people of america vs the people of other countries.

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson

and here who is jefferson refering to? the people, or militias?

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[SuiteSisterMary]

But by that definition, the draft is legal.

A militia is defined as:

1: An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2: A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3: The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Therefore, if the right to keep and bear arms is because a well regulated militia is necessary, then the gov't can maintain (or raise) an army of citizens.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[thekel]

Do you misquote US vs. Miller? Do you have something to hide? Could it be that the real quote goes something like "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Providing inaccurate rulings is no way to prove your point. Miller failed to prove that the specific instrument (A short barreled shotgun) had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. Meaning that all instruments that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia are protected under the 2nd amendment as an individual (Miller) right. Starting now I would like full auto and grenades :-)

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[wuice]

If ONLY the first amendment were as vehemently and stridently defended as the second amendment is defended in the USA... That would be a country I'd be wavin' flags for.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[Doc Ruby]

The ratifiers of the Bill of Rights agreed that a militia, not just an "army", is necessary to "the security of a free State". A militia, even in that time, was not a standing army, like the British one that had been quartered in private homes by royal command - an abuse that was addressed specifically elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. They said the US (a free state, unlike the colonies or the parent Britain) needed a militia - fighters both quartered and equipped largely privately, especially in peacetime, as well as posessing private experience in their own weapons. That would provide expertise and materiel without direct government expense - major premise of the limited taxation ratifiers, in contrast to the unlimited taxation of the defeated king. As well as deprive the limited government they specified of a centralized power prone to abuse, as they had so recently lived through under British rule, which justified the war to so many patriots.

But we've obviously chosen a different model for our military. We have a huge, expensive standing army - greater than any other at that time, before, or even now. Various government abuses of the people, usually ultimately enforced by nonmilitia, fulltime government armed forces, might have been avoided by having a militia. And perhaps we might not have defended our nation from various enemies. Those speculations are interesting, but besides the point. We do not have a militia, and unorganized people not enlisted in "state security" are neither a militia nor necessary to the defense of a free state. If you're talking about National Guard needing the right to own their own guns, that might be the case. But buying machineguns at flea markets has no protection from the Constitution, and is in fact damaging the security of our mostly free state.

I support the privilege of Americans who can handle the responsibility to own and use guns: eg. trained hunters and sportsmen, not convicted armed robbers or angry teenagers, much as "freedom of travel" is ensured even with restrictions on those who can't be trusted to drive a powerful vehicle like a car. I support revision of the 2nd Amendment, at very least to make its archaic grammar and vocabulary intelligible to modern Americans who live with it. But unless it's revised to protect a right for any American to own and use a gun without restriction, these contrived versions by 2nd Amendment fetishists are baseless. And dangerous to our security.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[pwackerly]

the type of gun, while relevant, is only one factor. Or so says the 10th Cir in Parker

"Drawing on Miller, we repeatedly have held that to prevail on a Second Amendment challenge, a party must show that possession of a firearm is in connection with participation in a "well-regulated" "state" "militia." See United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir.2001) (holding "that a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia"); Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (stating "purpose of the second amendment ... was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia"). Applying this principle, in Haney we set out a four-part test a party must satisfy to establish a Second Amendment violation: "As a threshold matter, [a party] must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is 'well regulated' by the state; (3) [guns of the type at issue] are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the [the gun at issue] was reasonably connected to his militia service." 264 F.3d at 1165. See also United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir.2002) (applying Haney to uphold federal law restricting a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm); United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1106 (10th Cir.2002) (applying Haney to find law banning sale of explosive devices does not infringe upon person's Second Amendment rights). Unless Parker can satisfy these four criteria, he cannot prevail on his Second Amendment claim. Notably, Parker has presented no evidence tending to show that he meets any of the Haney criteria."
br?

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[thekel]

The 10th circuit does not a supreme court decision make. Unfortunately for both of us, until they rule collective vs. individual this is mostly academic. I still say it's judicial activism and not what the founders meant nor intended for even today's society. Please see: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm I'd definitely like to continue this further but I am off for the weekend. TGIF!

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[Puf_Almighty]

You're right, I hadn't thought of that. After all, I absolutely trust this government to act with my interests in mind at all times.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[wytcld]

Look, I have no problem with people having guns. I think that comes under privacy rights. But ...

You're performing a semantic trick there by separating a sentence in the middle which is meant to be whole, as it is written. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." You want it say two things: (1) A militia is necessary to the the security of a free state. (2) Arms are also necessary for individuals, outside of state militias. But it's one sentence, not two. There's no "also." It's a dependent clause. It's a "because." It means because the states need to be free, and so need to have militias, which by definition need to be armed, the federal government shall not have the power to strip the state militias of their arms. Now, if the states want to let their militia members take their arms home at night, that's implicitly fine under these terms. But the amendment says nothing about people who are not part of state militias having any right to bear arms.

I suppose you could make some tortured argument about a situation in which a state wants to recruit new militia members and doesn't have arms to issue them, so depends on individuals already owning those arms ... but again that would be a matter of the state's rights. A state for that matter could just say, "Everyone in the state is part of the militia and is required to bear arms." Except the federal government, under the second amendment, could object if the state didn't make sure that extensive militia was well regulated. It's not just about everyone freely walking about with guns.

Again, I think it's fine for people to have a few guns about (not machine guns, but within reason). It's just not quite an honest reading of the second amendment to claim that's where you get the right. Rather, it's one of those rights not enumerated that's left to the people and the states, which comes out of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, in which it was accepted that a free man could bear certain arms.

Re:Fantastic, now how about the 2nd?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow do you just totally ignore "the right of the people"??? Every single time that phrase is used the founding fathers meant the general public. Now you are trying to twist it so "the people" in this one single case means the Militia.

What is wrong with owning a machine gun? If I was willing to give up some of my rights I could go get a .50 caliber M2 completely legal right now, just takes a Class III Federal Firearms License. I won't allow the Government unrestricted access to my house just to own a M2 even though it clearly violates the 2nd Amendment. Instead I will continue to support the NRA and work on voting out anyone who is against gun rights.

For me the second critieria is if they are against privacy invasions such as the Patriot Act. I just want the Government to leave my rights alone. I will never willing consent to losing my rights and at the current time it is most effective to fight for my rights through the election process.

Tough Question

[gbulmash]

This is always a tough question. The argument goes that the more surveilance power we give law enforcement, the more ability they have to prevent crime. OTOH, I'm probably mangling the quote, but "those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" makes sense as well. The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it.

Re:Tough Question

[flyinwhitey]

"The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it."

And yet strangely, many want to trust the government with their health care.

Re:Tough Question

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it.

What do you mean "will use it"? Ever been to the US since september 11, 2001?

Re:Tough Question

[scheming daemons]

And also strangely, those that don't want to trust the government with health care, are more than willing to trust the government to carry out capital punishment.

Re:Tough Question

[Prospero's Grue]

The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it.

I'm not really opposed to granting law-enforcement the power to do surveillence on e-mail, traffic, or what-have-you - but it's ridiculous that every proposal that comes forward to expand police powers also involves no oversight or accountability.

If you think I'm a criminal and you want my ISP to disclose my e-mails then call a judge, present your evidence, get a warrant, collect the e-mails, notify me that I'm under investigation, and we're all set. The same as it works with everything else.

The hypocricy that comes with "we need to expand the law so the police have the same powers over this new-fangled technology thing" and "we must not extend the oversight principles while we're at it" is mind-boggling.

Re:Tough Question

[thekel]

I don't understand how capital punishment relates to trusting those who mete out punishment in this instance. Juries/judges mete out capital punishment not the .gov.

Re:Tough Question

[Bingo Foo]

The more power we give the government to invade our lives, the more they'll use it.

What do you mean "will use it"? Ever looked at the withholdings on your paycheck?

Re:Tough Question

[Tackhead]

> And also strangely, those that don't want to trust the government with health care, are more than willing to trust the government to carry out capital punishment.

In the past century, governments have racke dup 180,000,000 deaths.

Trusting a government with health care is strange. Trusting the government with killing is simply a matter of recognizing a core competency.

Re:Tough Question

[Quirk]

Ever been to the US since september 11, 2001?

No, as a Canadian, I haven't, and, sadly, it's looking unlikely that I will be again.

Re:Tough Question

[Anonymous Coward]

When you view surveillance as the answer to fighting general crime in society, you are assuming general society is guilt before proven innocent. That is surveillance is warranted to prove their innocence, not to prove their guilt.

So no it's not a tough question, the founding fathers and numerous individuals who first envisioned agencies like the FBI or the NSA addressed these philosophical issue. Sadly now people seem to be operating on statistics and probability alone, not anything related to the law.

Re:Tough Question

[symbolic]

that the more surveilance power we give law enforcement, the more ability they have to prevent crime.

It also offers a greater opportunity to commit crime. This isn't something that needs a lot of posturing and theorizing, because it has already happened.

Let's also talk about crime prevention. The notion of prevention, taken to extreme, will annihilate certain constitutionally-guaranteed rights. There's no such thing as "too much" prevention, because there's no way you can prove that the absence of a certain measure would have resulted in more of something that never happened. Where does it stop?

Re:Tough Question

[Anonymous Coward]

it's ridiculous that every proposal that comes forward to expand police powers also involves no oversight or accountability.

That is, of course, assuming police powers need expansion. Ultimately, it's the voters who provide oversight, and there has been doubt that brinbg even this into question. Funny how politicians aren't generally supporting documentable voting.

Re:Tough Question

[Bacon Bits]

The actual quote is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin

Source

Re:Tough Question

[Kenrod]

Since criminal defendents are guaranteed a trial by jury, it is "the people" not "the government" that decides capital punishment. The govt merely allows it and throws the switch (which is better than lynching).

Also, health care affects everyone, capital punishment only affects those who get caught...

Re:Tough Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, that not enough people can tell the difference between 9/10/05 and 9/12/05 when it comes to what rights we still have.

First they came for the "T's

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I didn't speak up because I wasn't using alot of 'T's. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me and I had to buy a vowel.

Good for you, ACLU

[scheming daemons]

I fully expect a lot of comments to come down on the side of the FBI and of more survellience and restriction on our liberties for the simple reason that the "evil" ACLU is on the other side.

Nevermind them. Yay ACLU. Keep up the good work.

Re:Good for you, ACLU

[ConvenienceComputers]

Good God! One step closer at the US Government controlling all data transmissions. I do believe that the internet is one way that we all can find out the truth about many goings-on in the world (without any media bias). ...so does this mean if the US Government doesn't like what it reads online, then it will block/change/warn/go after either the data transmission, the originator of the information, or all four?

Sounds like the USA a on the edge of a civil war

[Anonymous Coward]

Its Big Brother vs. Joe six pack

Looks like John Titor was right.
Too bad he didn't leave Stock Market tips...

ACLU Joins Fight Against Internet Surveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

For a second there I thought they must be suing Sony. They seem to be the only ones left to join in.

Huh?

[jimktrains]

The ACLU is doing something that isn't going to piss the majority off?

Re:Huh?

[scheming daemons]

The stuff they do only "pisses the majority off" because in most cases, the "majority" is too damn stupid to realize what's in their best interests.

Re:Huh?

[the arbiter]

Thank you! At least there's one sane person on Slashdot. The ACLU isn't perfect by any means (their stand on the 2nd amendment causes me much personal grief) but they take on the defense of the Bill of Rights with zeal; something most Americans would never bother to get off their lazy, fat asses to do.

Re:Huh?

[jimktrains]

I was being serious, not a troll. The ACLU, um, doesn't have the best public opinion. They do good work, I'm not disputing that, it's just that they come off wrong...

I was just saying that the ACLU is finanly doing somehting that MOST people will agree with (like I said, I like what they do).

Re:Huh?

[skelly33]

Bingo. I've personally only seen a handful of cases brought forward by ACLU where my reaction was, "well that's a waste of time, energy & resources". They have had Important Victories longer than most /.'ers parents have been alive.

Re:Huh?

[the arbiter]

You're right. I don't think it's the quality or nature of the ACLU's work that has earned them such emnity...I honestly think it's just that most Americans would be far happier living under a police state. Seriously.

Re:Huh?

[MightyMartian]

We should all count ourselves lucky that we have somebody willing to take on cases that the majority may disagree with. After all, the very theme of the Founding Fathers was that the power of the majority be checked, and that minority rights be protected from the nastier elements of mob rule.

Re:Huh?

[fawlty154]

Well said, and I'm conflicted, because this almost seems worthwhile.
Whoever modded you as a troll probably doesn't quite know who or what the ACLU is.

Re:Huh?

[PenrosePattern]

How exactly does the ACLU's stand on the 2nd amendment 'cause you much personal grief'?
Do you think that any regulation of arms is constitutional?
What do the terms 'well regulated' mean to you?
What proposed changes to the current status quo do you propose or do you think it is optimal?

Re:Huh?

[PenrosePattern]

Amen. (in a non-religous way)

Re:Huh?

[Guuge]

I was just saying that the ACLU is finanly doing somehting that MOST people will agree with

Here in slashdot most people would agree with it, but in general it's harder to say. About surveillance the government has been rather frank. How would this kind of government stay in power in a country where most people don't believe in unlimited powers of surveillance?

No, the stance held by the ACLU is yet another position that falls along party lines.

Re:Huh?

[Alphabet Pal]

At least there's one sane person on Slashdot.

Doesn't that then imply that you're not?

Re:Huh?

[AuMatar]

*shrug* On the average they would be. Thats the scary part of police states- its usually only a small percentage of the population that gets arrested and severely harassed. The rest get a few slight abridgements here and there added slowly, so they barely notice them. Thats why most people in police states don't mind it- they aren't the ones who have the secret police knocking on their door. And they get that wonderful warm secure feeling. The fact that its an illusion of security doesn't matter.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they only "think" they would be happier. Since very few Americans have actually lived under a police state they have no idea what that means, and I mean absolutely not even a frame of reference as to what it means to live under a police state. I wonder how many peoples children/wives/husbands/friends will have to be kidnapped by the police before they realize what they are getting themselves into? America is headed towards a war of biblical proportions.

Re:Huh?

[quarkscat]

WTF have you been smoking (, not that I want any of it)?

The majority of Americans are a bunch of sheep. Feed them large doses of "American Idol", "Survival" plots of every type, stir in some "MTV" and "Fear Factor" and all is well. That, and publish totally BS info about how great the economy is, how low the CPI is, and spend a huge portion of TV news focused on movie star excentricities, new movies, a copious amount of time on professional sports, and stir in a little strictly low level political corruption to feel self-righteous about. George Orwell called it "soma", but it got considerably cheaper when it stopped being a pharmacutical and began being distributed electronically over the air waves.

It is only a minority of Americans that still actually give a damn about privacy, and the encroachment of the big brother twins (government and corporations) into every aspect of our lives. Dubya and his neo(Con)artist allies are more than happy to marginalize the opposition, by every means necessary. Electronic vote fraud, seeding propaganda in the press, heneous public attacks against opposing leadership, "dubya"ous felon databases to disenfranchise voters, even their overseas torture chambers -- they keep nibbling away at their political opposition in small, almost unnoticable numbers until it's no more than a paper tiger.

Re:Huh?

[AK Marc]

(their stand on the 2nd amendment causes me much personal grief)

Their stand is something to the effect of, "The NRA has the 2nd Amendment covered. Until they protect the 1st, 4th, and others, we'll look after those and leave the 2nd to them." They are looking after the liberties that no other large organization is looking over. The 2nd is covered, so they are covering those that they can do the most good on. I can't see how leaving the 2nd to the hands of an organization more qualified would give you such personal grief.

Re:Huh?

[the arbiter]

Glad you asked, actually. I'll take your questions in order. Bear in mind that I'm a firearms owner and pretty into it...but I guarantee my answers will surprise you. "Liberal" gun owners aren't common.

1. I'd like to see the ACLU get involved in these cases, as we (as a nation) need some clarity on just how laws regulating firearms actually apply in the real world, not just as abstract legislation. The Second Amendment and whether it applies to individual or militia ownership has never been clarified. It needs to be.

2. I don't know if regulation of firearms is "constitutional" or not, not being a lawyer, but it's a damn good idea.

3 & 4. Here's what I'd like to see (well-regulated and status quo changes): This is what I call the "automotive" model of firearms ownership. Libertarians will probably have a stroke and if you're one you shouldn't read this :)

What society gets: Licensing (passing a course equivalent to the "Gunsite" series of classes, not cheap or easy) and registration...mandatory. Insurance...mandatory. Draconian penalties for possession of stolen, unlicensed or unregistered firearms. I think a mandatory 10-year sentence for a first offense is not out of line.

What gun owners get: An end to idiotic laws that ban posession of certain firearms based, fundamentally, on what they look like. A Winchester 1897 repeating rifle has MORE capacity that most modern "assault" weapons and is just as accurate and deadly, and yet can be bought in all fifty states. Let's end the bullshit and let those who can pay the insurance for destructive weaponry own them. If you can't pay for your acts or mistakes then you don't get to play.

Obviously, although I'm a lifelong shooter and gun owner, I am not an NRA member. They're the worst thing to ever happen to gun owners and a political and PR liability for us.

Re:Huh?

[the arbiter]

You assume that the NRA is "more qualified". As a gun owner who doesn't drink conservative Kool-Aid, and speaking as one who would like to see the right to own a gun still present and relevant fifty years from now, I think the NRA has been an unmitigated disaster as a gun ownership advocacy group.

If the 2nd Amendment is ever repealed in this nation, we will have the NRA solely to blame with their inflammatory "cold dead hands" rhetoric. Talk about a counterproductive PR move.

Re:Huh?

[the arbiter]

I'd think the answer to that would be self-evident :)

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What can I saw, a police state basically guarantees situations of absolute right and wrong to be government mandated. And with a democratic police state (does that even make sense?), the majority gets to feel that they're always right.

I need some sleep

[pavon]

When I read this headline the light-saber ad was displaying at the top, and my mind filled with pictures of jedi ACLU lawyers battling video surveillence droids. Whhhoommm chttzzz clnk.

*waves hand* These are not the geeks you are looking for.

Re:I need some sleep

[halltk1983]

"jedi" + "lawyer" = Div/0.
I thought all force-wielding lawyers were sith...

Re:ACLU

[gbulmash]

wow, doing something useful for once

Better than arguing a Muslim woman should be able to have her face covered in her driver's license photo. Society has an interest in having a drivers license photo accurately picture the individual that overrides religious freedom.

Before you argue that no societal interest overrides religious freedom, please note that all of the following "crimes" have tried to use the religious freedom defense:

• Prostitution
• Possession and distribution of drugs
• Child Molestation
• Child Abuse
• Letting children die of treatable ailments

In all of those cases, courts (up to the Supreme Court) said society's interest in prohibiting those crimes outweighed the First Amendment rights of the individuals.

The First Amendment is not absolute. You can't incite people to riot without punishment. You can't publish libelous accusations without punishment. You can't do anything you want and get away with it on the claim "God Says So".

While I admire the ACLU for taking on some contentious issues which are nasty, but have to be defended, most of their stuff seems to be things like forcing a nativity scene out of a city park or trying to make it possible for someone to mask their face in a driver's license photo.

Zonk! You made it!

[PhreakOfTime]

I have to say, Im pleasantly suprised today

Hats off to Zonk, really. I've had my fair share of complaints against his 'style' of writing, but now it seems that he has gotten an order of magnitude better at it. I think you may have found your groove and nicely matched it up with the audience of slashdot.

Thank You zonk, you are back on the list of editors that come up on the home page. Just dont blow it! hehe

Re:Zonk! You made it!

[ClamIAm]

I've had my fair share of complaints against his 'style' of writing, but now it seems that he has gotten an order of magnitude better at it.

Which part are you praising him on? The headline, or the "insert-comment-here dept" line? Those are the only things he wrote for this article...

Re:Zonk! You made it!

[PhreakOfTime]

Like I said, orders of magnitude better.

Sometimes less is more.

At least this time it's useful.

[Lord Kano]

Instead of ignoring the second amendment, or crusading for the rights of Neo-Nazis to march through black neighborhoods the ACLU is doing something that's actually positive. I applaud them for this.

LK

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[CottonEyedJoe]

The ACLU isnt defending Neonazis who march through black neighborhoods. They are defending my (and yours) right to say things the majority dosent agree with. The armed services defends our freedom against foreign threats and the ACLU defends our freedom against domestic ones.

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[scheming daemons]

Bravo.

seriously, some people don't get it. When the ACLU defends the KKK holding a protest march, they aren't agreeing with the KKK.. they are defending their right to march.

This makes the ACLU even more noble, in my opinion. The ability to defend a person or group that you loathe with every fiber of your being (at sometimes considerable monetary and PR expense to yourself), just to uphold a higher ideal, is downright saint-like.

Some people think it's about "defending the KKK" or "blocking harmless nativity scenes on public buildings" or "keeping the 10 commandments out of courtrooms". It is not... and the failure of a person to "get" the point says more about them than the ACLU.

"defending the KKK's right to protest" is about defending your right to espouse an unpopular idea.

"taking nativity scenes off of the government property" is about defending your right to not have your government endorse a particular religious viewpoint.

"taking the 10 commandments out of the courtroom" is about defending your right to not be pre-judged, even subliminally, because you don't share the religious beliefs of the people who will decide your fate.

"fighting against Intelligent Design in the classroom" is about defending your right, and your childrens' rights, to not be religiously indoctrinated by the state.

The ACLU will defend your civil rights, no matter how loathesome you or your viewpoints are. That makes them noble. Those that can't see that are too simple to get it.

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[jmacleod9975]

That was the best post I have seen on slashdot in a long time.

If I had mod points this post would get them.

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Shelled]

In my youth there was a common sentiment, expressed in Hollywood movies and television as "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Interesting how that's not only disappeared as a moral imperative, when present it's treated as simplistic, too idealistic now that 'everything's changed' or against the nation's values (depending on speaker.)

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[AK Marc]

Instead of ignoring the second amendment,

Ah yes. Leaving the 2nd to the capable hands of the NRA is "ignoring it." For that, we might as well condemn the NRA for not defending the 1st and 4th Amendments.

But we all know the real threat to our rights are the Republicans and Democrats. Every loss of liberty in the past 100 years has come at the hands of one of them (and no, I'm not a Libertarian).

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Lord Kano]

The ACLU will defend your civil rights, no matter how loathesome you or your viewpoints are.

Or unless your second amendment rights are violated.

LK

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Lord Kano]

Ah yes. Leaving the 2nd to the capable hands of the NRA is "ignoring it." For that, we might as well condemn the NRA for not defending the 1st and 4th Amendments.

If the NRA claimed to be a group that upholds all constitutional rights, you'd have a point. The NRA only claims to be a group that is concerned with the interests of gun owners.

The ACLU is an organization that is primarily concerned with advancing a leftist political agenta via the court system.

LK

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Anonymous Coward]

So very insightful.

As you imply, if the ACLU won't fight for gun rights, they should stop fighting for rights altogether.

It's like stopping to help an injured person by the side of the road. If you don't intend to help every injured person everywhere in the world for all eternity, you shouldn't bother stopping for one. Right?

Or like running out of canned pears in your pantry, and deciding that if you can't have canned pears with your meal, you'd rather just eat nothing and starve to death.

That's the rational way to think.

It's good to know people like you stand proud, defending our freedoms (except when someone tries to defend a freedom besides bearing arms).

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Lord Kano]

As you imply, if the ACLU won't fight for gun rights, they should stop fighting for rights altogether.

Not at all. I'm saying that until they fight for ALL of our constitutional rights, I won't support them.

It's like stopping to help an injured person by the side of the road. If you don't intend to help every injured person everywhere in the world for all eternity, you shouldn't bother stopping for one. Right?

No, it's more akin to someone only stopping to assist that injured person if they're not wearing Nike shoes. Then claiming to help all injured people.

Or like running out of canned pears in your pantry, and deciding that if you can't have canned pears with your meal, you'd rather just eat nothing and starve to death.

If McDonalds doesn't have any Apple pies done and you really wanted an Apple pie. You can wait until pies are done, or you can go to KFC and get a pie with my meal there.

It's good to know people like you stand proud, defending our freedoms (except when someone tries to defend a freedom besides bearing arms).

I like the EFF because they are not hypocrites about defending rights like the ACLU is.

LK

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your position would make sense if the ACLU fought against gun rights. They don't.

After all, I don't see you criticizing the NRA for failing to support free speech rights where they don't concern firearms. Logically, you should dislike them as much as you dislike the ACLU -- but you're not thinking logically and your position is hypocritical.

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your position would make sense if the ACLU fought against gun rights. They don't.

They don't actively fight against Second Amendment rights, they ignore them.

After all, I don't see you criticizing the NRA for failing to support free speech rights where they don't concern firearms.

If the NRA claimed to be a group that fought for all civil rights(like the ACLU claims), then I would criticize them. The fact is that the NRA only claims to be concerned with protecting the interests of gun owners.

LK

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you're not opposed to the ACLU on other grounds, like abortion issues, with this as a smokescreen for yourself or others?

The ACLU may be mistaken in not actively supporting gun rights, but it never acts/litigates against gun rights. Officially, its position on gun rights is neutral. Unofficially, the reason the position is neutral is that members of the organization disagree on that issue.

Personally, I support gun rights and the NRA, and I also support the ACLU. The organizations are complementary to each other, each filling gaps the other leaves. The ACLU is one of the few large groups that actively defend Americans against government abuse, and though it may not be omnipotent, its policies are consistent with that goal. Its actions as an organization coincide with its policy:

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

        * Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
        * Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
        * Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
        * Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Re:At least this time it's useful.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of fact, I AM opposed to the ACLU on the issue of abortion "rights", but I don't think that they're hypocrites because of it. The legal argument can be made on both sides of that issue. So as I see it, they aren't misrepresenting themselves on the issue.

On the issue of Gun Rights, the ACLU IS hypocritical. It's their position that the other nine amendments in the Bill Of Rights protects an individual right, but the second amendment only confers a collective right. Yeah, sure.

The framers were so worried about the free citizenry having too much power that they included protection for the rights of the nation in the Bill Of Rights.

I could make some worn out joke about a Bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale or the great deals I'm offering on swamp land in Florida, but it's just not worth the effort.

On the page you quote, there is a link about joining the ACLU in which it is stated.

The American Civil Liberties Union is the foremost defender of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The second amendment is a part of the United States Constitution, one that the ACLU ignores.

LK

Stop the insanity...

[lbrandy]

First it was a war-waging company using Linux....

Now it's the ACLU vs Internet Surveillance.

How is any slashdotter supposed to karma whore when you keep putting up stories that are conflicting of the slashdot groupthink!

Next up: How Microsoft thinks that the US controls the internet too much...

Re:Stop the insanity...

[Alphabet Pal]

Next up: How Microsoft thinks that the US controls the internet too much...

"Linus Torvalds to support offshoring of intellectual property development"

Re:Stop the insanity...

[Lord Kano]

Next up: How Microsoft thinks that the US controls the internet too much...

A company that I hate thinking something stupid. Where's the conflict?

LK

Re:ACLU

[scheming daemons]

While I admire the ACLU for taking on some contentious issues which are nasty, but have to be defended, most of their stuff seems to be things like forcing a nativity scene out of a city park or trying to make it possible for someone to mask their face in a driver's license photo.

No.. most of their stuff does not. Just most of the stuff that jokers like O'Reilly and Limbaugh like to focus on.

Almost all of their cases are about protecting the civil rights of the individual against the "man". You don't hear about most of those, because Fox News won't highlight them.

Anyone else feel iffy?

[MikeSty]

Normally I don't like the ACLU - they're too radical. This is an odd exception that I'm willing to agree with them on.

Re:ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that prostitution and drug use can be comperedto child abuse? Doing something to yourself and something to someone else are same things? Man, you are fucked up in the head. Thank God most people aren't like you ... do'h!

Re:ACLU

[gbulmash]

You think that prostitution and drug use can be comperedto child abuse? Doing something to yourself and something to someone else are same things? Man, you are fucked up in the head. Thank God most people aren't like you ... do'h!

I just said they're all crimes people have tried to say God told them to commit and where the courts said the "God told me to" defense didn't wash. I never made any statement equating them in severity.

Terrorism is rare

[digitaldc]

"The diverse organizations also warned that the expanded eavesdropping rules represent only the beginning of what will become a broader effort to regulate the Internet."

Is this to fight terrorists or to regulate the internet? or both?

How much privacy are people willing to give up in order to fight a war without a clear enemy?

Re:Terrorism is rare

[scheming daemons]

I'm not willing to give up any.

But sadly, I find myself in the distinct minority.

It's a tired old canard, but the terrorists really have won. America has changed because of 9/11. For the worse.

We're becoming what we used to despise and fight against during the cold war... a totalitarian police state.

... one tiny step at a time. But unmistakable in the final destination.

Re:Terrorism is rare

[TheRaven64]

How much privacy are people willing to give up in order to fight a war without a clear enemy?

I don't know, how much have you spent on the War on Drugs already?

Re:Terrorism is rare

[mesocyclone]

If the terrorists wanted merely for us to improve our ability to defeat them, while giving up a small amount of liberty, the above silly post might be right.

But Islamofascist terrorists have a bit more ambition - they want to destroy our ability to stop their creation ofr a vast califate of the most extreme and repressive form of Islam.

It may be that in today's world, where terrorists may be able to get or make terrible weapons (Moore's law has been exceeded in genetic engineering, should you want to make a biological weapon), some liberties must be given up.

Of course, the old saw that "those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither" (paraphrase of Ben Franklin), always comes up at the slightest impact on civil liberties, even those that simply roll them back slightly to levels still more free than our historical norm. But the man who uttered those words chose to create a government which in fact cost liberties (a lot more than we have now) in order to create collective security.

Civil liberties absolutism is no more sensible than religious fundamentalism. Both are unworkable utopian ideas put forth by those who don't understand the consequences.

Also, it is important for the ahistorical crowd (which sadly is most Americans these days) to recognize that massive reductions of civil liberties (by today's standards) were undertaken in every war that we have won. And yet, we are in most ways freer now than before those wars, which means that necessary restrictions of civil liberties in wartime do not stick after the need is gone.

If you want to worry aboutt civil liberties, go after John McCain's campaign "reform" law, which gives vast powers to rich partisans like George Soros while hobbling the free speech of ordinary citizens.

If civil libertarians focused on making sure that things like extra surveillance capabilities simply had adequate controls to prevent misuse, instead of trying to throw out every one, they would be far more useful.

Just imagine what happens after a serious dirty bomb goes off in a couple of US cities, scaring the public to death and perhaps reucing the viability of cities in general. Who is going to listen to the ACLU? When citizens faced REAL serious threats, they are going to pay more attention to those who are serious about the tradeoffs between civil liberties and collective security, and ignore those who have been extremist on the civil liberties bandwagon.

By the way, I would be remiss if I didn't address the ACLU defending KKK marches mem. This is a standard ACLU tactic to make it appear that they really aren't the left wing extremist organization that they really are. Protecting a few KKK'ers is harmless to the left (or anyone else) because there are so few of those idiots in the country. But don't expect to see the ACLU often protecting one's right to self defense, or to say unpopular things (such as religious expression almost anywhere in our culture). They have a long history of pretending to be for civil liberties in general, while really only supporting those which coincide with a particular agenda.

Re:Terrorism is rare

[quarkscat]

I find it rather ironic.

A rather nominally religious America allied itself with Saudi Arabian rabidly religious fundamentalists in order to help throw the godless communist Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. The government that replaced the Soviets in Afghanistan were directly aided by both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, were also rabidly religious funamentalist, and could have been considered unsigned allies in the USA's "war on drugs(TM)".

A continuing presence in, and influence upon Saudi Arabia subsequent to a secular dictator's invasion of Kuwait and threat to invade Saudi oil fields prompted these rabid religious fundamentalists to attack the USA, both overseas and at home. One of these domestic terrorist attacks helped to consolidate the USA's rabid religious funamentalists in power, as well as launch an invasion of Iraq. (The Ba'athist Parties of both Iraq and Syria have longstanding ties to Nazi Germany, as well as a rabid hatred of Jews and Israel.) The USA has militarily largely abandoned Saudi Arabia for Qatar, thus complying with one of Al-Queda's demands. The Dubya regime has turned Iraq into something Afghanistan could never be -- a training ground, weapons depot, and jumping off point for any and all Islamic terrorists worldwide, partially funded with Saudi and Iraqi oil money.

The USA is beginning to realize that if you wage a war, reconstruction, and a peace badly enough, a civil war will result instead of the first blushing blossom of democracy. Of course, the three primary "actors" in the Middle East that surround Iraq have a vested interest in seeing a fractured and powerless Iraq, and to date the rabid Sunni religious fundamentalists appear to hold the key to control the future of Iraq. The USA has acted, or by ommissive action, done far more to support those three Iraqi neighbors positions than the objectives built upon shifting sands by the Dubya regime.

The USA, in the convoluted process of gathering strength to fight the "war on terrorism(TM)", has forsaken those very constitutional principles that separate us from the typical tyrannical government in the land of the eternal egg-timer factory. Our founding fathers would be turning in their graves if they could...

(giggles)

[Chmcginn]

Juries/judges mete out capital punishment not the .gov.

That's got to be one of the funniest dumb things I've read on slashdot this week.

A.) Judges are permanent employess of the government. Jury memebers are, effectively, temporary employees of the governemnt. Perhaps the distinction you meant to draw was between the prosecuting and ruling arms of the legal system. But they're all, still, part of the government. (Just as the defenes lawyer will be, if you're not wealthy enough to employ your own.)

B.) Try being on a jury for a murder (or attempted murder) case sometime, when the judge decides to overrule nearly every objection brought by the defense attorney over improper evidence.

Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence isn't good proof of anything... except for that fact that, at least in one place, punishing somebody for a crime is more important than punishing the right somebody. And do you really want people with that kind of mentality having the power to inflict a punishment they can't take back?

Re:(giggles)

[thekel]

"Permanent employees"? Partner, your generalizing. Look around, this is not the case everywhere. "Temporary employees"? This doesn't even need rebuttal but I'll entertain it. The prosecution and defense both have a chance to vet jurors.

Re:(giggles)

[IamSaved]

Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence isn't good proof of anything... except for that fact that, at least in one place, punishing somebody for a crime is more important than punishing the right somebody.

while I've never served on a jury, it seems to me that the judge is allowing only that evidence to be admitted which is allowed by law - or at least in the mind of that judge to be legal according to the law. and if there are those that disagree with the judge's opinion on admissible legally / inadmissible evidence, is that not why we have appellate courts, to which these appeals for reconsideration are forwarded?

and No, I don't mind allowing people with that kind of mentality to inflict an irretrievable (sp?) punishment. there are certainly more than adequate appeals processes for those so duly sentenced...

Re:(giggles)

[Chmcginn]

Okay, okay, my serious point (in my experience from both sides, a fair number of judges (at least in North Carolina) don't even avoid the "appearance of impartiality") was obscured by my semantic point (that judges, defense lawyers & jurors are all working for the same person as the prosecution, that being the government). Just call me IBM.

As soon as gun owners take their rights seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

and take on government agents trying to infringe on their 1st amendment rights.

Seriously, if all our rights really are reliant on the second amendment, why haven't people overtaken their local Department of Homeland Security offices via force of arms? Why are not federal agents performing these wiretaps taken out by force?

At what point will the firearms be taken out and used against the oppressors?

Or maybe 2nd amendment defenders believe that the force of their heated rhetoric alone will do the job?

Or maybe the whole "our rights are founded on the 2nd amendment" really is a bunch of posturing?

The ACLU Does Not Believe in the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't want to dwell on constitutional analysis, because our view has never been that civil liberties are necessarily coextensive with constitutional rights. Conversely, I guess the fact that something is mentioned in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that it is a fundamental civil liberty."

Nadine Strossen
President of the American Civil Liberties Union
"Life, Liberty, and the ACLU"
Reason, October 1994

The letters in the January 1995 issue are worth reading.

Ahh legal jargon

[isa-kuruption]

While CALEA does indeed mention that the act forbids tapping of 'information services', it defines 'information services' as:

        (A) means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via telecommunications; and

        (B) includes--

                (i) a service that permits a customer to retrieve stored information from, or file information for storage in, information storage facilities;
                (ii) electronic publishing; and
                (iii) electronic messaging services; but

        (C) does not include any capability for a telecommunications carrier's internal management, control, or operation of its telecommunications network.

Therefore, 'information services' as defined by the law, must be considered services which generate, acquire, store, transform, process, retrieve, utilize or make use of information. This would include such things as Google Mail and web site providers. HOWEVER, an Internet Service Provider does not generate, acquire, store, transform, process, retrieve, utilize or make use of information... it transmits, or transfers.

Therefore, under the law, it is OK to wiretap an ISP, if the information being wire tapped was not destined to be to or from the ISP (but merely a pass-through). Section (c) covers this by saying it does not include command control functionality of the ISP.

At least, that's my interpretation of the law. Obviously this conflicts with the great ACLU, so I'm sure this will be modded down.

Re:Ahh legal jargon

[Anonymous Coward]

At the same time, one could easily argue that all we do on the net is retrieve and send information. After all, what's a webpage if not information stored elsewhere?

Mod funny?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad this comment got modded up, but seriously guys, I don't think we should see that as funny. That's the fricking truth. Goverment is my definition, the use of force. Using force to administer health care is absolute fricking bizzarre. Using force to administer the death penalty, makes perfect sense. So please people, take this seriously. This is a very valid serious point, even if it does strike you as funny.

freedom again

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't read TFA.
Seems you always confuse being hidding for freedom.
If you had freedom you could care less if the FBI is listening to whatever.
Why you insist on keep on hidding, it makes no sense to me...

Re:ACLU

[sneakers563]

While I admire the ACLU for taking on some contentious issues which are nasty, but have to be defended, most of their stuff seems to be things like forcing a nativity scene out of a city park or trying to make it possible for someone to mask their face in a driver's license photo.

Isn't there value in a debate over the limits of religious freedom? I don't agree that someone should be allowed to cover their face in a driver's license photo either, but I don't begrudge the ACLU for bringing the case. One of the biggest dangers we face as a society, hell, as humans, is that we tend to believe that certain ideas like "religious freedom" are unchanging and self-evident; they're not. In fact, they're sources of constant contestation and both shape and are shaped by society. Insofar as the ACLU's driver's license lawsuit forces us to think about the limits of religious freedom, and furthermore just what we mean by "religious freedom", I say it's worthwhile; we certainly wouldn't be having this conversation otherwise. The idea that it's wrong to even ask those questions is, in my opinion, a much bigger threat than any possible outcome of the lawsuit.

Drugs and Prostition? Where do I sign up?

[directorx]

What's wrong with drugs and prostitution. Cigarettes are more lethal than marijuana and alcoholism causes more fatal care accidents than marijuana use. What's wrong with prostitution. If I get laid by a hooker, as long as we are two consenting adults, then what does it matter that I pay her afterward. If I get high on drugs, how does it harm you? In fact, all victimless crimes, ie crimes in which I commit which does not take away from another individual's freedom or prosperity, IS the government forcing one person's morality on another. Child abuse is another thing entirely. There you hurt an innocent nonconsenting minor for sadistic pleasure. Comparing that to drug use is nauseating.

Re:ACLU

[TheWickedKingJeremy]

Well said... You can always peg a Rushbot/O'Reillybot inside of 5 seconds when they unleash an uninformed and simplistic statement about the ACLU. O'Reilly and his ilk are successful because they manipulate the uninformed. The best way to do this is through the creation of "enemies"... the ACLU... George Soros and his "War on Christmas"...etc.

Re:ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply stating that with an aside attack on the popular scapegoats does not make it true.

Yeah, I live here...

[isotope23]

And your statement is complete BS.

Here is why:

there were 16,500 homicides in 2003

"Nearly 71 percent of the 2003 murders involved use of a firearm, with 13 percent involving knives or other cutting instruments. Blunt objects, hands and feet also were used."

there were 42,642 auto fatalities in 2002, 17,013 of which were alcohol related.

16,204 murders took place in 2002

according to wiki
there were on 2986 deaths on 9/11.

This means that every year roughly 5.5 times the number are murdered
(most by guns). Care to give up your second amendment rights?

Roughly 14 times the number of people die in auto accidents per year,
(alot of them related to alcohol). Care to outlaw drinking? What about
cars?

I am not willing to give up the second amendment, nor do I think alcohol
or driving should be outlawed. Neither am I willing to let the government
have carte blanche in trampling the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments because of
terrorists.

TMM is up to his normal antics again

[Anonymous Coward]

*Sigh*

Once again, TripMaster KarmaWhore does a quote from the article with a link to a different web site that (somehow always) provides "more information" or a better "reference". We're all obviously incapable of using Google for ourselves.

And once again TMM uses his subscription for the sole purpose of getting first post. It must be a Slashdot version of "Has to be the first one on the block to have it" syndrome.

And once again the TMM ass-kissing mods just mod him up, following like the mindless groupies that they continually prove themselves to be. If anyone else had posted the article, they'd get slammed by the masses for karma whoring, but not TMM. Oh, no.

I suppose that I should be grateful that he didn't find an excuse to once again use that f**king anime smile of his that makes me want to commit acts of physical violence when I see it.

And once again I'm sure that I'll get accused of jealousy by his groupies. Don't bother. My non-AC account has had excellent karma for a year now. But that doesn't mean that I can't call a spade a spade. He's a damned karma whore, yet he's allowed to do it.

I don't know what's worse. The fact that he keeps karma whoring or that the Slashdot mods let him get away with it while others who do the same are modded down.

Un-f**king-believable.

Re:TMM is up to his normal antics again

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what's worse. The fact that he keeps karma whoring or that the Slashdot mods let him get away with it while others who do the same are modded down.

You forgot option #3 - TMM's just good enough at karma whoring that it doesn't look like karma whoring.

Read Federalist 29...

[maillemaker]

>We do not have a militia, and unorganized people not enlisted in
>"state security" are neither a militia nor necessary to the defense
>of a free state.

>But unless it's revised to protect a right for any American to own and use a gun without restriction, these contrived versions by 2nd Amendment fetishists are baseless. And dangerous to our security.

You are correct - today, there is no militia. But there is /supposed/ to be a militia.

What the founding fathers intended, based on other writings of theirs (like the Federalist Papers), was clearly to prevent a strong centralized government from having a strong military which would enable it to act as a tyranny. The way they intended to prevent this was to have no standing Federal army, or, at the most, a small one, countered by militias raised by the states, commanded by officers from those states, and made up of citizens from those states.

The overriding intent is clearly to keep military power in the hands of the citizens of the states, and out of the hands of a centralized federal government. The overriding intent is clearly to retain enough military power outside of the federal government to prevent said federal government from taking military action against the citizens of the states.

This kind of military setup died in the late 19th century. Many like to argue that the National Guard is now the militia of the founding father's vision. It is not. Today's National Guard in no way serves to counterbalance Federal military power. If anything, it serves as an adjunct to it and reinforces it.

Just because state militias have been commandeered by the Federal government does not mean that the founding fathers' intents are not still valid! The militias are gone, but the people are not! Given today's situation, the only way left to preserve the intent of the founding fathers is to keep arms in the hands of the /people/.

There are militias no longer, therefore the /people/ must serve as the counterbalance to federal tyranny.

Steve

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[RobinH]

While I agree with your logic, your last couple of statements are a bit laughable. Can you imagine a revolt with privately owned guns in this day and age?

"Hey Billy-Bob, we're gonna go overthrow the government. You stand here and when the STEALTH F*CKING BOMBER comes over that hill and tries to drop a 500lb smart bomb on your ass, try to shoot him first with your Vietnam surplus .50 cal machine gun."

I think the point you should be trying to make is that the majority of the military needs to divided up and put under direct *local* civilian control. Therefore, if the federal government wanted to use the military against the people, they would have to convince the local civilian leadership to issue those orders, which would be a much safer situation, until the civilian leadership in New Hampshire decides to bomb New York... but nothing's perfect.

In the event that a particular state attempts to us its military against its own people, then a coalition of other states could get together and liberate that state (hopefully).

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[Doc Ruby]

How come the insane anti-American tyrannists who favor guns also favor Bush's trashing the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents Bush from commandeering National Guards and effectively invading American states, without the required invitation of the state governor?

You try to make a practical argument for private guns, to oppose the Federal military. But the practical reality is that such ragtag opposition would be mowed down - the best we could hope for is an Iraq-style meatgrinder. And I can't compare Americans' will to resist to that of the organized, financed, trained (by Saddam, foreigners and the US) Iraqi insurgents, hardened over generations. In practical terms, such American resistance would just justify more military killing and suppression, and make the government look justified in wiping out "hooligans" as they'd inevitably be represented in the media. Big gangs like the Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings would have superiority - and it's obvious that their keeping and bearing arms is doing a lot more harm than any theoretical good.

The practical role for the people to counterbalance Federal tyranny is long overdue. Questioning the media PR for current tyranny and lies. Resisting the force-backed attacks by unaccountable police and lawyers (like the UnPatriot Act). And organizing to hold politicians accountable for sending our soldiers into corporate wars before sending them back to enforce martial law or other contrived coups on our liberty. All this wasted time, dividing the people on dangerous hobbies, has damaged the unity that is our most important asset in resisting any tyranny. No surprise that the tyranny level has risen so far already. Maybe if we were to regain all that lost ground, we could proceed to crank down our so often abused standing army, and try the militia model. Until then, the actual enemy is proven and obvious.

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[flyinwhitey]

A friend and I discussed this.

First, you're ignorant of tactics, or intentionally ignoring facts. You know guerilla war is possible and can be effective, otherwise we'd be using our fucking stealth bombers to mop up in Iraq. Why hasn't that happened Patton?

Right so there's that.

Then of course you ignore the effect of the media. Consider the consequences of the Army waging war on the citizens. Yeah, that wouldn't be allover evry type of media outlet 24/7 forever. But I suppose you think that wouldn't matter.

Use you head. If Iraqis can do it, what is wrong with you that you think Americans coudn't too?

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[RobinH]

Dude, are you OK? You're getting overly serious about a comment posted on an internet message board that was a reply to someone else. I just don't want to see you keel over with a heart attack or anything.

Take it easy bud, it's Friday. Relax.

The point about the media is conceded, so long as the media digs itself out of the hole it's in now, where it's just a mouthpiece for the administration anyway.

However, if I were the government, and wanted to shoot my own people, I suppose I'd commandeer all radio stations and TV stations to make sure that none of them were under the control of the "eeevil terrorists", and most of the public would go along with that because most of them are sheep, just like the Iraqis or anyone else in the world. They want the government to protect them, which is why they'll gladly give up the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and their guns in the interest of national security. The press will gleefully broadcast the press conference where the president tells the people that these measures are in their own best interest, and if you're not with us, you're against us. Then the press will show interviews with mouthpiece after mouthpiece that was recommended by the administration as a good source of balanced news.

And yes, the people could wage a guerilla war, but they're going to find it harder to do than the Iraqis because over here the gov't has your address on file, can tap nearly every means of communications you might use to organize (and with the patriot act, they have the right to do that just by labelling you a terrorist). They can stop all sources of funding for you (the banks are under federal control), and they don't just have 100,000 army guys to throw at you, they have every bit of the federal military, the national guard, and every single law enforcement officer will have your license plate number scrawled on their dashboard.

On top of that, you wouldn't be considered patriots, you'd be considered the bad guys because you blow things up, kill the good brave soldiers of the land, and otherwise be a disturbance of the peace, and people really care more about their SUV in the driveway, their cable TV, and their porn, and they don't really care about their freedoms. Therefore, everyone else will be ready to turn you in as well.

So yeah, it would be harder for a present day American to be a revolutionary, much harder than it is in Iraq. You're going to run out of willing suicide bombers in the US much faster than you will in Iraq.

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the size of the gun, it's the number. There's 150 million gun owning citizens in this country. If it ever came to direct conflict, the people of this country would destroy the military and government leadership overnight. Just the possibility prevents some idiot from proclaiming himself dictator of the US. Think it can't happen? It happened 40 years ago in one of the most civilized democratic nations on earth. Prior to taking over, Hitler first registered, then confiscated all civilian firearms.

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[rob_squared]

I used to feel the same way, but think of it in the long term. If you're going to use military force to keep your citizens in order, that's occupation by a military dictatorship. And as we've seen in cases such as Vietnam and Iraq, they still manage to inflict damage over the long term. Now take the population of either of those countries and multiply it many times, and you see where your argument fails.

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[RobinH]

Sure, but Hitler didn't have to confiscate any firearms - he just blamed the troubles of the majority on the minorities, and convinced the majority to do his dirty work for him.

The US gov't isn't going to shoot "the people", they're going to shoot "the muslims" or "the gays" or "the atheists". Each one of those is a minority hated by the majority. Giving them guns probably won't give them enough firepower to get to the border and escape. I support their right to defend themselves, of course, but I doubt it'll work.

Re:Read Federalist 29...

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    50% Troll
    50% Insightful

TrollMods don't know what a "Troll" actually is. Hint: it's not just a post you don't like, that scares you.

OT:Letting children die of treatable ailments

[Anonymous Coward]

We had a recent case of this in Miami. The parents fed thier children vegetables, roots, herbs, and the like. Their father went out and had steak (from time to time) and had other foods. This was of course based upon some obscure religion.

One of the children died.

Due to a high priced lawyer and a high priced defense witness that questioned the death (due to _very_ obscure medical condition, which could never be proven) the parents got off on the manslaughter charges. I expect they will get off eventually on the child endangerment charges on their other children.

Let's just hope that the other children don't die as well.

Folks, it happens here in America. Amazing!

I *LOVE* IT!

[slightlyspacey]

I'm going to risk a few Karma points but here goes:
You know that anytime the letters A*C*L*U* are used in a Slashdot posting, regardless of the subject at hand, you will get the following within one hour:

1. Swipes at religion
2. Swipes at conservatives (not the same as 1.)
3. Swipes at the United States and its foreign policies.
4. Swipes at the ACLU's position on xxx, where xxx is not related to the subject at hand
5. Counterswipes at 1-4.

To quote Rodney King ... "Can't we all just get along?"

monitoring the wrong people

[oddRaisin]

Is it just me, or should the government be focusing on monitoring external threats? This increasing focus on "policing" its own citizens seems:

a) Counter intuitive - These initiatives, especially Homeland Security, stemmed from the September 11th tragedies. None of these were perpetrated by US citizens.

b) Counter productive - People distrust authority. Nobody likes being helpless (which you are when dealing with authority figures), and authority figures have been proven to be corrupt in many occasions. And let's face it, the rampant incestuous relationship between the Bush administration and large corporate concerns makes the information mined from these "infotaps" as likely to be used for marketing and political reasons as for any kind of preventative defense. By relaxing the requirements to get an infotap, you are completely undermining the faith that people have in their governments. And before you get into the argument along the lines of "nothing wrong, nothing to hide", ask yourself if you'd be comfortable with your neighbor finding out your sexual preferences, fetishes, your embarrassing moments, or when you've just gone through a terrible break up with your significant other.

[rant]
More and more the federal government is adopting an adversarial role when it comes to its citizens. Control is valued over freedom, economies are valued over civil liberties, and international relationships are being sacrificed for maintaining private interests.
[/rant]

Anyway, to sum up, why don't you spend your budget and monitor people who have beefs with the US instead of the people who pay their taxes. Or better yet, FIX YOUR FOREIGN POLICY. These people didn't choose the US at random to attack. Figure out what the fuck you're doing wrong when you stomp (not step) on other people's toes, and fix it. If you have to persecute someone, try not to make it people that voted you into power and pay your salaries.

Creative reading

[hacksoncode]

Wow, that's a really creative reading. However, the law doesn't say "services which generate...", it says "offering a capability for generating...". And it specifically includes "a service that permits a customer to retrieve stored information"... Web pages, for example, are stored information that an ISP permits a customer to retrieve.

RFID

[nanobound]

Seems like a nonissue to me. Physical privacy will be dead soon enough anyway. Walmart and other vendors are moving to RFID tags which means that anything you own will be able to be detected remotely. Other technologies are enabling sourceless tracking with lasers that measure unique textures. MIT recently announced that they track all internet users on campus so one can see where seats are occupied all over campus, meaning they know where everybody is all the time. All of these combined with the internet, will eventually render privacy obsolete. www.nanobound.com

Re:RFID

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not forget about GSM cards...

ACLU

[hlrsenet]

What? I'd rather have the FBI monitoring the internet than the American Communist Lawyers Union bringing America a step closer to communism. It's so easy to block/prevent/disallow the FBI from viewing or interfering with your PC - if only people would get some brains.

Uninformed?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I know of the ACLU's cases, I learned from their own website. I don't watch Rush Limbaugh (he strikes me as just a loudmouth), and I don't recall ever watching O'Reilly, although it's possible I've seen him on CNN and not recognized him--I certainly don't watch his show(s).

That said, most of the sides the ACLU has taken, when I read them, strike me as idiotic. It's like they always take what they think is the contrarian position, common sense be damned.

This is one of the few times, however, I would tend to agree with them. But it's the EFF I'd prefer to support--they actually make sense most of the time, rather than doing so rarely, as if by accident.

I don't want to live in a police state, as someone else suggested, I just don't think that the ACLU will do anything to prevent that. They're too busy worrying about crap like (and I'm choosing a deliberately fictitious and unreasonable example which I find entirely too plausible) whether Pagan Acluviast Natureists should have to wear clothing to school because it violates their religion (which was founded yesterday, by the ACLU...).

That's what the NRA is for

[Kelson]

Each cause has its own lobby. The 1st and 4th amendments, in particular, have the ACLU. The 2nd has the NRA.

The ACLU doesn't need to protect the 2nd, given how hard the NRA fights for it.

Re:That's what the NRA is for

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why doesn't the ACLU say that the NRA is better at it? Why does it keep on saying that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right??

Re:That's what the NRA is for

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the NRA is for (Score:2, Flamebait)
by Kelson (129150) * on Friday December 02, @05:48PM (#14169868)

Each cause has its own lobby. The 1st and 4th amendments, in particular, have the ACLU. The 2nd has the NRA.

The ACLU doesn't need to protect the 2nd, given how hard the NRA fights for it.

Then why does the ACLU devote so much resources and attention to abortion rights?

That's what NARAL and Planned Parenthood are for.

Talk about a jump to conclusions.

[Kelson]

The post office is mentioned in the constitution. That doesn't make it a civil liberty. (Letters that you send through the post office, however, fall under the first amendment.)

Conversely, I doubt anyone would disagree that privacy is a civil liberties issue. But depending on who you talk to, privacy may or may not be covered by the Bill of Rights.

So there are parts of the Constitution that aren't about civil liberties, and there are civil liberties that aren't necessarily in the Constitution. That means that they're two overlapping but not identical sets -- which sounds exactly like what that quote is saying.

What the ACLU is REALLY about...

[Chordonblue]

"seriously, some people don't get it..."

Oh no, I get it.. Totally.

"When the ACLU defends the KKK holding a protest march, they aren't agreeing with the KKK.. they are defending their right to march."

I call for a 'common sense' rule here. Sending the KKK into an African-American neighborhood when you know this is going to start a riot is lunacy.

"This makes the ACLU even more noble, in my opinion."

Stupidity isn't noble no matter how good an idea it might have seemed over chianti and cheese the night before.

"The ability to defend a person or group that you loathe with every fiber of your being (at sometimes considerable monetary and PR expense to yourself), just to uphold a higher ideal, is downright saint-like."

It can be, but let's just see how many left-wing nut groups get priority over traditional values and ideals at the ACLU. It's not even close.

"Some people think it's about "defending the KKK" or "blocking harmless nativity scenes on public buildings" or "keeping the 10 commandments out of courtrooms". It is not... and the failure of a person to "get" the point says more about them than the ACLU."

Hmm.. Seems to me that sometimes religion helped form the basis of our country's values and beliefs. To not see this is to totally delude yourself of what real life was like here 100 or more years ago. Tearing that stuff down doesn't make it right - it puts us in the same category as the Taliban blowing up statues in the desert. Real smart stuff.

"defending the KKK's right to protest" is about defending your right to espouse an unpopular idea."

Granted. But there are exceptions to freedom of speech (the old yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre example comes to mind).

"taking nativity scenes off of the government property" is about defending your right to not have your government endorse a particular religious viewpoint."

Yeah, it makes ya feel good doesn't it? Let's tear down all the crosses at Arlington too! THE PEOPLE already expressed the viewpoint, that's why these things are there in the first place! You get ONE GUY who doesn't like it, and everyone else suffers. That makes sense... Not.

"taking the 10 commandments out of the courtroom" is about defending your right to not be pre-judged, even subliminally, because you don't share the religious beliefs of the people who will decide your fate."

No, it's about erasing 250+ years of history because it happen to offend someone. Why don't we start aiming artillary at statues now and get it over with?

"fighting against Intelligent Design in the classroom" is about defending your right, and your childrens' rights, to not be religiously indoctrinated by the state."

When even Einstein admits that there's an underlying 'glue' to the universe, how can it be bad to at least acknoledge that there might be more to our universe than particles and atoms? Oh.. But we can teach the kids about the possibilities of alien life?! What's the difference there?

"The ACLU will defend your civil rights, no matter how loathesome you or your viewpoints are."

Bullshit. They defend your rights if it will:

1) Help further their cause through advertising the most extreme cases.

2) Eliminate any and all forms of public (or private) religious expression.

3) Further the left wing agenda by keeping any disention quiet. The ACLU is about QUIETING voices, not opening them up.

"That makes them noble. Those that can't see that are too simple to get it."

I suppose you could say that they were all just... simple... way back then, huh? Our founders would weep at how groups like the ACLU have tied up simple decency and common sense. It's high time to take this country back from the lawyers before they kill our society, our conscience, and our nation as a 'United' force.

Re:What the ACLU is REALLY about...

[eaolson]

Hmm.. Seems to me that sometimes religion helped form the basis of our country's values and beliefs.

Really? I don't remember God being mentioned in the Constitution at all, let alone Jesus. You'd think that if religion was so important to the Founding Fathers, they'd have at least brought it up. Many of the Founders were not Christians, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin. Our government is entirely a-religious, which is what they intended.

It is one thing to respect religious belief. It is another for the government to promote one, even the one dominant among its citizens, above others.

Yeah, it makes ya feel good doesn't it? Let's tear down all the crosses at Arlington too! THE PEOPLE already expressed the viewpoint, that's why these things are there in the first place! You get ONE GUY who doesn't like it, and everyone else suffers. That makes sense... Not.

There are no crosses at Arlington.

When even Einstein admits that there's an underlying 'glue' to the universe, how can it be bad to at least acknoledge that there might be more to our universe than particles and atoms? Oh.. But we can teach the kids about the possibilities of alien life?! What's the difference there?

Maybe because there is no basis or evidence for your assertion that there is more to the universe than "particles and atoms." When you can provide evidence for such, science will embrace it as being a more correct worldview than the one it holds now. Until then, it is baseless superstition. And why teach about the possibility of alien life? Because it is a reasonable extrapolation from our own observation. We have one data point, the Earth, and it is reasonable to speculate about other, similar places. If you have similar data about a different plane of existence, I'd love to hear about it.

You are also misrepresenting Einstein's views. If you are talking about his famous "God does not play dice" comment, he was talking about quantum mechanics, not God. He also said:

My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.

Re:What the ACLU is REALLY about...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I call for a 'common sense' rule here. Sending the KKK into an African-American neighborhood when you know this is going to start a riot is lunacy."

So very true. It's just common sense to have the government outlaw any marches that might offend someone.

"Stupidity isn't noble no matter how good an idea it might have seemed over chianti and cheese the night before."

I know what you mean. Those ACLU people go around actually considering implications, and who in his right mind does that? They must be eating cheese that went bad, damaging their minds to the degree that they actually believe they have the power to think for themselves.

If only we could teach them that their "nobility" is nothing compared to the beneficence of the Fatherland.

"... but let's just see how many left-wing nut groups get priority over traditional values and ideals at the ACLU. It's not even close."

Again, right on point. They should be supporting the traditional values of burning heretics, policing bedrooms, and sending nonconformists off to the gulag. What the hell is with these people, supporting left-wing crap like individual freedom?!?

"Hmm.. Seems to me that sometimes religion helped form the basis of our country's values and beliefs. To not see this is to totally delude yourself of what real life was like here 100 or more years ago. Tearing that stuff down doesn't make it right - it puts us in the same category as the Taliban blowing up statues in the desert. Real smart stuff."

They are, truly, deluded. If there were any respect for the basis of our country's values, we'd get a few slaves apiece and could all prosper. Needless to say, the slaves would know their place unlike the ACLU-abetted insolents of today.

"... there are exceptions to freedom of speech (the old yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theatre example comes to mind)."

Yes, and I find it sad that people don't support many of the exceptions necessary for our Homeland Leaders to protect us. There should be no freedom of speech when it's not absolutely necessary for the good of the King, in my humble opinion.

"Yeah, it makes ya feel good doesn't it? Let's tear down all the crosses at Arlington too! THE PEOPLE already expressed the viewpoint, that's why these things are there in the first place! You get ONE GUY who doesn't like it, and everyone else suffers. That makes sense... Not."

I just know it. Why, just the other day, I went down to the local courthouse and erected a 5-foot statue of Jesus Christ our savior the Lord. Anyway, when I was done, they tried to take it down! I yelled at them, because I had already put it up and I thought it was only the proper thing, to have Jesus overseeing justice. What right do they have to make me suffer like that?

"No, it's about erasing 250+ years of history because it happen to offend someone. Why don't we start aiming artillary at statues now and get it over with?"

To be honest, I think we should hold jury trials (if we hold them at all, which really isn't necessary) in prehistoric archeological sites, to be more true to our heritage. Also, if anyone speaks ill of the local gods, we throw him over the cliff and leave his carcass for the saber-toothed tigers.

"When even Einstein admits that there's an underlying 'glue' to the universe, how can it be bad to at least acknoledge that there might be more to our universe than particles and atoms? Oh.. But we can teach the kids about the possibilities of alien life?! What's the difference there?"

I never understood why my son's high-school class taught him that purple five-legged aliens lived on Pluto. Apparently they've also been telling the students that Earth was created by extra-terrestrial Satanists. All because of the ACLU!

"Bullshit. They defend your rights if it will:
1) Help further their cause through advertising the most extreme cases."

Yep, always furthering their cause to further their

Re:ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Society has an interest in having a drivers license photo accurately picture the individual that overrides religious freedom.

As far as I can tell the point of a driver's license is to make it possible to not treat traffic crimes as severely as other crimes. Without driver's licenses when you got pulled over for speeding they would have to take you down to the county jail for a mug shot and finger printing but with driver's licenses they just record who you are and require that you eventually pay them some money.

Then again maybe we should have licenses for everything. If you want to buy alcohol then you need an alcohol consumption license that proves you are old enough to drink alcohol and that you've had the proper training. And if you want to walk down the street you need a license to prove that you are authorized to walk on that street and that you don't have any restraining orders against you for anyone who lives on that street.

Religious freedom may not be that important but don't assume that government bureaucracy is all that important just because the government tells you that it's for your protection.

Re:ACLU

[wytcld]

Before you argue that no societal interest overrides religious freedom, please note that all of the following "crimes" have tried to use the religious freedom defense:

        * Prostitution
        * Possession and distribution of drugs

Right. Those are not legitimately crimes. The child abuse stuff you cite is. But someday the ineffective prohibitions against prostitution and certain intoxicants will be seen as what they are: intrusions of government on the inalienable rights of individuals in a society too scared of the power of real freedom to let it be enjoyed. And that power, for some of us, is the very core of true religion. When courts don't recognize that, too bad for the courts.

Personally, I would never, sitting on a jury, convict anyone of these false crimes, nor will I ever respect anyone who has.

where are mod point when I need them

[geekoid]

so I can mod this ignorrant peron -1.

You present more straw men then rush limbaugh.

No you don't get it. But you'll be happy to let people who don't agree with be subjecated to religous opression.

Fucktwitard

Straw men?

[Chordonblue]

What the hell are you yapping about again? Clearly you either:

a) Didn't fully read my posts for arguable examples
b) Hate the truth of the situation and can't admit you're wrong

Either way, history, temperance of spirit, and tolerance mean nothing to your type. Better the oppression of the minority and lawyers apparently. Are you really that dedicated to your 'worldview'?

Better get those flame throwers ready - you've got a lot of cemateries and churches to burn down - churches of course located on land that should be cleared for the public domain, right? The twisted logic and court system is going to ruin our culture, destroy our way of life and kill us all and YOUR 'religion', your 'belief' will be responsible for it. All for the tyranny of the minority.

Congratulations for making the world suck just that much more...

Soma

[rookkey]

George Orwell called it "soma."

No, Aldous Huxley called it "soma."

Re:Soma

[quarkscat]

Okay, I stand corrected. Aldous Huxley's "soma" and George Orwell's "1984". But isn't it funny that both of these authors have managed to successfully predict the future of civilization based upon the baser instincts of mankind?

So here's a question to twist your noodle -- did these authors predict the unlikely future that is,
or were the works of these men used as a roadmap by our evil would-be overlords?

Storm the castle

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think if a bunch of people stormed the whitehouse they'd open fire on them and blow them all away just like china would?

Institute for Justice

[phutureboy]

I still say the Institute for Justice is way cooler than the ACLU...

Nitpicking = not much of an argument...

[Chordonblue]

"Really? I don't remember God being mentioned in the Constitution at all, let alone Jesus..."

And why would you expect to? I wouldn't find a text on atheism in my Mazda's repair manual either. What's your point? And you know damn well that these individuals mentioned religion and faith plenty in other writings. Stop trying to pretend these men wholly rejected God. Benajmin Franklin rejected the idea of piety (and with good reason) but that certainly didn't make him an atheist or even an agnostic.

"It is one thing to respect religious belief. It is another for the government to promote one, even the one dominant among its citizens, above others."

Freedom FROM religion shouldn't mean elimination of religion or religious expression. There is a subtle difference which is being currently exploited by supposedly learned men.

There are no crosses at Arlington.

Uhmmm.. Yeah there are - on about 90% of the headstones too. The government cares for those headstones. I suppose you'd have to exchange your flamethrower for a chisel but the argument holds. Let's not forget about Mt. Soledad in California and the fight to tear down that cross also. Why does that sort of thing bother you guys so much? Is this truly the 'open-mindedness' liberals are known for?

And you didn't bother to address the public domain issue. Churches don't generate tax revenue, you know. How long will it be before these are shut down too? All that government money being 'wasted' on religion...

"Maybe because there is no basis or evidence for your assertion that there is more to the universe than "particles and atoms." When you can provide evidence for such, science will embrace it as being a more correct worldview than the one it holds now. Until then, it is baseless superstition. And why teach about the possibility of alien life? Because it is a reasonable extrapolation from our own observation. We have one data point, the Earth, and it is reasonable to speculate about other, similar places. If you have similar data about a different plane of existence, I'd love to hear about it."

Sure, easy. Tell me again how you get something out of nothing. Explain to me what time really is. Show me how it all started. The truth is, you can't. And yet, according to the scientifically known rules of the universe stuff 'appears' out of nowhere in the form of the Big Bang. Infinate time backward is just as hard to grasp as forward. So some of us have faith that there must be something greater than ourselves and that there is an order to the universe - just as many people believe that there are aliens out there. We don't have enough facts to really KNOW, but we extrapolate in the same ways.

"You are also misrepresenting Einstein's views. If you are talking about his famous "God does not play dice" comment, he was talking about quantum mechanics, not God. He also said:

        My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

No, there are other quotes that indicate that he was at the least respectful of those who believed in God. "My sense of God is my sense of wonder." and "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." are a few quotes that come to mind.

Re:Nitpicking = not much of an argument...

[meringuoid]

And yet, according to the scientifically known rules of the universe stuff 'appears' out of nowhere in the form of the Big Bang.

Pardon me? Who told you that? You seem to have the impression that at some time t there is nothing, and that at some later time t + delta there is something, and that something has therefore appeared out of nothing, and that this is called the Big Bang.

That's not what I've read. As I understand it, at all times t there is the entire constant mass-energy of the Universe, at varying net density and temperature, approaching infinite density and temperature as t tends towards zero (expanding universe, y'see).

Speculation about t 90N, or of temperatures 273.24 C. Even if the geometry of spacetime is such that t 0 is mathematically meaningful, it's far from certain that such a domain is physically meaningful. All known laws of physics run into serious difficulties at very small t, as general relativity and quantum mechanics collide. Even if 'before the Big Bang' exists geometrically, I do not think it at all certain that it is linked causally to the universe we know: that assumes that causality as we know it still holds in that domain, and I don't think we can reasonably claim that in the absence of a working theory of quantum gravity.

Or so you think

[bluGill]

I have analyzed your conversions in depth. While your AES encryption itself is fine, your conversations are not secure.

Your random number generator used to choose keys has serious problems, meaning that the total keyspace a brute force attack needs to search is less than 2^8.

In most conversations you have forgotten to discard the early bits, which further leaks information about the key used. This is an ongoing problem that you have not made progress in correcting.

Your key exchange algorithm is flawed. More than once I was able to choose the key that you would use, and with a man in the middle attack get the conversation to use it.

I normally wouldn't tell you this, but it turns out nobody with money is interested in your conversations. I'm hoping that publishing my research can get me some credits are a local university so the effort isn't completely wasted.

BTW, you know that cheerleader who you have a crush on? The one you think has slept with the football team. She is still a virgin (the only cheerleader who is). Don't waste your time on her though, she is saving herself for a multimillionaire who is looking for a trophy wife (she knows of one who wants a virgin on the wedding night, so she won't ruin her chances)

The ACLU is a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I asked the ACLU for help when a self-serving prosecutor was misusing the law to get personal notoriety, and I was the patsy in the hot seat, and I can assure you that the ACLU "cherry picks" cases it can use to its political advantage, rather than cases which may have true legal merit. All too often, the ACLU could care less.

Also, anyone who believes that the ACLU will have any effect on what sort of surveillance is conducted by the US government
is a naive fool.

No, seriously...

[Chmcginn]

No, I don't mind allowing people with that kind of mentality to inflict an irretrievable (sp?) punishment. there are certainly more than adequate appeals processes for those so duly sentenced...

So why bother with the original trial at all? If your so comfortable with the punish-somebody-please-anybody crowd, why not just let the cops jail people immediately, and then you have to appeal to get out?

The way I read it the peoples arms ARE the means..

[wilec]

Right, the way I read it the peoples arms ARE the means with which they may regulate the militia. This was well observed by our beloved ole geek genius of a slut puppy Ben as:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin

I for one do not keep firearms simply to kill defenseless furry animals, though if I get hungry enough I might take it back up :). I keep firearms to protect myself and those I care for from harm.

American readers and their "leaders" should remember this passage ......

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

I am disgusted by the attitude of so many who trash the ACLU for defending the rights of others with whom they happen to disagree. A quote from my favorite student of science, philosohper, farmer, architect and for dang sure a horn dog of note kinda sums it up.

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." Thomas Jefferson

As for those who say just let them have it, who cares , its such a little thing, give it to them and maybe they will go away and leave us alone, anyway we have to do it or (insert FUD on boogeyman/scapegoat du'jour). Well my view is supported best by another quote from that ole slut puppy Ben again and my favorite quote from my favorite ole drunk from one of my ancestral homes across the pond.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Winston Churchill

Kinda funny don't you think that the ideals presented by some of the greatest minds, ideals that are the basis for our existence as a people are so at odds with the current world view of our leaders? Really amazing just how on topic they still are today isn't it? Isn't it scarey that by posting this type of opinion, as I do fairly often :), there is little doubt that I am on a few lists of possibly dangerous malcontents? Heck think maybe that by simply replying to my rants you could make it on a list yourself? Well heres another rather on topic observation from our buddy Ben.

"We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin

Hope I got some of ya thinking.

Matthew

http://hypersynergy.com/

OT: your sig

[plover]

I recommend a new moderation category: +1 Incite-ful.

That'd be pretty useless around here. Do you know how many people can't tell the difference between incite and insight, let alone site, sight, and cite?

On the effectiveness of insurgency...

[maillemaker]

As has already been pointed out, insurgencies can be quite effective.

I believe insurgencies here in the United States could also be effective. In fact, in some ways insurgencies here might be even MORE effective than insurgencies in Iraq.

Unless Americans are killed, whenever a bomb goes off in Iraq (or anywhere else in the world) most people here in the US just yawn. No one cares. There is no real impact here.

But an insurgency here, even if militarily completely ineffective, would have /devestating/ economic consequences. Remember the DC snipers? Two nuts operating out of the back of a car, shooting out of a hole cut in the back of the trunk. I forget the exact numbers, but I believe the economic impact from just those two lunatics alone was in the millions - people quit going out and shopping! And that wasn't even these guys primary objective!

An insurgency here, no matter what the PR spin the government was able to put on it, would have huge economic consequences, and, consequently, hugely hit the tax base. Imagine the economic impact if, say, Atlanta turned into an Iraq. The loss of such tax revenue would get far, far more attention than a thousand successful military strikes.

Steve