Senate Committee Votes to Authorize Warrentless Wiretapping

LividBlivet writes, "The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that not only authorizes, but extends, US warrentless wiretapping. No accountability. No oversight. No definition of 'terrorist.' No record of who voted for what. Great way to devolve a democratic republic into a fascist theocracy. Me worried? Yea." Here is the text of SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (PDF). Confusingly, the committee also voted out two other bills, one of which "all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal," according to Wired.

Comments

Vote!

[BWJones]

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. The thing that gets me is that I cannot see an endgame to the Neocon strategy as it is based on a continued fear and principals of isolationism. What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

Your first chance, should you disagree with these strategies (rights erosion, elimination of civil liberties, etc...etc...etc...) is to exercise your Constitutionally given rights (for now) and vote this November for a change. Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad. Make these people responsible for what they say and do by linking their jobs to their implemented law and take back your country.

Re:Vote!

[Franio]

And what do we do when "individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad" are not on the ballot?

Re:Vote!

[TripMaster Monkey]

Or, what do we do when they are on the ballot, and the people vote for them, but the official election results once again differ wildly from exit poll results, as they hve in every election since 2000?

Exit polls were the gold standard of election forcasting...until 2000. Funny...that's when all the trouble started, isn't it?

Re:Vote!

[HiroProtagonist]

Run for office.

Re:Vote!

[tgd]

I don't know who is more dangerous

When is the last time you were directly threatened by a "islamofacist"?

Yup, me neither.

Gues we know the answer to that question, then.

Re:Vote!

[Epeeist]

> Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our your Constitutional rights and freedoms

Close but not quite, you are missing a "y". Replace "our" by your.

To quote from one of my favourite books (The Man who was Thursday) "The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly. The rich have always objected to being governed at all".

Re:Vote!

[hummdinger02]

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Wow what a dramatization! You do not know who is more dangerous? I do not agree with our governments move but I also think the dramatic reaction does not further the useful debate. It just serves as polarizing rhetoric.

But I COMPLETELY AGREE with your solution!!!

Re:Vote!

[RandLS]

Definitely a bit knee jerk, but the solution is dead on. For those concerned enough to do a little research, you may want to check out the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org) - they fit the bill for civil liberties advocates pretty handily, and are on the ballot in 48 states (more than any other "third" party!).

Re:Vote!

[daigu]

What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

Easy question to answer. More money and more power.

Make these people responsible for what they say and do...

The problem with American-style "democracy" is that it is all too easy to control the tyranny of the majority. It is easy to move from tyranny of the majority to simply tyranny. The major problem is not the people in power - they simply exploited the flaws in the system to their advantage. The major problem is that the system can be gamed by profiling voters, media control (did you see that extended ad by the president that he did from the Oval Office a few days ago?) and so forth.

The sad fact is that despite this administration's incompetence on everything from Iraq to Katrina, it is still going to be a tight race. If the Democrats happen to take back a piece of Congress, they might become a minor thorn - but these guys will never see the jail terms they so richly deserve. Further, they have set the precedent where this will happen again a few presidents from now - and it will likely be even worse.

So, let's not pretend that voting this November is anything major shall we? Yes, people should vote and we should do what we can to deal with the immediate problem - but it does not solve the bigger issue.

Re:Vote!

[argStyopa]

I plan to vote this November.
I am an American who (working for a foreign company) makes FREQUENT calls, faxes, and emails outside the US. Occasionally to people that might be in, or just returned from, companies the US isn't terribly happy with.

I will be voting FOR the people that are writing/passing this legislation, because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.

I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.

No, I don't believe the sky is falling, EITHER.

This is like the FUD equivalent of Amway. Amway salespeople tell you about the thousands of people who have made million$, but they're still apparently pounding on your door to try to make a buck themselves.
The Left tells you about how the Constitution is in tatters, how the US has become a fascist state (usually a CHRISTIAN FASCIST state, I guess that's "really" bad), and how we're all oppressed...yet they continue to preach their FUD without being picked up and shipped (without trial, of course) to one of those CIA facilities themselves. Damn, that might be too bad a use for all those unmarked black helicopters if they're not too busy. They need to get working, then.

Re:Vote!

[jtharpla]

Actually, technically we're not at war. The President publicly declared the end of the war in Iraq like 3 years ago. And Congress never voted him new authority to be at war. So while there's cleary still conflict, the President does not have the authority, as his war powers ended 100 days after he declared an end to hostilities. The fact that this sticky point has been missed by most people shows that we have already come to accept the rewiting of the past to fit the present, just as Orwell feared. Yes, this truly is the Long War--the end of which will always be conviently adjusted to fit those in power.

Re:Vote!

[GogglesPisano]

> What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

To quote Orwell's 1984:

'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'

Re:Vote!

[muellerr1]

What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

An American empire headed by a 'president' with near-absolute power. They've never hidden the fact that that's all they've ever wanted. Check out their Project for a New American Century mission statement. Also, pay particular attention to who signed that document.

Re:Vote!

[BWJones]

I realize that you are in the UK, but you need to realize that we are all in this game together. The reality is that we are headed towards more global integration and if we do not work together, there is going to be more radical fundamentalism grown out of protectionism and isolationist strategies as people become disenfranchised and more able to rule local and uneducated individuals.

There is truth to your quote, but do not let that make you cynical as there are lots of things that you can do from the UK to involve yourself in elections in foreign countries that will have a say in your life almost as much as mine.

Re:Vote!

[Cheeze]

Can we declare war against an intangible target?

War on Terror is hardly a war in the definition of the word. War on Drugs is the same way.

Who and what are we at war with right now?

Afghanistan? Didn't we win and pull most of our troops to Iraq?
Iraq? I thought Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"
Terror? Terror comes in all forms, including saying things like "if we pull out of Iraq, we will be attacked again."

Re:Vote!

[Rhett's Dad]

Absolutely, vote vote vote! I'm beginning to think that the best community strategy going forward is to vote out all incumbents no matter who is running against them. Could it get worse, even if like-minded idiots get voted in? The newcomers would likely trip over themselves trying to implement the kinds of things that are being quietly implemented now by the "pros". I hear entirely too many people around me standing up for "our country was based on Christianity, so why not put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse?" Maybe that crowd can get popular support for such a thing, given a voter majority existing of Christians. But that is democracy by brute force, not by legitimacy. I think you'll enjoy being on the receiving end of such religion-in-government when Christians are NOT the majority voters. Has everyone forgotten that short-lived TV commercial where the Christians are having a hidden service in someone's basement, because it presumably wasn't safe to practice it? Further, how far away are we from seeing GW proclaim that the US "will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire", for the "safety" of everyone?

Re:Vote!

[smilindog2000]

Yes, vote!

For the first time ever, I intend to push that idiotic "Democrat" vote tab. There are lots of good Republicans I support, but their party has been subverted.

The islamofascists and neocons need eachother. The islamofascists proper simply because of neocon actions, and vise-versa. There is no quicker way to power than to find an enemy of your culture and challenge it to a fight to the death.

Re:Vote!

[deKernel]

What you really need to to is actually read the Constitution and try to understand just what powers the founding fathers granted the President. He has the power to collection information on the enemy during the time of war. Actually if he wasing trying, he could be found guilty of dereliction of duty.

Re:Vote!

[LaughingCoder]

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms

... or the "New World Order Looney Left" who want to subjugate the U.S. interests to international bodies like the U.N. That also gives away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. Really, it's scary whichever way you turn.

Re:Vote!

[deKernel]

How do you justify the term neocons? In the cases of both Afganistan and Iraq, they now have democratically based government. How is that bad? I just don't get it. There governments might not be perfect, but they sure as heck are better than before.

I just love it when people here in the US rip on our chief export: freedom.

Re:Vote!

[gr8_phk]

The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit, and guess what we are at war. Our enemy has said that they are at war with us.

There are a couple problems with that. 1) Only congress can declare war - and hence enable the wartime powers of the president (see that constitution thing). Foreign governments (or anyone else) can not invoke an escalation of the presidents power - duh. 2) Even if I concede that we are at war, who is the enemy? How do we decide when it's over? A war on "terrorism" is not well defined - you can always say there may be someone plotting something that falls under that term. We have not had a "terrorist" atrack on the US in 5 years. Where is this war you speak of? Iraq? That's "peace keeping", not war any more.

Yes, the modern world has problems that were not anticipated when the constitution was written. However, the behavior of the current administration IS the type of thing the constitution was designed to protect us from, and those protections are getting thrown out. OK, as far as I know, bush is not an evil dictator and probably has good intentions. But how do we know the next guy won't be? Or the one after that? What about behind the scenes abuse of a system challenged only in "secret" courts? WTF? New laws enacted without record of who voted for them? WTF? Now that I think of it, your post must just be an attempt to stir the pot. I guess that makes me a sucker for responding.

Re:Vote!

[IAmTheDave]

When is the last time you were directly threatened by a "islamofacist"?

Um... September 11, 2006. Unless you don't consider that a direct threat to ME, although having been in NYC on THE 9/11, even without a patriotic nod towards "they attacked all of America", I was directly effected by the destruction of the WTCs.

And being that 9/11/2001 actually happened, the threats of 9/11/2006 shouldn't be taken so lightly.

That said, I'm appalled by the very foundations of this bill, and Congress's relative uselessness in the past 6 years to stand up to an administration that feels it is granted dictatorship privledges by 9/11 - which if you believe certain people was probably either organized or at least ignored by them to being with.

But yeah, al-q is real, and so were the London, India, USS Cole (sp?), etc. bombings - so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid.

Re:Vote!

[NokX]

don't call al qaeda and you won't have to worry about it.

and you don't know who is more dangerous... people who are cutting the throats, suicide bombing innocent people, flying planes into our buildings - or people tapping the phones of people talking to al qaeda.

you actually aren't sure? wow...

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I am too lazy to make an account since I have no reason to post on any of the usual topics. But, I agree with this man. I think I'd rather the government to collect any conversations done by me and go "Oh ok this one has no terrorist talk in it, delete...". Which they still legally have to do by the way, the law doesn't change the fact they are not allowed storing information which is not related to terrorism and what they are looking for. Anyways, someone said that they are not directly threatened by terrorists, no you're not, everyone is, and guess what? You aren't threatened by the government either, if you feel you are being threatened then you should feel everyone is, just like the other group you don't know which you are more afraid of. The only problem is, one is trying to kill us (terrorists for you cynical people who would think otherwise) and one is trying to keep us from being killed by finding out who is going to be doing the killing.

Re:Vote!

[The AtomicPunk]

I wasn't aware exit polls showed Libertarians winning ...

Surely you aren't so blind as to think this is a republicrat vs. demopublican issue. They both approved the war, they both approved the patriot act. There's no real dissent, except for a handful of folks -- like Ron Paul (Libertarian in Republican clothing)

As long as YOU keep voting for either one of the two halves of the dominant party, we're all screwed.

The "football team" voters that root for "their" team regardless of what they stand for, and rationalize everything their team does, are the real cause of all our problems.

Re:Vote!

[BWJones]

I plan to vote this November.

Thank you. It is your right.

...because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.

If you are not willing to do what is *right*, then you have already lost any moral high ground. There are times that one needs to stand up for what is good and reject efforts to take from others what we have written into our governing documents. Conflicts can be resolved and yes, sometimes fought much more effectively with creativity, thought and carefully planned action. However, with a culture of doing what we are told and not questioning or thinking, we appear to be willing to cede power to those who appease us with thoughts of fear and shiny things.

I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.

This is a fundamental problem. What happens when you get caught up in this because one of your co-workers does something unacceptable to whomever might be in power. The thing to realize is that this government as it currently stands, may represent you and your beliefs, but individuals change and governments slowly morph and the constituency changes (and the US is changing). So, if you are willing to give your government so much power, what happens in 50 years when they do not represent you or your beliefs? Think down the road just a little more...

No, I don't believe the sky is falling, EITHER.

While the sky is not falling, the US is only a couple hundred years old. There have been stable governments in history that have persisted for much longer than we have been around because of principals of government. When their principals changed or altered beyond a critical tipping point, those governments failed.

Re:Vote!

[frogstar_robot]

Wars generally had a beginning, middle, and end when the Constitution was drafted. At the time, nations declared war on each other rather than abstractions. Since terrorism is a tactic there won't ever be a victory against "The Terrorists". Any of our enemies can and will resort to terrorism from time to time. This causes the continual state of emergency that George Orwell warned us about. Now we are always at war and war always means a blank check for the President. Yes, the president has a duty to protect the nation from external threat. He also swore twice to "Defend and Protect the Constitution". The Constitution doesn't say anything about being used as Presidential toliet paper in a perpetual wartime.

Re:Vote!

[Secrity]

Oh, I see that you are British.

Add ", including Blair," after "Necons", leave the "our", and delete "Constitutional ".

It should then read: "Neocons, including Blair, who are willing and able to give away all of our rights and freedoms.

Re:Vote!

[Eccles]

Do you like the ~$1250 we've paid so far per-person for the war in Iraq? As a part of a family of four, I know I'd like my five grand back.

Re:Vote!

[smilindog2000]

We exported freedom during Bush Seniors term, and continued it through Clinton's term. The Berlin Wall fell during Bush Senior, and we ended the Cold War. Bloodless revolutions for freedom and democracy happened throughout the world.

This happened not because we rattled our sabers and conquered the oppressors. It happened because we made a shining example of what democracy can be, and because we convinced the world of our sincerity for a united world in peace. We earned the world's respect, and that made all the difference.

Bush Junior has destroyed all that. Now the world arms itself to defend against us. We are no longer trusted. We no longer exemplify freedom, democracy, and human rights. Hopefully the EU can continue the cause while we figure out how to fix our broken democracy.

There is exactly one person in Washington who represents your district in the House of Representatives. If he's a Democrat, his vote does not count. If he's a Republican, his vote will be whatever Bush wants, so again, his vote does not count. Is this a working democracy?

Re:Vote!

[muellerr1]

I don't nececssarily disagree with you. However, it doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution or war powers. The Project for a New American Century wrote their statement of principles in 1997, way before 9/11/2001. They wanted an American Empire, Pax Americana, and that means unopposed military might. Since they drafted that document, numerous memos and addenda by neocons have been refining that idea to include a unitary executive. They'd be trying to create an American Empire with a powerful president whether we were in a state or war or not. I happen to think that 9/11 fell into their laps as the perfect opportunity to create such an empire, though there are plenty of tinfoil hat-wearing people out there who think it was engineered for that purpose.

They're not really interested in the Constitution: they are talking about policy. There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents global domination by America, and certain readings of the Constitution can be construed to mean that the executive should be more equal than the judiciary or the legislative branches. Just ask John Yoo.

Re:Vote!

[satcomdaddy1]

The President NEVER "declared" an "end" to the "war". He stood on that ship and declared an end to our offensive role in the war. Despite the "mission accomplished" banner in the background (which is probably wallpaper on a lot of the computers being used to read this right now [it's a by-product of getting your news from Steven Colbert, I guess]). Are we still on the offensive in Iraq? No. To use what would be outdated terms, you could call it an end to a battle in a larger war. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that we are not fighting a uniformed army, people seem to think that we are just there to rape and pillage these people. You forget that there are people who think that they are instructed by their god to kill those who are not like them. I seem to remember that there was a time in this country that there was a group of people who thought that people who were 'different' were 'lesser'. Rightfully, we put an end to that. Do you think that all people deserve to be treated as equals, or should those oppressed in Iraq be treated the way we used to treat Indians, Blacks and women in this country? Should they be the European Jews of the 30's? Do we not have a responsibility to the world to ensure people are treated equitably?

How low do you think this will be modded?
That Kool-Aid sure looks refreshing, but the armed guards around the table make me nervous.

Re:Vote!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Feh. Bush is "exporting freedom" in exactly the way Nikita Khrushchev exported Communism.
Oh, wait. He was evil, wasn't he?

Re:Vote!

[sethg]

The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit

Bzzt! Thanks for playing.

The Congress shall have power... To declare war,... make rules concerning captures on land and water;... raise and support armies,... provide and maintain a navy;... make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;...

Even in wartime, if Congress passes a law saying that the President needs a warrant to conduct a wiretap, or saying that torturing prisoners is not allowed, or saying that every Master Sargeant in the army needs to wear a hat with a flashing blue light on top, the President has to suck it up and deal.

Re:Vote!

[Tim C]

But yeah, al-q is real, and so were the London, India, USS Cole (sp?), etc. bombings - so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid.

I've lived, studied and worked in London for 13 years now. I was on my way in to work when the bombs went off last year; I walked past police officers leading some rather shocked looking people away from (I assume) a bus. I was here when the IRA were still actively targetting the main land, I was here when some nutter was detonating nail bombs (one in a pub just round the corner from where I worked), I was here when a bus blew up outside the BBC building, etc.

I guess I must be stupid though, as I certainly don't take the threat personally. Nor do I support some of the more egregious measures that are being taken in the name of the so-called war on terror. I refuse to allow myself to be cowed by the vague threat of being involved in an attack. I have far, far more chance of being killed crossing the road than I do of being blown up.

Sure, the threat is real, and should be taken seriously. However, it seems to me that a lot of the things that are being done are knee-jerk overreactions that we'll be lucky not to regret in the future. I worry about the sort of world my daughter is going to end up living in, as much for the direction my country seems to be heading in as for the threat of terrorism.

Re:Vote!

[ceoyoyo]

You live in he middle east, hey? Yeah, Israel might have more to fear from militant islam than the US.

Re:Vote!

[OverlordQ]

The sad fact is that despite this administration's incompetence on everything from Iraq to Katrina, it is still going to be a tight race.

Woah woah woah. Sure I'll let you blame Iraq on the Administration, but Katrina lies solely on the feet of Nagin, about the most worthless mayor that side of the mississippi.

Re:Vote!

[fotbr]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I refuse to talk to exit poll people. My vote is my own damned business. And I've seen many, many people tell the exit pollers to go jump off a cliff (or other not-so-polite words to that effect).

Maybe I just never understood why, when the exit polls said one thing, and the actual counted results show something else, it MUST be the counted results that were wrong, and not the exit polls that had incomplete data in the first place.

That said, I'm convinced there were shennanigans from both sides in 2000 and 2004 -- but taking exit polls as fact is fundamentally flawed.

Re:Vote!

[Gulthek]

Mathematically infeasible. Socially infeasible. Logically tenuous.

Your position seems based on ideals rather than rationality.

The "football team" voters that root for "their" team regardless of what they stand for, and rationalize everything their team does, are the real cause of all our problems.

Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available, choose to throw their votes away and allow the conservative side to gain a numeric advantage are the real cause of all our (political) problems.

Note: Neo-Con takeover of the republican party. Salient point: existing parties can be almost completely reformed to new goals and ideals. Conclusion: possible to work within the system to achieve a goal.

Re:Vote!

[Narcissus]

This is a fundamental problem. What happens when you get caught up in this because one of your co-workers does something unacceptable to whomever might be in power. The thing to realize is that this government as it currently stands, may represent you and your beliefs, but individuals change and governments slowly morph and the constituency changes (and the US is changing). So, if you are willing to give your government so much power, what happens in 50 years when they do not represent you or your beliefs? Think down the road just a little more...

The thing that scares me even more is the "frailty" of people. That guy working for the DHS that was found to be a paedophile. Boy am I glad that he may have had access to untold files and phone calls of all the children out there. I hate to be the one to yell "think of the children" but this is something that I believe needs to be said.

The one thing that I keep thinking of is my daughter growing up and breaking the heart (or catching the eye) of some freak who has access to this kind of information. Then I'm the one that'll get my arse kicked for shooting the bastard, no doubt.

Prove to us that the files will only be used for 'good', by people that have been proven to be 'good'. Unfortunately, that's not possible, so I just hope and pray that the children of all of these "I have nothing to hide" people never end up being followed by some freak that knows everything about them...

Re:Vote!

[kyouteki]

The question is, though, what is an "islamofacist"? The contraction is nonsense, facism and islamic theocracy are so opposite each other, I don't know how the term even came into the vernacular...except as a neat-sounding marketing term used by the government.

Re:Vote!

[EllisDees]

The only way to keep the government from becoming a police state is to never give it the power to do so in the first place. You have to be insane to give this much authority over your life to the government. Will you trust it so much when Hillary is in control?

You are a coward. You can't deal with the fact that freedom means that danger is sometimes unavoidable.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

And who determines what a terrorist is? I know I don't want to be thrown in jail for making anti- remarks. Who determines the line between dissent and conspiring to commit terrorist acts. Who determines what a terrorist act is? It seems cut and dry. Are they discussing planting a bomb or planting a tree on Arbor day? Pretty easy to determine whose the terrorist there, huh? Throw in the fact that nobody discusses planting a bomb on the phone/internet in plain speak and instead use code to get the point accross, then planting a tree on Arbor day can be considered terrorist jargon. Sure you want the government to stop your flight from being blown out of the air... but how long until what you're doing becomes a terrorist act. Probably not tomorrow, but the day will come.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its quite simple how that happened, tens of thousands of votes were trashed for various reasons, voting machines didn't work properly in poorer precincts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/39 56129.stm#

This was reported on the BBC and widely in Europe, strangely enough not in the U.S.:

Re:Vote!

[CreatureComfort]

I always wonder when one of Bush's apologists trots out this arguement, just how far are you willing to take it?

Your statement, "The President is tasked in times of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit," is a tremendously broad interpretation of the actual wording of the Constitution. Before we get into those facts however, taking you at your word, since obviously to Mr. Bush he is the only person with the ability and vision to press this "war" to a conclusion, would you support his suspending free elections until the conflict is over? After all, one of those cowardly, treasonous Democrats might win a popular election, and obviously that would bad for the country. Why letting that happen, when Bush could stop it, might even be treasonous in itself by your, and his, arguement. Are you willing to take it that far?

Now to burst your tiny little neocon bubble (inflated with the blustering breath of Limbaugh and Hannity), the Constitution, Article II only grants and requires the Exective to perform the following actions related to this discussion. Section 1 - "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" Also, Section 2 - "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" Now, where in those words do you see the authorization for the President to "do as he/she sees fit"? BTW, since you are obviously so sincere in your respect for the Constitution, Article II - Section 8 makes it very clear that only Congress can declare war, to enable the Executive to exercise any extraordinary powers possibly granted in any other portion of the laws of this country. Congress has not done so, despite the rhetoric of the far right, and therefor your entire arguement about this being legal for the President is absurd.

It's called checks and balances. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Re:Vote!

[Damastus the WizLiz]

Running for office is actualy an option. If there were more candidates who took the platform of representing the younger voters who was actualy one of the younger voters they might have a chance of actualy drawing them out to vote. With the proper support and campaing advertising tapping into that demographic could wield powerful results.

Re:Vote!

[Troed]

In the cases of both Afganistan and Iraq, they now have democratically based government

No, not really. Seriously - both Afghanistan and Iraq are worse off today than they were before the US invasion/occupation. You will however need to switch away from Fox News to learn that truth.

Latest from Afghanistan: The "decency police" is making a comeback. Yes, the one that whipped women on the street who weren't wearing a burka, and that measured the length of men's beards.

Warning, link is in Swedish: http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789 ,887350,00.html

The most likely outcome in Iraq now is that it won't survive as a country. The Kurds will get the north, the east will become a part of Iran (which is less of a dictatorship than the US favourite countries of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia btw) and the south might try to do something with the two previously mentioned states (due to the sunni/shia divide).

Re:Vote!

[HotBlackDessiato]

exercise your Constitutionally given rights (for now) and vote this November for a change

Deibold. Voting these days is pretend.

Re:Vote!

[deKernel]

Okay, you want to bring up Katrian, then it is now on the table.

For the last 30+ years, Democrats have been in charge and running the city.

Where did all the money go to add to the levy system? Oh thats right, the money was spent on other items to beatify the city. Don't believe me, go research it.

Where was the plan to evacuate the city? Oh thats right, there wasn't one. I guess hurricanes are a new occurance since the Bush administration.

Where was the state government which controls the National Guard? Oh thats right, the governer (a Democrat) was sitting on her hands hoping for the best and telling FEMA initially that all is well before recanting and saying that the city is in complete crisis.

Where was the truthful reporting of the left-leaning press? Like the tens-of-thousands that dies...oh wait not. The hundreds that died at the Superdome....oh wait.

Re:Vote!

[deKernel]

For as much as I hate the surveillance program, you really need to be aware of the details. A few of them being tha the program needs to renewed every year which means that it can be dropped when the war is over and that it is a foreign-based surveillance program.

Re:Vote!

[hal2814]

"Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available, choose to throw their votes away and allow the conservative side to gain a numeric advantage are the real cause of all our (political) problems."

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

The problem with choosing the "best" fit is that neither may do a single thing to represent you as a voter. There may be no "best" candidate. Personally, I vote third party as a last resort. By the time I get to that point, either a third party candidate gets my vote or nobody does.

Re:Vote!

[demigod]

...so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid.

Take the threat seriously by all means, but keep it in proportion. I heard the other day that you are more likely to kill yourself than be killed by a terrorist.

Let's not forget other things more dangerous than terrorism, I'll just list a few.

• Heart disease
• Cancer
• Drunk drivers
• Not drunk drivers
• homicide
• AIDs
• Firearms
• ladders
• Drowning
• ...

Fear can lead to the destruction our country. Something terrorist could never accomplish.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

It almost certainly (I'm not from the US, nor have I read it) also contains a definition of the conditions required to declare a war, and thus unlock the powers granted to him in times of war. Others above have written that it requires Congress to vote on such a declaration, so it isn't the Presidents decision to go to war and thus get his hands on those juicy restriction relaxations.

The most interesting point I read above is that the declaration that hostilities were completed about two years ago mean that even if war were declared on Sept 11th or soon after, the president would have been stripped of those powers 100 days after that date anyway.

Maybe it is you who should take a wander up to the library of Congress and have a read not only of the constitution, but of some of the other supporting laws and documentation that go with it.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

I started voting quite a few years ago. I can't see where it has changed things. Honestly, voting seems more and more to be nothing but an excercise in futility, more to encourage the masses to believe they have some kind of control over the government that controls them, and therefore their lives, then anything else.

otoh, I don't have a better solution either ... things aren't so bad yet that I don't prefer the masses be apeased.

Re:Vote!

[psykocrime]

Definitely a bit knee jerk, but the solution is dead on. For those concerned enough to do a little research, you may want to check out the Libertarian Party (www.lp.org) - they fit the bill for civil liberties advocates pretty handily, and are on the ballot in 48 states (more than any other "third" party!).

Absolutely. Voting Libertarian is THE best way to fight this nonsense.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the parent poster's point is that until 2000, exit polling did jive with the actual result of the election. After 2000, it did not. Regardless of how flawed exit polls are, the dichotomy indicates a problem unless public behavior radically changed (and I don't think it has).

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Instant Runoff voting - Removes the "throwing away your vote" issue, if they'll implement it.

Re:Vote!

[saider]

Vote the incumbent out of office. Repeat as nessecary.

Re:Vote!

[Rob the Bold]

"New World Order Looney Left"

???

First time I heard the phrase "New World Order", it was out of the mouth of George H. W. Bush in 1990. He was talking about the fall of communism -- and what would come after, as I recall.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

"Fun" Fact: Public offices have minimum age requirements. For example, you can't be President unless you're at least 35 years old. Therefore, at least in terms of national politics, the scenario you describe can never happen.

Re:Vote!

[operagost]

I find the poor spelling and mindless trolling in Slashdot headlines to be the greatest threat to our freedoms.

Re:Vote!

[Rob the Bold]

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

I'd have to say that they are two sides of the same coin. Each relies on the other to exist.

As for voting . . . I wish I could vote out my senators, but neither Pat "Kooky" Roberts or Sam "Opus Dei" Brownback are up for re-election this year. As if it matters -- they often run un-opposed.

Re:Vote!

[Faylone]

Excuse me while I climb up off the floor from laughing. "when the war is over"? Your thinking is great, as long as you assume the 'war' will end, and that they'd be willing to give up power if it did.

Re:Vote!

[maop]

The Congress gave the President a stick to disarm Saddam. It was too bad he didn't care about weapons but just wanted to invade for other reasons.

Re:Vote!

[doublem]

He's not insane.

He's just a coward who would rather live in a police state than have any freedom or rights if it meant those rights might make someone want him dead.

He's more concerned for his own hide than anything else. No moral or ethical arguments will sway him. Cowards are like that.

"Live Free or Die."

Re:Vote!

[operagost]

I have three words for you: "Dewey defeats Truman".
Also, being as Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 (but won the electoral), I would expect that he would lose a lot of exit polls in such a close call.

Re:Vote!

[psykocrime]

Can we declare war against an intangible target?

No.

War on Terror is hardly a war in the definition of the word. War on Drugs is the same way.

Yes.

Who and what are we at war with right now?

Nobody and Nothing. Congress has not issued a declaration of war since WWII. The "war on terror" is just
a marketing gimmick used to keep the people afraid and give the govt. more control. It might be enlightening
to examine what Hermann Göring had to say on the subject.

Afghanistan? Didn't we win and pull most of our troops to Iraq?
Iraq? I thought Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"

We are at war with Eastasia, Eurasia is our Ally.
We are at war with Eurasia, Eastasia is our Ally.

Re:Vote!

[lawpoop]

You are confusing fascism with theocracy. The terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11th want to establish a global caliphate ruled by Islamic law, with the ultimate decisions made by Imams, or Islamic Clerics. Rule by religious figures and religous law is called 'theocracy'.

On the other hand, Mussolini said "Fascism ought to more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power." It requires that citizens give unrelenting support to the state and tough, charismatic leaders. The government oversees all aspects of life, and requires unquestioning obedience. You can read more

When Bush calls these people Islamofacists, it's as silly as calling them Islamo-communists. They have nothing to do with facism or communism. They are theocratists.

So no, you have never been threatened or injured by an Islamofacists. Misunderstanding the enemy will not aid us in our fight.

Re:Vote!

[ChristTrekker]

I almost did (for Congress). Why didn't I? Family and financial pressures. It's not cheap to run for federal office (especially as a third party, without the backing of a big party machine), nor is it easy on the family to be gone a minimum of 7 months of the year, weekend trips home notwithstanding.

Re:Vote!

[Damastus the WizLiz]

What is the minimum age for Congress? I cant find one. I am not saying there isnt one, I just cant seem to find it anywhere.

Re:Vote!

[Catbeller]

"That said, I'm convinced there were shennanigans from both sides in 2000 and 2004 -- but taking exit polls as fact is fundamentally flawed."

Statistically, no. They were never flawed. The polls match the vote results, as statisticians know what they are doing, and history backs me up. Not to mention that the elections in Chechnya were anulled and redone because the exit polls didn't match the counts -- and the polls were right, and the votes WERE manipulated in the first election as the second election (far better monitored) changed the results enormously.

The idea that exit polls are flawed came from the Republicans in 2000 on those talking head shows, trying to explain away the obvious fact that someone rigged the election results in the contested areas, as those were the only places where statistics magically stopped functioning. The networks threw up their hands at their own exit-poll operations, which were fantastically accurate until they hit Florida in 2000, and decided rather than conclude that statistic work and vote counts were fishy, that Republicans were right and statistics somehow didn't work anymore ipso facto. Bullshit, of course. But the Republicans were in power in both the government and their own network boardrooms, and butting heads with them has been shown not to be a good career move.

So now we don't have exit polls. Hooray! Now there is absolutely NO evidence if someone electronically rigs an election, no backup system as we used to have. Exit poll stats don't match outcome, stats therefore are "flawed", therefore get rid exit polls, end of problem. This is magical thinking, and works well in the US which is a magic-based nation, anyway.

Exit polls were never "flawed", as their performance has shown for over a decade. Someone has fucked us in the collective asses, and then used the outcome to remove the assfucking detectors.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

The Neocons, obviously -- all the "terrorists" can do is kill you.

(And no, I'm not being sarcastic.)

Re:Vote!

[Chop]

You forget that there are people who think that they are instructed by their god to kill those who are not like them. I seem to remember that there was a time in this country that there was a group of people who thought that people who were 'different' were 'lesser'. Rightfully, we put an end to that. Do you think that all people deserve to be treated as equals, or should those oppressed in Iraq be treated the way we used to treat Indians, Blacks and women in this country? Should they be the European Jews of the 30's? Do we not have a responsibility to the world to ensure people are treated equitably?

Gee, that sounds like the same thinking that started the Crusades. I agree everyone should be treated equally, in the USA; however I, and we as a country, have no right whatsoever to judge the lives and actions of a different society.

Chop

Re:Vote!

[LaughingCoder]

New World Order: What does this term mean? New World Order is a term used to describe an accord of the world's superpowers to rule, secure, and maintain the premise of "global peace." The concept is to bring the world under submission to one supreme government, enforce one controlled common religion and one worldwide economic system. (The EU has already instituted this with the 'Euro' currency.) In reality, it is a move toward a socialistic, controlled, and godless world.

From http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/new-world-ord er.htm

Re:Vote!

[TheQuantumShift]

"What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?"

Money.

Re:Vote!

[greenguy]

That's what I've been trying to explain to people for a long time. Terrorism is a tactic, not a government or ideology. How do you declare war on a tactic? Especially one that's not well-defined.

Basically what this amounts to is a War on ______________. Ask too many questions, and it might be your name that fills in the blank.

Re:Vote!

[(trb001)]

I'd like my money back for all the subsidies that have gone to Medicare, Medicaid, education, welfare and corporations. The government spends our money, I get no more or less angry about money spent on the war than any of the other government programs I disagree with. You're getting mad about spending on the war because you disagree with it; the same can be said for any of the programs I listed, and countless more.

If the war cost us $0, would you still be mad?

--trb

Re:Vote!

[psykocrime]

When is the last time you were directly threatened by a "islamofacist"?

Yup, me neither.

Gues we know the answer to that question, then.

Yes, exactly. Statistically speaking, you're more likely to be shot to death by a domestic police officer, than die as the result of a terrorist attack. And many times more likely to die in a car accident or as a result of a fall.

Terrorism IS a real threat, but if you look at the "big picture" it's hardly a significant one for any given individual. I expect most
people need fear being struck by lightning more than they need fear terrorism.

Re:Vote!

[.killedkenny]

One problem with that. Any Dems or Reps listed on the ballot have already sold their souls.

Don't give me any malarky about voting for the "lesser of two evils". If you do that, you are VOTING FOR EVIL, and you deserve this broken government.

Re:Vote!

[compro01]

unless he vetos said law.

Re:Vote!

[mjm1231]

This is a completely false dichotomy, especially given the way district line are redrawn to help maintain incumbent advantage. (The incumbancy reelection rate is something like 98% these days.) In many elections, the result is foregone conclusion. In those instances, I would actively encourage people to vote for whatever third party candidate they choose as a protest, even if there is no third party candidate they actually like. If it's a close race, then sure, go ahead and throw your vote away on the republicrat who is the lesser of two evils.

On the ballot I will cast this November, the Senate race is no contest, Hillary will win in a landslide. I will find a third party candidate to vote for. The congressional race in my district is actually quite close, so I will be choosing one of the major party candidates (hint: it's not the pro-Iraq war pro-wiretapping incumbent).

Re:Vote!

[Maximilio]

And being that 9/11/2001 actually happened, the threats of 9/11/2006 shouldn't be taken so lightly.

You're more at risk of dying of the flu. Get a sense of perspective.

Re:Vote!

[n00854180t]

Voting is a great option when the same neocons that are pissing on the consistution just happen to be buddy buddy with the owners of Diebold and ES&S.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

Unless you don't consider that a direct threat to ME, although having been in NYC on THE 9/11, even without a patriotic nod towards "they attacked all of America", I was directly effected by the destruction of the WTCs.

I'm sure it's not popular to say this, but the several thousand people that died in the WTC attack would have been acceptable losses, if they had died in preserving our freedom.

The real tragedy is only that they died in vain: all the Bush Administration (and indeed, Congress as well) have done is piss on their memory by destroying the very freedoms that they were (theoretically) killed for!

Re:Vote!

[morgan_greywolf]

There is practically no difference between the Islamic terrorists and the Neocons. Both have made their intentions clear -- to replace essential liberty in the U.S. with a theocracy. The only disagreement is whose religion and whose faction will the one in control.

Re:Vote!

[SylvesterTheCat]

> Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad

This is the same as saying:
Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home
+
Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights abroad

Exactly what does the second mean? Last time I checked the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not apply to non-US citizens who are outside of the United States.

A strict reading of the second would include those people.

Re:Vote!

[tom2275]

The President NEVER "declared" an "end" to the "war". He stood on that ship and declared an end to our offensive role in the war. Despite the "mission accomplished" banner in the background
While I don't recall the exact words he used, his message was clear. We are done here.

Are we still on the offensive in Iraq? No.
Oh, so we're in Iraq defending the US? Give me a break, the fact that we are there means we are on the offensive. You let me know if Iraq loads up their battleships and attacks Florida...

You forget that there are people who think that they are instructed by their god to kill those who are not like them. I seem to remember that there was a time in this country that there was a group of people who thought that people who were 'different' were 'lesser'. Rightfully, we put an end to that. Do you think that all people deserve to be treated as equals, or should those oppressed in Iraq be treated the way we used to treat Indians, Blacks and women in this country? Should they be the European Jews of the 30's? Do we not have a responsibility to the world to ensure people are treated equitably?
No, we do not have any such responsibility. What a completely arogant notion. Where did you get such an idea? Is the US the global government? NO. Not treating people equitably is oppression, and at the scale which Saddam applied was bad, but there are currently much worse situations in central Africa, so why aren't we helping them out?

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't really work because of Term Limits. We can no longer vote Bush out so our choices are; Democrate, Republican, other or don't vote. If you go with "Don't Vote" then no-one will care about your "stand". If you vote "Other" you risk the big chance of helping the people your voting against. Democrate and Republican votes just tell them to continue with the current system.

I liked the British system until Blair screwed it all up. At least it looks like he will be out soon...

Re:Vote!

[CreatureComfort]

You are so naive. Don't call Al Qaeda? Sooo...drop all my suppliers for my business that are based anywhere outside the country, or maybe even inside the country. How the heck am I supposed to know that the guy selling me left handed widgets is or is not under investigation? And if the guy I ordered flowers from for my mom might also be muslim. Maybe I ate at a middle eastern restaurant and it shows up on my credit card...

Or just suck it up and accept that anything I do or say, domestic and foreign, will be monitored and recorded for later correlation and data mining. And just hope that no Israeli company goes into competition with me.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

Fear can lead to the destruction our country. Something terrorist could never accomplish.

Um, actually that's the definition of "terrorist" -- someone who tries to scare us into destroying ourselves. The terrorists won, by the way...

Maybe more people need to listen to Yoda: "Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads... to the Dark Side!"

Re:Vote!

[Deliveranc3]

Why do people feel it's ok to give up morality in the states right now, it's ok to destroy houses and kill women and children... why? You're not in danger, there are no WMD in Iraq.

Terrorism kills fractions as much as traffic accidents but I wouldn't rationalise shooting an automotive engineers daughter in the face as "Oooppps missed".

I think the American people are waking up to the real danger, not from people trying to defend their way of life but from looking at what they've been doing too closely.

American's don't want to admit what they just did out of anger and stupidity, so sad.

Re:Vote!

[OakLEE]

Actually the errors in the 2004 exit polls are due to the fact they were horribly unrepresentative. Link. In class the other day we in fact looked at some of the polling data and the main problem with most of the skewed exit-polls is that they were polling a skewed segment of the population. The particular poll I looked at from a precinct in Virgina was 60% women, 40% men. There are also other factors, such as the one the article points out, which is that Republicans are les likely to participate in the poll. Collectively, these can really skew the polls. What happened in 2004 is no different than the "Dewey defeats Truman" election. In that election pollsters used data collected from phone surveys to predict that Dewey would defeat Truman. What they did not realize back then was that only affulent people owned phones and that affulent people were the bulk of Dewey's base, ergo skewed results and a Truman victory. Exit polls are only as good as the methodology on which they are based.

Re:Vote!

[reverseengineer]

Have you tried the Constitution? It's in Article I- Section 2 for the House, Section 3 for the Senate.

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

The problem with American-style "democracy" is that it is all too easy to control the tyranny of the majority.

That's why the Founding Fathers designed the government as a republic, with checks and balances. This includes ones that check the democratic power of the people, such as the bit about Senators being elected by state legislators, not the public (as they are now, due to the 17th Amendment (which was a mistake, and should be repealed)).

And, of course, eliminating the Electoral College (as many people mistakenly see as a "solution") would only make the problem worse.

Re:Vote!

[fuzznutz]

...the powers that you question, and they are granted to him by the Constitution. You know that nastly little document that is the frameworks for our government.

The FISA court was created in 1978 or so because Congress felt the need to stick their noses in places it doesn't belong.

Mr. Constitutional scholar needs to read the fourth amendment a little more carefully.

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.

Re:Vote!

[technococcus]

Amen to that. Viva la libertarians!

Re:Vote!

[SylvesterTheCat]

> The Berlin Wall fell during Bush Senior, and we ended the Cold War. Bloodless revolutions for freedom and democracy happened throughout the world.

Close, but not quite. The US + NATO used our economic power to militarily outspend the Soviets + Warsaw Pack for a period of time that they (the Soviets) were unable to sustain.

While there were no large set-piece army vs. army battles during the Cold War, I do not think we should call it "bloodless." US and NATO service members lost their lives during the Cold War during the performance of their duties, starting with the Berlin Airlift (79). We will probably never know how many people lost their lives in some of those contries working for those "Bloodless revolutions for freedom and democracy."

Re:Vote!

[Eccles]

If the war cost us $0, would you still be mad?

Given that's it's killed nearly as many Americans as 9/11, and wounded many times more, while stirring up further unrest and U.S. hatred, yes. As I said publicly in '03, transferring attention from Afghanistan to Iraq was a very bad idea. (Unfortunately, I'm getting an idea of how Cassandra felt.)

Medicare, Medicaid, education, and welfare, while typically inefficient, at least have for the most part helped the poorer among us. (Granted, at times they discourage people from making changes that will help them escape the poverty trap, but that could be fixed by modifying the programs, rather than eliminating them.)

Re:Vote!

[hamburger lady]

Where did all the money go to add to the levy system? Oh thats right, the money was spent on other items to beatify the city. Don't believe me, go research it.

uh...the new orleans govt' wasn't responsible for the levee system. the army corp of engineers was. of course, the corp of enginners watched as its funding for the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project was diverted to iraq.

from a 2/16/04 article in New Orleans CityBusiness:

The $750 million Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Protection project is another major Corps project, which remains about 20% incomplete due to lack of funds, said Al Naomi, project manager. That project consists of building up levees and protection for pumping stations on the east bank of the Mississippi River in Orleans, St. Bernard, St. Charles and Jefferson parishes.

The Lake Pontchartrain project is slated to receive $3.9 million in the president's 2005 budget. Naomi said about $20 million is needed.

"The longer we wait without funding, the more we sink," he said. "I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about $5 million. And we're going to have to pay them interest."

Re:Vote!

[why-is-it]

so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid.

Actually, I would say that over-reacting and ignoring probability is pretty damned stupid. For example, did you know that more people were killed by law enforcement officials than terrorists in the US over the past 10 years?

Terror attacks are not the most pressing danger you or I face on a daily basis.

Re:Vote!

[geoffspear]

That was a result of telephone polling, not exit polling, and was skewed because Dewey voters were significantly more likely to own telephones.

Unless there's a correlation between who you vote for in an election and how likely you are to participate in an exit poll, your analogy is flawed.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that there are people who think that they are instructed by their god to kill those who are not like them.

Yeah, they're called Republicans.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

I will be voting FOR the people that are writing/passing this legislation, because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.

In other words, in order to win us "good guys" have to become as insidious, merciless, and determined as the enemy.

In other words, in order to prevent our country from being taken over by theocratic terrorists, we have to turn it into a totalitarian theocracy.

You know, if that's what it takes to win, I'd rather lose!

Tell you what: how about you move to Iran (since that's exactly the kind of government you want!), and let the rest of us who actually care more about essential freedom than temporary safety (to paraphrase Ben Franklin) stay here. I mean, if you're right then we'll all be dead before long anyway, and then you can come back and do whatever you want! Sounds like a good plan, right??

Re:Vote!

[Dog-Cow]

Those in power deserve a personal and up-close version of 9/11. Mere jail time is worthless and non at all punishing.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

A few of them being tha the program needs to renewed every year which means that it can be dropped when the war is over and that it is a foreign-based surveillance program.

Fun Fact: The US Army needs to be renewed every two years, which means that it can be dropped when the war is over, just like this legislation. Gee, that certainly worked out well...!

Here's the relevant bit of the Constitution, by the way (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12):

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Re:Vote!

[Bob9113]

because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.

What are we fighting for? If we stop being Dudley Do Right, do we not stop being America? Aren't our Constitution and Bill of Rights the very things that give us the right to look down our noses at Afghanistan? If we stop being good, then the only right we have to power is the fact that we have more bombs and money. That was Saddam's reason for having power in Iraq. Our power is not an end, it is a means.

I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.

What if Hillary Clinton becomes president in 10 years or so, and she decides the right to keep and bear arms is making law enforcement too dangerous? Would you still be so comfortable with the executive having this much power?

Re:Vote!

[ScentCone]

New laws enacted without record of who voted for them?

Anyone who says this is happening is lying for politcal points. Whether or not some committee recomends a particular bit of legislation means nothing in terms of a real (and per-representative-recorded) vote on the floor of the House and the Senate. No one can hide from their record when actually voting for/against a law, and that has not happened in this case.

Further, you'll notice that even the rabid Bush-bashing types were quick to say that it's not that they don't want tools like this to be available to counter-intel/counter-terrorism types, it's that they were having fun saying Bush wasn't doing in accordance with any particular legislation. So, here's the pending legislation. If his detractors (who still say they don't want to deprive security folks of these tools) weren't lying, then they should be all for this. It will be interesting to see who was lying, as opposed to who was just being lazy for TV cameras while whining about programs that were in long (and productive) use.

Re:Vote!

[slughead]

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. The thing that gets me is that I cannot see an endgame to the Neocon strategy as it is based on a continued fear and principals of isolationism. What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

That's funny, I could've sworn the USA PATRIOT Act was approved by the senate 98 to 1, with the 98 being almost 50/50 democrats and republicans.

Didn't I hear Howard Dean give a speech on how we 'need' national ID cards?

I agree, everything is going to hell, but if you want to start fixing it, the first step is to strike the word 'neocon' from your statement, and replace it with 'republicrat'.

They make you angry, they take your liberty, and then they convince you that only half of them are at fault: that's the nature of the 2-party system.

Vote Libertarian.

Re:Vote!

[Dog-Cow]

I hope you are profiled by the CIA, pulled off the street with no notice to your relatives, and made to feel at home, CIA "you're a terrorist" style.

Re:Vote!

[daveschroeder]

How can the EU continue the cause when it has shown time and again that its not willing to do anything about the radicalism right on its collective doorstep? The threat of real Panislamic radicalism is here and now, and growing. The US and the West was not exclusively or even mostly responsible for its creation. Is trying to stop it now going to "create more terrorists"? Of COURSE. So what's the alternate? Do nothing?

It's so convenient to believe that the US is what's wrong with the world, and that the middle east would just want to live in peace, with no militant radicals wanting to export their beliefs. It's convenient to believe in moral relativism, where someone like Bush == bin Laden, just on different sides (or the same side) of a coin.

There are real threats in this world, as there have been throughout history. Stop thinking the US is the only "threat" for a moment, and consider whether it's possible for anyone, anywhere in the world to want to do something harmful. I'd say an Islamic fundamentalist superstate is pretty harmful. Of course there are many, many, many other issues here...such as access to critical energy resources by the US/West, which is what supports the Western economies (not to mention developing economies all over the world), and the global economy which supports hundreds of millions of people. If all that's important is bodycounts and human calculus, what about all the devastation that would occur without continuing, stable access to resources? This isn't just a US problem or about "oil companies". Consider the scope of what you're talking about. We already have a petroleum economy, and it's not about lazy, fat Americans' SUVs. It's about plastics, and medicine, and fertilizers, and water purification, and food processing, and all of these things that allow our world to support a population that's by all rights probably too large for it. There WILL be solutions to problems of peak oil and alternative energy issues...but it will take time, and right or wrong, it will take the actual absence of those resources. And it's coming. But in the meantime, if we can export free ideals - and contrary to your belief, that's exactly what we're trying to do - WHILE also securing resources, it's all the better.

Neoconservatives *really believe, quite literally*, in free markets and free peoples and in freedom being the most desirable default state. Of course, there are degrees, and freedoms are tempered with laws and security needs. But anyone who thinks the US is a police state or teetering on the brink of a "fascist theocracy" (???), after just a faint few years no less, is quite frankly, deluded. The "fascist theocracies" we have to fear are the ones that WILL grow in the mideast if something isn't done. People in these movements would like *nothing more* than to obtain any and all weapons possible to use against the US and West. And the targets? As many civilians as possible. It boggles my mind that no one can see any distinction between these ideals. There is a long littany of things the US has done "wrong", "evil" things, horrible things, terrible mistakes. There is corruption and greed and ulterior motives on the behalf of human beings everywhere. But that doesn't change the fact that the US has done a lot of good in this world.

In 6 years, the US has not become a police state. Bush won't be declaring martial law and keeping himself installed in 2008. There won't be a draft. This isn't a conspiracy to warmonger and steal oil. This isn't about killing all Muslims. This isn't about converting everyone to Christianity. This isn't about the US becoming a police state so evil neocons can execute their plans for world domination on the backs of a complicit populace. This isn't about the US executing and planning false flag "terrorist attacks" (against ourselves or Western interests) to make it falsely look like radical Islam is a threat. To those of you who believe that it is: get a serious fucking grip on reality, people.

Might I remind something said by a candidate in th

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

What you really need to to is actually read the Constitution and try to understand just what powers the founding fathers granted the President. He has the power to collection information on the enemy during the time of war.

Alright then, quote the relevant clause of the Constitution, I dare you.

Also, prove to me that we actually are in a "time of war" (hint: we're not).

Re:Vote!

[infosinger]

If you read the bill you would notice that it is still under the supervision of the FIS courts. The difference is that now the executive branch gets the bulk rate on approvals. Rather than having to get approval for every single tap it gets a 90 days approval to do surveillance of foreign communications under certain conditions. The FIS courts will continue to supervise to make sure that the surveillance stays within the approved boundaries.

Re:Vote!

[lawpoop]

Medicare is surprisingly effecient compared to private medical insurers -- its overhead is 3% compared to 12-20% for private insurers. Link.

Some argue that Medicare has an unfair advantage in that it doesn't have to advertise, doesn't have to offer competing plans, have agents, etc. I say we don't need any of that -- all of that stuff is simply churn. It just takes money away from providing health care, case in point Medicare compared to private industry.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you on the voting concept, but I don't think it really matters who is in office.
I think that by taking away some of our rights, they are trying to ensure that the well oiled machine keeps the status quo. Any percieved threat to the economy will be grounds for the erosion of rights, and anyone sitting in congress is going to have to protect the almighty dollar, or risk being labelled as a failure. If the energy sector grinds to a halt due to terrorist attacks on production facilities, etc, the rest of the markets will suffer. People won't be able to go to work, food won't be distributed, riots will ensue, we'll fall into a Beyond Thunderdome style state of anarchy, where the guy who has the biggest stockpile of ammo wins. Think back to what happened in New Orleans during the weeks after Katrina, and imagine that nationwide. That's what the enemies of the US want for us, that's what they are planning for. When they took out the WTC, they deliberately targeted those buildings as a symbol of Western Civilization.

It is a great big game of Othello, east versus west.
Me? I have nothing to hide, so I am not worried about wiretapping. They won't be wasting resources on listening in on any of my conversations.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Close, but not quite. The US + NATO used our economic power to militarily outspend the Soviets + Warsaw Pack for a period of time that they (the Soviets) were unable to sustain

that is incorrect. according to the CIA, moscow's defense budget (outside of direct war) barely budged even during the height of cold war times in the 80's. what screwed up the soviet union's budget was afghanistan, which also turned a lot of citizens against the government. that wasn't outspending, that was just plain attrition.

the soviet union was on the decline for a long time before the wall fell, they just tried to hide it. imagine if the US economy took a dump after the national debt went too high and our international creditors started calling in their debts; the history books would end up stating that the US's economic downturn was actually a long time in the making and only took as long as it did by unsuccessful attempts to keep it propped up.

the soviet system was defeated because people saw that liberal democracy wasn't bad like their leaders stated, but allowed people rights to expression, religion and economic prosperity, and people wanted some o that. people like john paul and walesa and others convinced people that if they banded together, they could demand reforms in such a direction. people like gorby started letting in reforms which spurned on these people. and people like bin laden helped to kneecap the soviet union during that time and the system got overwhelmed, and it was already teetering on the brink in the first place. it was a well-timed one-two punch.

the soviet union didn't fall because of the US's saber-rattling, it fell in spite of it. the US's extreme spending really had no effect outside of giving us a bunch of expensive-ass nuclear bombs we'll never use and a crushing debt we'll continue to pass on to our children for many generations to come.

Re:Vote!

[geoffspear]

Actually, the "War on Drugs" actually makes a lot more sense than the "War on Terror". At least drugs are tangible things, that you could, theoretically, track down and violently eliminate. Sure you'd need a nearly infinite amount of manpower, time, and technology, but at least on some level it makes sense.

"Terror", on the other hand, is an abstract concept. Unlike the War on Drugs, it's not merely infinitely unlikely that the War on Terror could be won, it's actually completely impossible.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

For the first time ever, I intend to push that idiotic "Democrat" vote tab. There are lots of good Republicans I support, but their party has been subverted.

You know, you're supposed to be voting for people, not parties. Vote for the good Republicans you support, and vote Democrat (or Libertarian, or Mickey Mouse) for the ones you don't.

(I don't actually advocate voting for Mickey Mouse, by the way -- all he'd do is make copyright laws even worse!)

Re:Vote!

[hamburger lady]

because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.


so what you're saying is, the good guys can't win against this sort of enemy by continuing to be the good guys. what would we then become?

Re:Vote!

[mpsmps]

The problem with your statement is that the President has the powers that you question, and they are granted to him by the Constitution. You know that nastly little document that is the frameworks for our government. The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit, and guess what we are at war. Our enemy has said that they are at war with us.

You are saying that the President can govern during time of war without legislative or judicial review. Since the War on Terror (like the War on Drugs) will go on for the foreseeable future, do you believe that the US should be a dictatorship from now on?

Re:Vote!

[hamburger lady]

well then, show us all the official declaration of war from the US congress (required by the constitution) and we'll talk.

Re:Vote!

[Iago515]

The two party system you have in the US isn't inherently bad, what is bad is that the American politicians aren't scared enough of the voters. In most western countries which have a pariamentary system there can be changes in the whole government - the legislative and executive - at the same time. In the US, especially the legislative never has wholesale changes. Yes, there is a change from Dem. to Rep. and vice versa, but lets face it, most of the people who hold those positions can do so for a very long time.
What needs to happer every once in awhile (say ever 10 - 12 years) is for the current party that holds the majority to be really swept out of office, enough that the party has to sit down and figure out why they screwed up. It's not a cure-all but you bet with that threat hanging over their heads they will be much more careful what they do. Too many people are tied to one party. Yes, this happens in certian pockets in other countries, but in the US it's too strong.

Re:Vote!

[Maxo-Texas]

While I agree with your point about wasted votes,

Both bloody parties are OWNED by the powers that be now.

It doesn't matter which side you vote for except on trivial side issues (like abortion).

For everything that matters, we have one party, owned by big business and the wealthy.

The republicans choose from 5 to 7 candidates *chosen* for them.
The democrats choose from 5 to 7 candidates *chosen* for them.
Then we all get to vote between the two "candidates" to pick a "winner".

Re:Vote!

[psykocrime]

You are confusing fascism with theocracy. The terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11th want to establish a global caliphate ruled by Islamic law, with the ultimate decisions made by Imams, or Islamic Clerics. Rule by religious figures and religous law is called 'theocracy'.

See Clerical Fascism. Yes, "Fascism ought to more properly be called corporatism since it is the merger of state and corporate power" is true, but historically Fascism does not exclude a blurring of theocracy into the mix. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Fascism_and_r eligion.

And looking at the Fourteen defining characteristics of Fascism we see:

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: on the list.

That said, your point is probably still valid, that the Islamic radicals are not really Fascists. IMO, the real Fascists (Clerical or otherwise) are here in the United States. Going back to the line from the parent article:

Great way to devolve a democratic republic into a fascist theocracy. Me worried? Yea."

I think that hits the nail on the head. Towards a Fascist Theocracy is the direction the US is headed in.

So no, you have never been threatened or injured by an Islamofacists. Misunderstanding the enemy will not aid us in our fight.

Agreed. And I'm sure that's intentional on the part of the Neo-ConsFascists. Remember when Huey Long was asked "Will Fascism ever come to America?" He replied

Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism.

I think Mr. Long's prescience is being demonstrated by current events.

Re:Vote!

[moracity]

1) not true

2) the first Gulf War never ended, so #1 is irrelevant to Iraq

We are only allowed to fight sovereign nations even if attacked?

One thing that everyone seems to forget is that our orginal mission in Iraq has already been completed AND was a success - the toppling of Saddam. The people we are fighting now are the ones who started the current action. What is going on now has little to do with our orginal mission, other than preventing non-Iraqi forces from taking over the country. We are trying to help Iraq get it's government in order and all these "terrorists" are trying to prevent it by attacking us, Iraqis, and anyone else who gets in their way. I'm tired of people trying to blur the lines between what we started out doing and what is going on now.

As far as the wiretapping goes. The reason this passed is because it was legal all along. This is only reaffirming that. All the Democratic politicians knew this from the beginning. All their crying was nothing more than an attmempt to get people all riled up as usual, then vote the way they know they need to. This is par for ALL politicians.

Re:Vote!

[Damastus the WizLiz]

Plain sight, no wonder i missed it. 25 is a good age for representing younger voters. these days 30 isn't off the mark either. I Think it would be great to get some fresh blood in these. Of course I also support term limits for all public offices. move up or get out either way, new people, new ideas.

Re:Vote!

[atriusofbricia]

Wow... so you're the kind of guy who would sell out all our Freedoms for safety. I must say, knowing that it will get me modded to hell, that makes you a coward and undeserving of those Freedoms. Franklin was right.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Where is Osama? (Oh, and bonus points if you don't mention cigars, interns, or any prior presidents. Thanks!)

2) Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

3) If neoconservatives believe in "free peoples", why are we reading of secret CIA prisons?

4) Are you seriously saying that Bush lumping our heretofore latent threats into an "Axis of Evil" had _NOTHING_ to do with them currently seeking nuclear enrichment?

5) That quote from Kerry has nothing to do with anything that contravenes constitutional law. Care to enlighten us on why you included it?

I'm not saying we're not at war with the terrorists, but I do care that my right to write or talk to someone without it being intercepted by the government is preserved. And, no, I choose not to use an anonymizing technologies. I live in America, damn it.

Re:Vote!

[drew]

How many Americans were killed in terrorist incidents in the last five years (and three days)?

How many Americans die in car accidents every month?

I'm not saying that the terrorist threat isn't real, but it seems to have been blown far out of proportion by our current leadership as a way of consolidating government power that would never before have been allowed. (Not that Bush and Co. are the only ones guilty of this. I seem remember Clinton pushing for a lot of the same powers after the Oklahoma City bombing, but appearently that did not generate a sufficient level of public outrage.)

Re:Vote!

[Qzukk]

so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid.

Where are the changes requested by the 9/11 committee years ago?
Richard Reid tried to set his shoe on fire, why am I allowed to bring matches on board an airplane?
One pair of british bombers allegedly planned to bring their infant along for the ride in order to smuggle explosive fluids in the baby bottle, why am I allowed to bring a baby and baby bottle?

This goes way beyond some useless eavesdropping bill, show me anything after Afghanistan that shows that the government is taking this seriously.

Or as Olbermann put it, why do we still have a gaping hole in the ground? Why did we not rebuild in order to show the terrorists that America won't put up with their shit?

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

Common. That one's easy: P-O-W-E-R

Power to control as much of everything and everyone as possible. Anyone who thinks another Hitler/Stalin/(the list continues) can't happen and will never happen in the good ol' USA is dumber than beans. There needs to be checks and balances for those in power. Stop and think about this objectivly: what will our country look like in 20 years if these 'baby-steps-to-tyranny' continue without something to keep them in check? All they (whoever is in power) needs to do is successfully remove our constitutional rights one by one. Once they're gone, what is to stop those in power from commiting unimaginable crimes against humanity? Complaining about freedom will be pretty pointless then.

What would the children of the 60's do now? Where's the revolution? Where's the exercise of free speach to force those who would oppress it into the open for all to see? I say we stop using the internet to hide our free speach and we stand on the rooftops and scream it. If erosion of free speach isn't thrown in the faces of the ignorant by those meaning to stop it than what's the point in complaining?

Re:Vote!

[saider]

We need a "none of the above" choice when we vote. I bet more voters would turn out if they could express their dissatisfaction without being caught in the parent post's dilemna.

Re:Vote!

[(trb001)]

Given that's it's killed nearly as many Americans as 9/11, and wounded many times more, while stirring up further unrest and U.S. hatred, yes.

My point was that it's the underlying hatred for the war that brought out the comment on spending. Don't bring up spending; it's not the main point of your argument, and it *will* sideline the discussion into costs when what you really want to talk about is something else.

Medicare, Medicaid, education, and welfare, while typically inefficient, at least have for the most part helped the poorer among us.

Whether or not I agree with you, you can say this because these programs have been around for a number of years and have statistics. In 10/20/30 years, if the Iraq war produces noticable benefits, specifically for the Iraqi people and the region in general, will it be as/more worthwhile than the programs listed? Hindsight's wonderful in that what looks like a horrible failure now can be a complete success 20 years down the road.

Rebuilding Europe after WWII took a lot of money and helped people (directly) who weren't in this country...yet I don't think anyone today would look back on that as a waste.

--trb

Re:Vote!

[MightyYar]

I keep hearing this, and I'm a few years from Political Science, but huh? I'm not flaming, I seriously want to be educated. Islam, including radical Islam, is the opposite of fascism? Why? I thought, at it's most basic, fascism was simply the ideology of "my way is right, you will do it my way". Yes, I realize that some use the term generally, and others see only wartime Germany and Italy as true examples. But if you accept the general definition, what is it about Islam that prevents an Islamic state from becoming fascist?

Even when you get more specific, they have a lot in common with German-style fascism: nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, anti-liberalism... about the only "ism" that Germany had that the Islamists don't is corporatism, and you could argue that Iran has that!

Again, not a flame... I'm an engineer, not a PolySci major... but where am I off base? I though I had a good grasp of this stuff. That said, I believe that you are correct about the origin of the term IslamoFascism - I think it's a Bushism.

Re:Vote!

[workindev]

1) Only congress can declare war - and hence enable the wartime powers of the president (see that constitution thing).

Congress did give the President all wartime powers on September 18th 2001 when they authorized him to use "all necessary force ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" The 2001 AUMF specifically grants the President war powers dictated by section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution.

) Even if I concede that we are at war, who is the enemy? How do we decide when it's over? A war on "terrorism" is not well defined - you can always say there may be someone plotting something that falls under that term.

That is some twisted logic. I would say that always having people plotting acts of terror against us to cause us harm is an argument for, not against, a war on terrorism.

We have not had a "terrorist" atrack on the US in 5 years. Where is this war you speak of? Iraq? That's "peace keeping", not war any more.

The war in Iraq is a critical part on the war of terror because you can't fight terrorism while ignoring one of the largest state sponsors of terror. But the war on terror is also being "fought" on many different fronts, including intelligence, front-line defense, strategic allies, detention, etc. These are some of the reasons why we haven't had a terrorist attack on the US for 5 years.

Yes, the modern world has problems that were not anticipated when the constitution was written. However, the behavior of the current administration IS the type of thing the constitution was designed to protect us from, and those protections are getting thrown out.

What protections are being thrown out? The judicial branch is reviewing these programs, and the legislative branch is voting on new legal provisions for or against them. This is exactly how the founding fathers designed our Government to work.

Re:Vote!

[Mr. Underbridge]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the parent poster's point is that until 2000, exit polling did jive with the actual result of the election. After 2000, it did not. Regardless of how flawed exit polls are, the dichotomy indicates a problem unless public behavior radically changed (and I don't think it has).

Unless, maybe, there are other factors at play other than the two you chose? Both those elections were very close, much moreso than usual, so that plays. Close elections are easier to call. Compare that to the elections in 1996,1992,1988,1984,1980,1976, and 1972, all of which could have been predicted by calling about 4 people in each state.

The result is still the same: if the exit poll doesn't jive, figure out how to do a better exit poll.

Re:Vote!

[Mr. Underbridge]

That should read, close elections are HARDER to call.

Re:Vote!

[demigod]

I will be voting FOR the people that are writing/passing this legislation, because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.

Please tell me how these US actions make them the "good guys"?

• In November 2004, U.S. occupation forces launched their second major attack on the city of Falluja. The press reported major war crimes instantly, with approval. The attack began with a bombing campaign intended to drive out all but the adult male population; men ages fifteen to forty-five who attempted to flee Falluja were turned back. The plans resembled the preliminary stage of the Srebrenica massacre, though the Serb attackers trucked women and children out of the city instead of bombing them out.
• After several weeks of bombing, the United States began its ground attack in Falluja. It opened with the conquest of the Falluja General Hospital. The front-page story in the New York Times reported that "patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs. Note:The Geneva Conventions states "fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict."
• "Dr. Sami al-Jumaili described how U.S. warplanes bombed the Central Health Centre in which he was working," killing thirty-five patients and twenty-four staff. His report was confirmed by an Iraqi reporter for Reuters and the BBC, and by Dr. Eiman al-Ani of Falluja General Hospital, who said that the entire health center, which he reached shortly after the attack, had collapsed on the patients.
• In another gross violation of international humanitarian law, even minimal decency, the U.S. military denied the Iraqi Red Crescent access to Falluja. Sir Nigel Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross, condemned the action as "hugely significant." It sets "a dangerous precedent," he said: "The Red Crescent had a mandate to meet the needs of the local population facing a huge crisis." Perhaps this additional crime was a reaction to a very unusual public statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross, condemning all sides in the war in Iraq for their "utter contempt for humanity."
• The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, accused US and British troops in Iraq of "breaching international law by depriving civilians of food and water in besieged cities as they try to flush out militants" in Falluja and other cities attacked in subsequent months. US-led forces "cut off or restricted food and water to encourage residents to flee before assaults," he informed the international press, "using hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population, [in] flagrant violation" of the Geneva Conventions.
• In an investigation in which Marines were ordered by a superior officer to strip detainees and take their money, an investigator stated that, "the alleged conduct is a pattern of abuse of detainees in direct contravention to the Marine policy of 'No Better Friend, no worse enemy,' as well as the law of war. A Senior Naval Officer's conduct of publicly humiliating these Iraqis clearly jeopardized the Battalion's mission and the Battalion's standing with the public....these acts could have been a "tipping point" resulting in hostility against coalition forces."
• A detainee named Awayed Wanas Jabar died in U.S. custody in Iraq after having his legs tied to the bars of a window and a strap of engineer tape tied tightly around his midsection. A preliminary inquiry stated that, "His position resembled that of a person who had been crucified." According to one Marine, the detainee seemed "exhausted, with his entire bodyweight appearing to be supported by t

Re:Vote!

[Straif]

A slight correction to your post:

"Exit polls were the gold standard of election forcasting...until 1990".

Since that time exit polls have routinely favoured Democrats above actual vote totals. So even when Clinton was winning the numbers never truly reflected actual vote totals.

According to the pollsters themselves it appears methodology and political ideology seem to be the main culprits. In the last election there was admitted problems with the methodology used, sometimes due to lack of training and some times due to the law (minimum distances from polling stations). As distance between the pollster and the actual polling station increases the reliability of the results decreases as it becomes more of a matter of the voter seeking out a pollster which greatly skews the results. For whatever reason, according to the polling companies themselves, Republicans are less likely to volunteer to take part in an exit poll so would logically therefore be even less likely to make an actually effort to seek out an pollster.

Timing also plays a major factor. For example women, who vote predominantly Democrat, tend to vote earlier and therefore make up a larger percentage of exit poll results than their actual numbers would dictate.

The Mystery Pollster does a pretty good job of explaining all the issues, pro and con, of exit polls.

Re:Vote!

[cold fjord]

Obviously, there is no other possibility....

...in every presidential election since 1988, exit polls have overstated support for Democrats nationally -- but the discrepancy in 2004 was more pronounced than in previous years.

Re:Vote!

[Shajenko42]

Actually, the Founding Fathers created a system where only white adult males who owned land could vote, and individual states were free to create and enforce their own religions. I won't get into slavery.

Re:Vote!

[Garrett Fox]

The thing that gets me is that I cannot see an endgame to the Neocon strategy as it is based on a continued fear and principals of isolationism. What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

You seem to assume that there's a conspiracy of "Neocons" to "give away our rights," and to be looking for a way to elaborate on the theory because it doesn't make sense as written. Two possible ways of dealing with that problem are:
-Propose that maybe there isn't really a conspiracy and that like other aspects of the War on Terror, maybe the misdeeds of our side are exaggerated; or
-Come up with an elaborate explanation for what the Neocons' real goal is, possibly by playing that "Illuminati" card game. Al Gore with the Bavarian Gnomes, working for the Girl Scouts to increase Thin Mint sales? =)

Re:Vote!

[daveschroeder]

1) Where is Osama?

My own personal belief, and the prevailing belief of many in the intelligence community, is somewhere in the regions surrounding the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

If you mean "where is he" as in "why haven't we captured him yet", well, it's because we haven't found him. As to "why", there are many reasons. I don't blame Clinton, but a general lack of human intelligence is one major reason. Both parties have been guilty of being tempted by the expansion of electronic and satellite surveillance, at the severe detriment of human intelligence.

(Some believe we purposefully have not "found" him, or even that the US was in a relationship of sorts with bin Laden on 9/11, to make it appear that bin Laden was the mastermind when in reality it was Cheney & Co. That, of course, is utter tripe.)

2) Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

To quote something I've said before, but which applies here:

Well, while I agree that there isn't going to be an Islamic ICBM delivering a nuclear weapon anytime soon, there were *hundreds of tons* of WMD unaccounted for in Iraq, post-1998. The intelligence capabilities of most western European nations, notably the UNSEC members, the UN as an organization, the US, UK, and so on, all believed Iraq to be in continuing possession of the WMD that were unaccounted for after 1998 when the inspectors left. After 7 years of utter lack of cooperation, deception, and all manner of lies from Iraq about its WMD programs, there was zero reason to believe anything changed for the better once it was left unsupervised. Over 700,000 tons of non-WMD UN-banned weapons were found in Iraq since March 2003. Entire fleets of fighter aircraft were found *completely buried* in remote areas of the desert. There is no reason to believe the hundreds of tons of remaining WMD that was unaccounted for with absolutely no acceptable proof of its disposition, combined with Iraq's lies and deception, didn't remain in Iraq's possession. Likely, it is now in the hands of nations like Syria.

The Iraq strategy isn't about "Iraq". It was about picking a nation for which a case could be expeditiously made to the American people, allowing a great number of resources, both monetary and military, to be brought to bear, on an omnibus strategy of political change in the mideast. It was a VERY RISKY proposition, but the threat of Panislamic radicalism is a very, very real one. And no, it's not something we "created". It's something that has come to this point for a variety of reasons, but the US and/or West isn't exclusively or even mostly to blame. (Is it impossible for people to believe that there are factions of people in the world who disagree about a great many things and who desire to kill those who don't agree with them?) And, FYI, we know we have problems with Saudi Arabia, but we hope for a domino affect, and also, we don't overtly attack official allies (for those who ask "Why don't we attack Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, then?").

The big differences are intent. E.g., intent to kill innocent civilians vs not. Intent to allow people to live in a free(r) society vs not. These are very important distinctions to people who aren't pure moral relativists who think that everyone is just as "right" or justified in doing something as someone else.

While WMD wasn't the real "reason" we went to Iraq - the reasons were MUCH broader and not about "iraq" per se - it's quite reasonable that the administration and planners would expect to find caches of WMD there, thus justifying the action on its face.

I realize you're talking more about nuclear, here, but if you're going to make incorrect claims about Iraq with regard to WMD, you should take a look at the following and educate yourself:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/ [iraqwatch.org]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/ [globalsecurity.org]

And as for nuclear

Re:Vote!

[fossa]

A few questions: first, would you support a voting system that more accurately measured a voter's wishes, say, Ranked Pairs Condorcet method, or Approval Voting, and if not, why not? And second, do you accept the fact that a single vote, the only vote directly controlled by a voter, cannot change the outcome of any large election due to obvious reasons in cases other than a near tie, and because of the inability to count votes to a reolution of one in a near tie? Who is being irrational?

Re:Vote!

[LunaticTippy]

We have term limits where I live, and they have had an unfortunate side-effect. Now we don't have corrupt fat-cat incumbents holding the same seat for 50 years. We have reps that serve their 2 terms, then become lobbyists. Reps don't have as much power as they used to and the lobbyists have much more power. We can't vote the corrupt fat-cat lobbyists out of office either.

I honestly don't know which is worse.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reasonable need for secret communication between comrades. All phone conversations should be recorded, archived for at least five years and made available to the public for a download fee. Some day, hopefully, computers will be able to scan each call and provide a rating similar to the MPAA ratings.

Re:Vote!

[Black-Man]

"but these guys will never see the jail terms they so richly deserve"

For what? Believing an incompetent CIA? An agency that has failed the last dozen or so Presidents.

And do you ever ask why the Republicans came to power? Were you even alive when the Democrats controlled both sides of the house and the Presidency? They didn't do much of anything other than spend and create war. Kinda like today.

Re:Vote!

[n00854180t]

CreatureComfort, you can't actually expect a neocon to make a rational argument. When presented with anything that defies their narrow view of reality, they'll either ignore it or try to persecute the segment of society responsible. Rationality has no place in their little world of fascist theocratic government.

Re:Vote!

[phlinn]

The problem is that voting radically changed in 2000. IIRC, that was the first time early absentee voting was widespread, and such votes do not factor into exit polls at all.

I believe there are also concerns with the way exit poll data is manipulated and released as well. The link is for 2004, but does mention that polling companies have always adjusted data. If they adjust incorrectly, it could account for an awful lot of apparent disreptancies. Issues caused by early voting might be magnified quite a bit by adjusting for actual votes cast (which is apparently a standard adjustment).

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush.

Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election. I generally favor the ideas of non Dem/GOP candidates as they are more realistic. However, the 3rd party groups need to win some local elections before they can lay any claim to being a superior choice.

Lets talk when there are more than 30 Libertarians in the House....show the country you actually have convinced some people to vote for you and they will listen. Until then deal with the choices you have, not defacto electing the worse of the evils by claiming to vote 'better'.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Afghanistan? Didn't we win and pull most of our troops to Iraq?

I think you'll find you lost that one. The Taliban are in charge of large areas, and heroin production is up.

Obviously the response to 9/11 (afghanistan) was considered not important enough to see through, when compared to outdoing the presidents dad (iraq).

Re:Vote!

[cold fjord]

Statistically, no. They were never flawed. The polls match the vote results, as statisticians know what they are doing, and history backs me up.

Sorry, no. Polling is a statistical technique subject to variance even when done properly. Once you start introducing the human equasion into statistics, it is even easier for subtle errors,problems, and quirks of human behavior to creep in and not be accounted for in the polls design. Wishful thinking and ideological motivation only make the problem worse.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Exit polls overstated John Kerry's share of the vote on November 2, both nationally and in many states, because more Kerry supporters participated in the survey than Bush voters, according to an internal review of the exit-polling process released Wednesday.

The report said it is difficult to pinpoint precisely why, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit poll than were Bush voters. "There were certainly motivational factors that are impossible to quantify," the report said.

Problems with the numbers first surfaced on Election Day, when exit polls showed Kerry with a 3-point lead nationally and an edge in some key battleground states. Those exit poll results were leaked and became widely known through the Internet.

CNN did not air those inaccurate results or post them on its Web site, and CNN's projections of winners on election night were accurate.

Nationwide, Bush got about 3.5 million more votes than Kerry.

The discrepancies stemmed from problems in interviewing voters at the 1,480 randomly chosen precincts where exit pollsters were stationed, not from how those precincts were selected or the way the data were processed, according to the 75-page report.

. ... Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment. Our analysis of the difference between the vote count and the exit poll at each polling location in our sample has found no systematic differences for precincts using touch screen and optical scan voting equipment," the report found.

The new report shows that exit polls overstated Kerry's support in 26 states, while estimates overstated Bush's support in four states. The problem is not new -- in every presidential election since 1988, exit polls have overstated support for Democrats nationally -- but the discrepancy in 2004 was more pronounced than in previous years.

The report identified several factors that may have contributed to the discrepancy, including:

# Distance restrictions from polling places imposed upon the interviewers by election officials at the state and local level.

# Weather conditions, which lowered completion rates at certain polling locations.

# Multiple precincts voting at the same location as the precinct in the exit poll sample.

# Interviewer characteristics, such as age, which were more often related to the errors last year than in past elections.

Re:Vote!

[cayenne8]

You know...I consider myself a moderate conservative...fiscally conservative, moderately liberal socially.

This type of stuff scares the living shit out of me...this is truly NOT the Republican party of old that I think would have been a supporter for privacy rights. The problem I see is...that the only other party with a chance is the Democrats, and unfortunately they are SO far off on so many things to the left, it is hard to vote for them too. I hope to God they can get back more centrist and start putting more moderate alternatives to the current holders of office.

This is indeed a scary turn of events, and honestly not what I've voted for in the past...I had no idea these people would start fucking with the Constitution this badly...

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

The war in Iraq is a critical part on the war of terror because you can't fight terrorism while ignoring one of the largest state sponsors of terror.

Sigh, wishing does not make it so, Saddam's regime, although deplorable, was a secular one. He did not like OBL/Al-Qaeda, and would've never supported them, and I've never seen a shred of proof saying otherwise, I'm always open to possibilities though, any proof he was supporting them?

Re:Vote!

[richieb]

But yeah, al-q is real, and so were the London, India, USS Cole (sp?), etc. bombings - so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid.

Sure we should take is seriously. But you need to keep the risks in perspective. Since 9/11/2001 more Americans drowed in their bath tubs, than were killed by terrorists. Should we pass a law to ban bath tubs then?

Re:Vote!

[n00854180t]

People like you are the reason that the US will soon be a theocracy dedicated to stripping basic human rights from anyone that doesn't agree with it. Thanks.

Re:Vote!

[n00854180t]

That type of cowardice is worse than insanity, by far. At least the madman has an excuse for his ridiculous behavior. I'm glad that there are some people like this willing to sit by and live in a police state, have their homes and lives invaded. More targets for people that actually give a damn about being truly free.

Re:Vote!

[myth24601]

Lets not forget the effect of the gerrymander. The House was supposed to represent the people but since House districts are drawn in such a way that 98% of the members are reelected each year the Senate is actually filling the role that the House was originally intended.

House was supposed to represent the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the State. Now the State legislature indirectly picks the house members by gerrymandering districts.

In my district I have a congressman that has served since the 80s except for 2 years when he was booted out in '94(the republican takeover year). He won it back in '96 and in the last redrawing, the legislature redrew it to make sure he didn't loose again.

Re:Vote!

[legoburner]

Douglas Adams rest in peace.

          "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

          "Odd," said Arthur, "I though you said it was a democracy."

          "I did," said Ford. "It is."

          "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

          "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

          "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

          "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

          "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

          "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

          "What?"

          "I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

          "I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

          Ford shrugged again.

          "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

Re:Vote!

[MightyYar]

The sad fact is that despite this administration's incompetence on everything from Iraq to Katrina, it is still going to be a tight race.

Yes, but this is not because people have been "fooled" or "coerced" or mislead or whatever. This is because the democratic party, as it is today, is not a feasible political party. It includes elements that are fundamentally different and actually opposed to one another. In the Republican camp you have business and the religious wackos along with moderates. Big business tolerates the wackos and vice versa because their objectives do not really conflict, and sometimes even align. It is usually pretty easy to play to both groups without offending one or the other. Most of the internal drama in the Republican party is straddling the line to try to keep the moderates happy - they don't always like what the wing-nuts have to say, and actually make up the bulk of the party... too bad they don't make up more of the ACTIVE party, which is dominated by the kooks.

Now look at the democrats. Let's see... we have environmentalists, the academic elite, labor unions, minorities, anti-war nuts (anti ALL war, not Iraq war), homosexuals... did I miss someone? Ah, yes, the moderates. In the democratic party, it's all noise with no unified theme because they can't actually take a unified stand on any topic. Go pro-gay, lose a significant portion of your minority support, who tend to be religious and socially conservative. Go pro-environment or free trade, lose some of your labor union support ("They closed our old plant because of EPA regulations!"). They can't win like this. Pick a topic, and if they take a stand on it they alienate a large portion of their own party.

Personally, I wish the Lieberman's of the party would split off and start a moderate party. That'd probably pull in a good number of the moderate Republicans, too. Even if it weren't ultimately successful, it might snap one or both of the major parties back toward a more sensible moderate position... let the nuts go start their own party...

Re:Vote!

[Jonny do good]

I think you have an unfounded fear of the government. I don't like the government interfering in my life, like most of us. What I fear more is someone with a bomb. I, being a libratarian, believe that the government should provide one primary function: protection from those who wish to do harm. In order to protect against terrorism the government must be right 100% of the time. In order to accomplish that task I feel that they should do whatever it takes. When our enimies don't play by the rules, use the security software and hardware that the readers here develop (for peacefull purposes), have no problem killing innocent people, and try and raise funds from extremists in our own country, the government must have the ability to snoop on them. The only people that should be concerned are those who are performing illegal activities such as financing terrorists, trafficing drugs, or commiting international fraud. The program only allows international calls to be monitored that involve people on the CIA's terrorist watch list. This is not limiting my freedom, and if it limiting your freedom it really means that you are in violation of the law. This program has been around since the 1970's and has always had limited use. Actually Slick Williy (known as Bill Clinton) used this program more than any other President before him. Voting the democratic party in will not change this program, nor will putting in any viable candidate that has any concern for the survival of our county. As someone who lived in Riyadh and worked at OPM-SANG (an American military mission that trains the Saudi Arabian National Guard) when it was attacked by terrorists killing 6 Americans, 2 Phillipino's and an unreported number of locals eating and shopping in the neighboring shopping areas, I think I have a much better perspective on what terrorists are capable of. If you have actually been through a terrorist attack (worrying about your own personal saftey as well as your loved ones) you have grounds to stand on, otherwise try it out. Go work abroad in a country like Iraq and put things in perspective. Would you rather be fighting for your life, or worry about the CIA tracking your occasional phone call to a terrorist... I choose the CIA any day. Tying the hands of our protectors (Inteligence, the Military, the Police, etc.) is not the way to make the country better, it only leads to disaterous consequences. Dangerous People/Organizations 1) ACLU - Supposedly standing for civil rights while impeding my freedom to say a prayer in school if I so choose because someone might be offended. 2) UN - Supposedly meant to prevent wars and settle disputes, but without any action they actually encourage countries like Iran and North Korea to develop WMD. 3) Nancy Piloski - This congreswoman actualy wants to put Bush on trial for using the same information that a vast majority of congess used support the Iraq war. She also wants to try him for using an inteligence program that is legal, was authorized by congress decades ago, and has been used by both politcal parties for years. 4) People like you - I am positive that if you had it your way and underwent a terrorist attack that could have been prevented by the use of a wiretap you would want to sue the government over their incompentce. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you really should think about the bigger picture. The NSA program is not new, hasn't impacted any law abiding American in a negative way, and has helped lead to the capture and/or death of hundreds of active terrorists that constantly chant death to America.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Blackadder 3, episode 1, Dish & Dishonesty:

[commentary on an election in a borough with only one voter]
Vincent Hanna: "...And our exclusive exit poll revealed a 100% result for; 'mind your own business you nosey bastard'... "

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

The threat of real Panislamic radicalism is here and now, and growing. The US and the West was not exclusively or even mostly responsible for its creation. Is trying to stop it now going to "create more terrorists"? Of COURSE. So what's the alternate? Do nothing?

You're scared, and it's understandable to be scared. Fear is a powerful emotion-it makes people tune in to 24 hour news channels, buy newspapers, magazines, and read weblogs. Nonspecific fear, like "there might be a bomb somewhere," masquerades as a specific threat, like "Dave Schroeder will be blown up this month," and excuses political ambition. You've been assailed by fearmongers from every side for so long that you no longer remember what the abscence of fear is like, and you've lost your sense of risk perspective.

Step back and breathe for a moment. There are charismatic leaders in all societies, and they use the conditions and realities of their cultures to gain power, often great power, over impressionable minds. In the US, we had Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Marshall Applewhite, each promising to bring their followers to paradise and each able to motivate people to their own deaths. In the middle east, where the conditions of life are much more difficult and the oversight of such cults much less intent, the charismatic leaders are even more attractive. There, they work from the anger and frustration of the people. People are anxious to believe that their own problems are caused by external sources, and the West is different enough to be a good target. Yes, I do think the US leaders are using the same basic tool, identifying "panislamic radicalism" as the convenient external source.

The "terrorist leaders" do to their people the same thing that the media has been doing to you: refer to The Others using derrogatory language, spotlight each time one of The Others kills, remind The Own that The Others may choose, at any moment, to kill an arbitrary member of The Own. Each act of violence only further entrenches the leaders on both sides. The conflict is only resolved by reducing the conditions that gave those leaders power in the first place: stop the fearmongering in the US; make life not suck for the Islamists.

Just because you, or GWB, can't think of a non-violent approach to the problem doesn't mean there isn't one. This false dichotomy of "kill them all" or "do nothing" doesn't help anything.

Re:Vote!

[plague3106]

Of course I also support term limits for all public offices. move up or get out either way, new people, new ideas.

Wonderful. So when someone actually good fills the position, you'll force them out anyway.

You'll also get judges that can't do 'the right thing' because they are too afraid to piss of the voters. Judges are supposed to ignore public opinion, because sometimes 'the people' scream to have their freedoms trampled (because they think they're only trampling someone else's freedom).

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear Hear!

I've made that analogy to "football team" voters myself, and you're absolutely right about that. Witness the completely irrational rationalizations foisted on us by both sides. You need look no further than Moore and Limbaugh for clear evidence of this.

Others have commented that 3rd party votes are "thrown away". I must agree with those of the opinion that a vote for a candidate who has clearly declared/demonstrated that (s)he will be representing the interests of the rich and powerful, rather than the people, is a wasted vote. Add to that the fact that, here on Slashdot we've been discussing diebold's vulnerable voting machines and plenty of other good, solid evidence that our votes are being thrown away for us anyhow.

Vote for the lesser evil? How stupid! Would someone please tell my how they intend to improve government by voting for evil?

Re:Vote!

[lawpoop]

We agree probably on 90% of what we've said. But here's what I would like to say to clarify my position:

What theocracy and facism share are practices of totalitarianism. Because a theocractic state might be tapping people's phones, doesn't mean that they are partly fascist. It's just that theocracy and fascism have totalitarian qualities in common.

When we talk about whether a society is fascist or theocratic, I ask, 'What is the most important institution?' What institute wields ultimate power? In a theocracy, it is the church (or temple or mosque). The scriptures and religious tradition are the basis for law and policy. Clergymen are the ultimate decision makers. The government is very important, yes, but ultimately, the church (temple, mosque) is on top. In fascism, the state, the party, and the ethnic identity of 'the people', and oftentimes a charismatic leader, are on top. So the ruling party makes all law and decision, usually in the name of ensuring the survival of the state and 'the people'. Yes, the church is very important in a facist state, but ultimately, the party is on top.

The Islamic terrorists we are fighting are not fighting for any particular leader, state, or ethnic identity. They are not fighting for Bin Laden, they are not fighting for Saudi Arabia, they are not fighting for Persians or Arabs. They are fighting to re-establish an Islamic Empire that spanned from Europe to Asia, which encompassed multiple states and ethnic groups. The ultimate authoritative institution in this Islamic Empire is the Mosque -- the ultimate decision makers would be the Imams, basing their jurisprudence on Islamic law. Therefore, they are theocratists.

Re:Vote!

[mutterc]

I looked at state (NC) House once.

To run as an independent, you had to get petition signatures of 4% of registered voters in your district. That doesn't actually sound too bad, but, having no political experience, I don't know how hard that is to do.

The big hurdle, though (besides all of the other reasons I'd make a bad politician) is that they make $14000 a year (it's technically a part-time job). Subtract costs of campaigning, and it sounds infeasible unless you're independently wealthy and/or own your own business.

Re:Vote!

[glsunder]

And how will this change occur? Sorry, changing the american voting system to something that gives more support to 3rd parties is about as likely to happen as Condi Rice having Al Franken's baby.

Re:Vote!

[ichigo 2.0]

The GP says that the republicans were in power in the networks and thus prevented any real investigation, and then you give a report funded by the said networks as proof that he is wrong?

Re:Vote!

[jthill]

We've been calling the stupids stupid for so long they've just gotten fed up. They're mad as hell, they're not going to take it anymore, and they think they've taken over. They don't care what they have to do to get there and stay there, it's their turn now. And why should they listen to people who call them apes and idiots?

The source of the most strongly worded warnings I've been able to find against what we've been doing is... ironic.

Re:Vote!

[nasor]

"But yeah, al-q is real, and so were the London, India, USS Cole (sp?), etc. bombings - so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid."

No, worrying about things with no regard to how likely they are to actually harm you is stupid. The odds of an american being killed by terrorism are so close to zero that it's difficult to even meaningfully calculate, but if you tried you would probably come up with something on the order of one in a million. Yet people are eager to give up civil rights to be "protected" from a threat that's so unlikely to kill you that you would probably be better off worrying about being hit by lightening.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the poster nother theorcracy. So obviously those Christians must be the most dangerous.

Then again, maybe you think the jews, Zionists, Neocons are the problem.

Re:Vote!

[Damvan]

We don't have to come up with an elaborate explanation for the what the Neocons real goal is, they have outlined it quite clearly themselves. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

1: Make a local group, expand, find someone to vote in.
2: Vote for yourself since you know what you want.

Re:Vote!

[richieb]

I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.

Hmmm.... what about those MP3 files on your computer... are they all legal? Or all those pictures of nude teens. Are you sure they are all over 18? Maybe the goverment needs to keep you locked up while they determine if you are or are not a "preditor". After all we need to "protect the children".

Re:Vote!

[nuzak]

> My vote is my own damned business.

Except for the fact that it elects your representative. You are aware that exit pollers don't ask for your name? These are not telemarketers we're talking about, they're not spin doctors (they're in fact quote the opposite, they're trying to gather statistical FACT), and they are most certainly not the poll-takers who accost you at the mall. Does the difference even enter your mind?

At least you don't lie to them. Your choice to talk is your own business, lying to exit pollers is despicable.

Re:Vote!

[glesga_kiss]

We exported freedom during Bush Seniors term, and continued it through Clinton's term. The Berlin Wall fell during Bush Senior, and we ended the Cold War.

No, the US unnessarily extended the cold war. It should have ended long before. Rumsfeld maintained that the Soviets must have some pretty kick ass capability despite all other intel suggesting otherwise. I think his logic was "it's so powerful we can't find it".

Source: The Power of Nightmares, which is required viewing for everyone IMHO. It's from the BBC originally.

Re:Vote!

[skadus]

Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush.

I have a friend that says the same thing to me all the time. Like I'm somehow the reason Kerry didn't win. Funny, at the time of the election my parents told me the same thing, only with the names reversed.

I didn't like either of them. That's why I voted third-party. Otherwise, I wouldn't have voted at all.

Between a Fascist and a Communist I picked neither, and apparently that makes me the bad guy? I may never get my ideal candidate into office, but at least I voted my conscience. Maybe if other people did the same thing there'd be some change in the government.

Re:Vote!

[moeinvt]

"Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush."

Wrong!

"Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election."

Wrong again!

The Republicans and Democrats have owned the House, Senate and White House for decades. Each party has also had the opportunity to control all 3 simultaneously. What have they brought us?

Vietnam War
$8 Trillion national debt
2 Iraq wars
GATT
NAFTA
The War on Drugs
20M illegal immigrants
The Patriot Act

ALL with strong bi-partisan support, active or passive.

The only wasted vote is one that is cast for Republicans or Democrats! They create the illusion of choice by squabbling over nonsense issues, but work together to screw us over on the real ones. Once you realize that they are just one big party pursuing a legislative agenda that is detrimental to the vast majority of U.S. citizens the only logical thing to do is vote for an alternative.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush."

No he didn't, he voted to attempt to get someone elected OTHER than either Kerry OR Bush.
I agree that third party groups do need to win more local elections, however the current system is a farce when the third party groups AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO DEBATE, OR ATTEND AS AN AUDIENCE MEMBER!
http://www.progress.org/2004/debates08.htm
There was even an article here on slashdot about it. Slowly though, the will and ability of the Amercian people to vote for their leadership has been stripped away and is now a sham to make us all feel good, like we had some kind of empowerment, which no longer exist.

Re:Vote!

[baerm]

Who and what are we at war with right now?

Dumb queston, we've always been at war with terrorasia.

Re:Vote!

[hal2814]

"Actually I will blame you. If you didn't vote for Kerry, you basically elected Bush."

Maybe you missed my point. Maybe I did basically elect Bush but it doesn't matter. Kerry fits in with my ideaology no better than Bush does. It doesn't matter to me at all that Kerry lost. If it did matter, I would've voted for him. Like I said earlier, last resort and all. I'm pretty sure the millions who voted for Bush have more to do with his victory than I do. Don't try to make your political crusade into my political crusade. If your political crusade lost, then it was flawed to begin with.

Re:Vote!

[workindev]

Well, first of all, I said that Iraq was one of the largest state sponsors of terror, not one of the largest state sponsors of Al Qaeda. If you haven't seen a "shred of proof" about this, I have no idea where you were looking. Iraq was on the State Department's "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list for the better part of two decades. Iraq and Hussein provided open support for many internationally recognized terrorist organizations, including Abu Nadal, Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, Carlos the Jackal, PKK, Ansar al-Islam, and Hamas to name a few. The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) was also implicated in several terrorism plots, including the attempted bombing of a radio tower in Prague, and the attempted assassination of a former US President. This is why the legislature passed a resolution in 1998 stating that "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime", which happens to be exactly what George Bush is doing right now.

However, there are still concrete links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Clinton State Department issued an Indictment of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden in 1998, charging that "al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq". This came after Saddam Hussein offered political asylum to Bin Laden after he was expelled from Saudi Arabia and left Afghanistan.

Not to mention the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Al Qaeda fighters were allowed to set up and operate Ansar al-Islam within Iraqi borders following Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan in December 2001, and that Mohammed Atta had allegedly met with ISS officials in Prague in April 2001.

Re:Vote!

[glesga_kiss]

Afghanistan? Didn't we win and pull most of our troops to Iraq?

Out of curiousity, is that how this is being reported where you are? Over here in the UK, the media is reporting that things are in the shitter big time. We just brought a load of coffins and the British Army is having a bad time at the moment. NATO have just begged for 2,500 more troops. We haven't "won" anything.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Democratic governments expands in power year after year no matter how many people vote, or who they vote for, or how often they vote. History has demonstrated this over and over again. If the root of our problems was that we simply elected the wrong man for the job, don't you think it would have been corrected by now? Democratic government is well establised around the world, having years of experience to draw from. Why are democratic governments still becoming more corrupt, not less, after all this experience?

Perhaps the root of the problem is not who holds power, but the existence of power itself? Or are we still too blinded by the infinite promises of organized coercion to see the big picture?

We've been "voting them out" for years now, yet, the power elite are still getting stronger, and our god-given right to freedom is increasingly oppressed. How do you think this could this possibly happen, my friend?

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

And maybe you missed my point....mostly because I didn't type it ;-)

And this was probably the stretch I shouldn't have made with your post....If people voted for a 3rd party candidate AND are complaining about Bush, then yes, they elected Bush by not voting for Kerry.

I'd find it a hard argument to make that *anything* Kerry would have done could be worse than all the Bush has managed to screw up. Especially with a GOP congress...much like with Clinton, nothing except the bare essentials would have gotten done and we'd all have been better off.

But my other main point stands. 3rd party presidential votes 'are' a complete waste. They might make the voter feel better, but it's still not helping the current situation. Ground up is the only way to do it with staying power.

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

Agree, the rules suck. The only way to change the *rules* is to have people in Congress who aren't beholden to the main party's desire to lock out other choices.

Which is my point...get house members elected to start changing the rules. Voting for 3rd party presidential candidates does absolutely nothing in the long run.

Re:Vote!

[HorsePunchKid]

...so blind as to think this is a republicrat vs. demopublican issue.

Whatever happened to the Tastycrats and the Fingerlicans? Mmmmmm... those were the days...

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

I commend you on holding to ideals. But in the end, who won the election? Wasn't Libertarians that's for sure.

Are they 'downtrodden' by the 2 main parties? Sure. But you won't win the presidential election EVER unless you have support in the country, which translates to seats in Congress. Get those and then a vote for Libertarian president could make a difference. You've gotta prove yourself in the minors before you can take a turn in the majors.

But if you don't like Bush, and you voted for someone other than Kerry, then you gave a vote to Bush (by taking one away from the only option with a chance to beat him).

But, if you're happy with Bush in office, then disregard everything I've said...

Re:Vote!

[daveschroeder]

I'm not "scared". This doesn't have anything to do with "fear", and I don't think I'll be the victim of a terrorist attack. In fact, I think I'm far more likely to be killed by far more many mundane things, and I don't think I'm very likely to be killed by any of them either.

I'll concede that fear is used as a tool by many, including politicians and pundits here. But that's not why I wrote what I wrote. There are indeed real threats in the world. Many. The US is a "threat" to some entities. But Panislamic radicalism, Islamofascism, militant Islam, or whatever you want to call it - I realize they're all buzzwords to a certain degree - is a *real threat*.

And the quote at the end about killing and/or winning against Al Qaeda everywhere wasn't from "me" or "GWB". It was from Kerry, which is why I included it. (No doubt some people think Kerry is nothing more than a part of the same political machine, one and the same with Republicans, but the point is that many people would have voted, and in fact did vote, for Kerry simply because he was not Bush, or because liberal/Democrat politics are at least somewhat closer in line with what they think their beliefs are. If they voted for Kerry, then they have to consider exactly what Kerry said in that quote.)

Finally, I didn't say that the current course was the only solution to the problem. Nor did I say that it was desirable or even possible to "kill all terrorists". What it is possible to do is use a multifaceted approach, which MAY include military action and killing, to affect change, over time, such that a preponderance of peoples in the region either themselves live in free or mostly-free societies, or will but pressure on other governments and entities in the area to encourage the adoption of free policies. Some of this process will be bloody. But I firmly believe that the mideast can successfully modernize, and that these militants and radicals can be marginalized and punished within these societies, BY these societies, instead of sympathized with, harbored, and even supported. The more people that live in (quasi-)free societies, with free flows of information, freedom of the press, and free exchanges of ideals, ideas, and goods, the better. That's the neoconservative ideal: not having a McDonalds on every corner in Baghdad or converting everyone to Christianity; but rather, that the US and West can use its position of power and influence to actually cause change for the better in the world, and that free societies are more compatible with our own ideals, and thus will be beneficial to the global community, and to ourselves, not to mention their own societies and happiness. Yes, to a certain extent, they have to want it themselves. But we can also help make it happen.

Further, there are and have been "bad people" (or whatever language that would be acceptable to you to describe them) in this world. I do not believe in moral relativism; I understand with it and agree to certain extents, but I don't subscribe to it wholesale. Some of these people have to be dealt with, some with force. That doesn't mean there aren't all manner of diplomatic and social and other courses that might be taken, including simultaneous with force. Pacifism is all well and good, as long as you're also smart and practical enough to understand that sometimes force is required, or is the most expeditious action. Many, many mistakes have been made in the current US foreign policy course. It was a HUGE gamble to attempt to begin with Iraq in the beginnings of this omnibus strategy to affect change in the region. (For a partial answer to this issue, see answer 2 here.)

Would you have suggested alternate, non-violent course for every instance of violent conflict throughout human history? If so, I'd congratulate you on your internal consistency, even though I'd hugely disagree. If you do agree that war and military force is sometimes necessary, I don't believe you're at all qualified to say that this isn't one of those times (any more than I necessarily am to say that it is).

Re:Vote!

[fotbr]

I think it did change, at least in this respect, as the 2000 election did get more people to vote, and more people in categories that didn't vote much in the past. One of those groups is the younger vote, and the sentiment that the media needs to shut the hell up is pretty common among that group.

Re:Vote!

[Clopy]

It doesn't matter if you don't like exit polls. There is always a margin error in exit polls. The problems start when strange coincidences are happening: http://www.nogw.com/images/exit_poll.jpg Just check the differences from the exit polls to the vote count between paper ballots and electronic voting.

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

Funny, at the time of the election my parents told me the same thing, only with the names reversed.

Actually they are pretty much as 'right' as I am in my assertion.

If based with only 2 realistic options, and you choose a third, then your vote was against whoever you might have picked of the 2. In my case that's Kerry, and in your parents' that's Bush.

I'm all for voting for your conscience, but don't complain about the situation that results from voting for someone else who had no chance of actually winning. A friend of mine literally voted for Colin Powell...I mean c'mon, he wasn't even on the ballot and wasn't going to win.

Would Kerry have really been *worse* that Bush? Especially after seeing 4 years of his ineptitude? Gimme the Clinton years where President and Congress are in different hands; you don't get the crazy shit passed.

Re:Vote!

[DeadPrez]

Actually you could just modify one of the two major parties. Look at the Republican shift since Nixon (otherwise known as Pre-Reagan). Republicans have become hardline anti-regulatory, hardline religious, hardline anti-tax, anti-civil rights. Its a totally different party today than thirty years ago when they never would have cut taxes for the rich while going to war. Going further back, you can see a similiar shift in the Democratic party as the Solid South turned red.

Sure its partly generational replacement, but change is slow except in a crisis.

Re:Vote!

[fotbr]

For what its worth, I thought the exit polls were flawed long before any of the party hacks started blabbering. Say I vote for candidate X. When asked, I tell the exit-poll person that I voted for candidate Y, or even for candidate Z. Why is the exit poll "correct" then, when based on a partial sampling, and possibly incorrect information to begin with?

I've never done that, but there is NO reason I, or anyone else, couldn't.

The issues with electronically rigging an election will never be solved by exit polling a subset of the voting population, they'll be solved by providing a human-readable paper trail presented to the voter AND to the election officials.

Re:Vote!

[Software]

Public offices have minimum age requirements. For example, you can't be President unless you're at least 35 years old.

Yes, the three federal elected offices have a Constitutional minimum: President / Vice President (35, as stated), Senator (30), Representative (25). But only rich or famous or delusional people run for one of these as their first elected office. A much more rational idea for the younger politician is to run for a local or state office.

Re:Vote!

[fotbr]

Yes, it elects my representatives and my senators. But they don't know if I voted for them, or if I voted for the other guy/gal. The election workers don't know which candidate I voted for. Why should an exit poll taker know who I voted for?

For the 2000 and 2004 elections, I was in a town of 25,000 people. I knew the exit poll people, they were people I worked with, went to church with, see at the gym, etc. I didn't NEED to tell them my name.

As for lying to them, I don't do that, but there's no reason why I can't, or shouldn't. Its a poll. Its going to be used for talking shills to GUESS at the results and pat themselves on the back if they're right. Assuming, for the moment, that I was interested in talking to them, why shouldn't I lie to them? Maybe having "Mickey Mouse" winning an election based on exit polls MIGHT, just MIGHT, point out the fundamental flaws in taking exit polls to be fact and evidence of voting fraud.

You want to prevent voting fraud? Great. Wonderful goal. Convince everyone to use voting machines that show you who you voted for, AND provide a human-readable reciept to both you and one thats displayed through a window and then dropped in a tamper-proof (as much as such thing can exist, anyway) box after you certifiy that the machine recorded your vote correctly, and that it matches the reciept provided to you. Don't rely on exit polling to provide your "evidence" of voting fraud.

Re:Vote!

[Zarquon42]

How convenient. The person who does not bring up any evidence says that the investigation into the polls was blocked, so any evidence provided by the networks is false and can't be used as refutation!?! But at least there was some real data there. Do you believe that CNN is acting for the republican party? Is there any evidence at all that the exit polls are flawless? At least the CNN peice provides some evidence that there are problems with the polls.

Re:Vote!

[BranMan]

I see some of the same thing as you are talking about here in the US. There is this overwhelming preasure to DO SOMETHING about any problem that arises, whether or not the solution makes sense, and whether or not that something is solvable. Take traffic accidents for instance. They are responsible, unwittingly, for the proliferation of stop signs, traffic signals, etc. No one looks at it as "well, an accident happened here. Stuff happens - big deal". No, it is looked at as a PROBLEM - there must be something WRONG or the accident could not have happened. Doesn't make much sense to me, but any place there is an accident, a new sign or signal sprouts like a mushroom. It's a wonder anyone gets anywhere anymore.

Same thing with terrorists. Its a PROBLEM, therefore has a SOLUTION, and by god we are going to fix it. So, this is what we get - because the only way to fix it is to prevent it altogether, and the only way to do that, because people are involved, is shit like this bill.

Somebody stop the planet - I need to get off.

Re:Vote!

[sgt_doom]

What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

Hmmmmm.....let me see....billions and billions of dollars in extraordinary levels of war profiteering (now exceeding WWI, which had set the record - so now the Bushies have exceeded the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II profiteering records), and humanitarian disaster profiteering, and security industry profiteering, and complete control over America.

Naomi Klein wrote an outstanding article in Harper's some time back (I forgot to notice the exact date, sorry) explaining in a most detailed fashion how the Busheviks had (illegally) created the new Iraqi constitution to mirror every neocon's wet dream in economics - unions outlawed, using imported cheap labor (already implemented that here - but not to the extent they have implemented it in Iraq) instead of the local population, disallowing government control - privatizing everything.

As you may have noticed, Iraq is a basket case -- and their objective is to do the same to the USA!!!! Hate to be the one to break this to you, but their control over everything precludes voting now -- the only hope is for every American to stock up on rifles (yup, I once was pro-gun control, but that was before the Bush Administration was selected by SCOTUS).

Re:Vote!

[Eccles]

My point was that it's the underlying hatred for the war that brought out the comment on spending.

No, I chose it because the war costs are what directly affect all of us, regardless of what we think of it. You said you didn't cared about your loss of privacy, and presumably you aren't among the wounded. I thought you might care about the impact in your wallet.

Whether or not I agree with you, you can say this because these programs have been around for a number of years

I think you could say that the moment the programs started they helped *someone.* Truly inefficient government programs pay someone to do something that nobody wants. Medi(caid/care) pay doctors to provide treatments.

Rebuilding Europe after WWII took a lot of money and helped people (directly) who weren't in this country...yet I don't think anyone today would look back on that as a waste.

That was spending money to make people's lives better, not to shoot bad people. Look at Israel/Lebanon; despite militarily superior forces and casualty counts, despite Hezbollah starting it by killing and capturing Israeli soldiers in Israel, is there anyone who thinks Israel won?

Unfortunately, the Neocon fantasy that if we just kill or depose the bad guys at the top, we can turn Iraq into a shining example of democracy, is proving to be just that -- a fantasy. It should be obvious to anyone in politics that dictatorships survive because there are actually quite a number of people benefiting from and helping sustain that dictatorship.

Re:Vote!

[Zenaku]

Your parents told you that since you didn't vote for Bush, you elected Kerry? They really need to pay more attention to the news.

Re:Vote!

[tds67]

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

They are one and the same. "Islamofascists" is the fairy tale told by the Neocons to drag us into foreign wars. 9/11 was a complete and total fraud perpetrated on the American people by high officials in the United States government.

Re:Vote!

[skadus]

Your parents told you that since you didn't vote for Bush, you elected Kerry? They really need to pay more attention to the news.

During the time leading up to the election they told me that if I didn't vote for Bush I was essentially going to be voting for Kerry, and if he won, it was going to be my fault.

You know what I meant. :p

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

"But yeah, al-q is real, and so were the London, India, USS Cole (sp?), etc. bombings - so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid."

The USS Cole was a US-flagged ship of war in a foreign port. That makes it a legitimate military target, and thus is not terrorism, which is an attack against a civilian populace intended to demoralize or...get this...instill terror.

While it may be difficult to declare war against the individuals performing the action, there is quite a large semantic difference, despite the current administration's attempts to smear semantic differences together into one big mess.

Re:Vote!

[demigod]

Um, actually that's the definition of "terrorist"

Darn, I thought it was

terrorism - The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals.

Or maybe your saying thier goal is for us to destroy ourselves. I thought Al-Qaeda goal was for the US to pull out of the middle east and stop supporting Israel.

But I agree we should listen to Yoda. We should listen to the Gandhi, the Dalai Lama even the Pope. Hell I'd be happy if "we" would just listen to someone who made sense.

Re:Vote!

[DeadPrez]

Its being reported, but I guess you could call it underreported. We don't really have the wherewithall to handle a lesser fuckup when we got a major fuckup going on, which is also underreported.

Most people have turned against the War in Iraq and Bush but seem to think there are no alternatives. Its not like our lifestyle has changed. Check in later when we start to reap the fruit.

Re:Vote!

[skadus]

Would Kerry have really been *worse* that Bush?

At the time, I didn't really have any kind of scoreboard going in regard to which one I disliked more. All I knew was:

1. I disliked both of them
2. Living in Texas, Bush was likely to win no matter how I voted
3. There was a candidate that I preferred
4. Voting for someone else would rank me among the "Other" group, but would still be a statement to the two major parties saying "I don't like the choices you're giving me"

So, rather than picking what I perceived as the lesser of two evils (which I honestly could not decide at the time), I picked who I would prefer to be President, based on my personal beliefs. I didn't follow the election results in Texas, but if the "Other" margin was just enough to give Bush the lead over Kerry (I doubt it), and give Bush the lead in electoral votes (I doubt that even more) feel free to dislike me. As it is, I feel better voting for the guy I liked rather than trying to figure out which of the two major candidates was the guy I disliked the least.

The biggest problem I have with people who dislike third-party voters is they seem to think I would vote for their candidate if all I had was a choice between the two candidates. That's not necessarily the case. If I had been faced with that decision in 2004 I would have passed on both Turd Sandwich and Giant Douche and not voted at all. Then I'd be lambasted for that. :p

Re:Vote!

[daigu]

You have a curious set of opinions. How do you maintain the CIA misled the President in light of the significant evidence to the contrary?

I don't ask myself why the Republicans came to power. I know why. They have money, disciplined communications and a coherent strategy. Democrats sadly lack all three of these elements. Not that I care much for Democrats either. I consider both Democrats and Republican as belonging to the same party - neither of which represents my interests.

Re:Vote!

[pizzaman100]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the parent poster's point is that until 2000, exit polling did jive with the actual result of the election. After 2000, it did not. Regardless of how flawed exit polls are, the dichotomy indicates a problem unless public behavior radically changed (and I don't think it has).

Or the exit polls don't represent who actually voted. For example if you take an exit poll during working hours you will get a different demographic than if you take it during the evening. So the exit polls that showed Kerry winning Ohio at 5 pm on election day had a disproportinate number of democratic voters (seniors, stay at home moms, unemployed, etc). A disproportionate number of republican voters voted after 5 pm.

Re:Vote!

[daigu]

Where would this moderate party be on the political compass map?

I really like this quote from the site:

Within the United States, of course, real (and imagined) differences between the mainstream candidates are more greatly magnified. However, compared to other western democracies, especially those with a finely-tuned system of proportional representation, most mainstream political activity in the US is concentrated over a more narrow ideological range. We note too that conservative Democrats tend to have more in common with Republicans than with the liberals within their own ranks.

Given this, perhaps more conservative Democrats like Lieberman should join the party that more accurately reflects their views - i.e., the Repubican party - and dispense with creating a new party.

Re:Vote!

[letxa2000]

While there are legitimate complaints about both Republicans and Democrats, I wonder how many of the people that actively promote the idea of a "third party" have actually lived in a country where such multi-party systems lead to tenuous coalition-building that is every bit as ineffective as the two parties we have now. Unless your goal is to make Congress completely ineffective (thereby increasing the relative power of the president), coalition/multi-party systems have as many faults as our current system. Short of having no parties whatsoever (which I have mixed feelings about), I don't think the two-party system is particularly bad.

I wouldn't mind having better candidates in the parties, though.

Re:Vote!

[glesga_kiss]

We don't really have the wherewithall to handle a lesser fuckup when we got a major fuckup going on, which is also underreported. Most people have turned against the War in Iraq and Bush but seem to think there are no alternatives.

That explains the lack of coverage. Ultimately all the news networks care about are ratings as it's their bottom line. Depressing news is hard to sell.

Re:Vote!

[hal2814]

"But my other main point stands. 3rd party presidential votes 'are' a complete waste."

By that same logic, major party Presidential votes in heavily favored states are also a waste. I live in the state of Georgia. In 2004, there was no way Bush was going to lose that state. Voting for Kerry in that situation "might make the voter feel better, but it's still not helping the current situation." Badnarik had just as good a chance of winning as Kerry did in the state of Georgia.

You can even see similar behoavior in the electors themselves. Sometimes when their candidate has certainly lost, you'll see them cast votes form someone else. This happened in 1976. Reagan actually got a few electoral votes when it was obvious Carter was going to win over Ford. This act garnered a decent bit of national spotlight towards Reagan who would go on to win the 1980 Presidential election.

Re:Vote!

[The Spoonman]

Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available,

Retort: In other words, vote in the lesser of two evils. Sorry, I'm doing that. I'm done with voting against people, I want to vote FOR someone for a change. Granted, despite my revulsion, this November I will be pulling the big, blue handle only. This November, we NEED to get the taliban out of office. I can't stand the other side, but they're without any shade of doubt the WORST of the two Evils (with a capital "E"). After that, we need to start working away from the two-party system we've inflicted on ourselves. Neither "side" represents my voice anymore, and I'm tired of listening to theirs. You wanna go on and keep plugging away at hiring stupider and more evil representatives, then I say you're getting exactly who should be representing you.

Re:Vote!

[jo42]

"Heil Bush!"

Re:Vote!

[crhylove]

Which bigger issue is that? The fact that they DO NOT COUNT OUR VOTES?!?

Re:Vote!

[bobbuck]

Do you think that the Democrats, if given power, would be any less eager to snoop? You obviously don't remember the clipper chip. It was an invasion of privacy so great that even John Ashcroft (golly!) fought against it. Tell the Branch Davidians about how the Democrats will protect our rights. The only choice you have is the Libertarians and I bet you won't support them because they would also protect the rights and liberties that you Lefties want taken away.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available, choose to throw their votes away and allow the conservative side to gain a numeric advantage are the real cause of all our (political) problems.

Are you implying that my write-in vote for Cthulhu was, in some manner, EVIL?

Seriously, though - it seems, to me, that there is something wrong with having to make a choice between two evils. The way that our current electorial system (in the U$A) is set up, today, that seems to be exactly the case, however.

Re:Vote!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>the President has the powers that you question, and they are granted to him by the Constitution

The Constitution spells out in minute detail what the Executive's powers are and explicitly says that it's an exhaustive list. If the Founders had wanted the President to spy on Americans without judicial oversight they would have said so.

>guess what we are at war.

Former Attorney General Gonzalez told Congress the opposite. He said that a state of war would have all sorts of implications under treaties and international law that don't apply.

President Bush seems to disagree with you, since if he thought we were at war he would hardly have asked for tax cuts.

Re:Vote!

[MightyYar]

I agree with all of your points, except that Lieberman would fit with the Republican party. He could never win a primary. He's pro-choice, he's not a Christian, and his social views are more Democrat than Republican. Now, you and I look at those things and think, "so what"? The problem is that the Republican party is so swept up in the abortion and morality issues, that he just wouldn't do very well in the primaries. Of course, in the general election most people will vote for him. And this is kind of my point... if the good candidates can't get through the primaries so that the majority of moderate Americans can vote for them, then neither political party is any good to me.

Lieberman lost a primary in a state that loves him. In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter barely beat his loony opponent in the primary of 2004 - and he's a popular Senator. It's happening all over... you can't be a Democrat and say "I don't think we should pull out of Iraq just yet," without losing the primary to a Bush hater with little chance of carrying the moderate vote and winning the general election. If you are a Republican you can't say "I don't see what's so bad about letting homosexuals get married," without losing the primary. So you end up with idiots like Pennsylvania's other Senator, Santorum. So now instead of having a realistic, useful government making sane decisions, you have radicals fighting it out for their ideals... ideals which almost never work in real life.

To answer your question about the compass (which over-simplifies things a bit, but...), I think that this "moderate" party would field a candidate that was just as far to the "right" as Kerry, but down further toward the "Libertarian" line, maybe even over into that quadrant a little. By definition, the party would have to be more into state's rights, since both current parties want to force their will on the entire country: gay marriage/no gay marriage for all, abortion/no abortion for all, capital punishment/no capital punishment for all. I can't be the only person who would vote for someone in a national election who said, "Well, personally I'm for/against abortion/capital punishment/gay marriage, but I think we should let people in their own communities decide what is morally right or wrong." Right now, that person would never make it out of a primary, and that's a shame.

Re:Vote!

[smilindog2000]

Hey, that's a long post :-)

In short, what you're saying is more or less the neoconervative party line, that we've all been fed. The problem is, much of it is misleading, much wrong. Much of it was invented by campaign specialists specifically to win votes. You have to use your judgment to figure out which is which. Remember to question everything, especially if it was said by a politician or anyone in his employ.

Here are the common neoconservative views I feel you've accurately stated that I personally believe fall into this category.

Iraq is about changing the Middle East into a free democratic region.

Bush said so before the war. It's a noble idea. Unfortunately, it's massively misinformed. Plenty of Middle East experts were calling this idea nonsense before the war. One of Bush's worst qualities: not listening. I don't want to go into details of Iraq... to depressing, too pointless. However, after we're gone, we wont be leaving behind a happy stable democracy that encompasses Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, one that inspires the rest of the states there. We'll leave behind two or three typical Middle Eastern states, and a radicalized nuclear armed Iran (unless Israel takes out their nukes), and stronger terrorists than ever in history.

I'd just like to point out: The neoconservatives were wrong. Admit it. Get over it. Learn from it. This continued denial is tiring, but I realize it will last until 2009, when we can finally do something about it, at which point the true neoconservatives will blame the rest of us for not finishing the mission. Neoconservatism is like many religions. Believers have true faith, unshakable in the face of reality.

How can the EU continue the cause when it has shown time and again that its not willing to do anything about the radicalism right on its collective doorstep?

Easy. Admit Turkey.

It's so convenient to believe that the US is what's wrong with the world, and that the middle east would just want to live in peace, with no militant radicals wanting to export their beliefs. It's convenient to believe in moral relativism, where someone like Bush == bin Laden, just on different sides (or the same side) of a coin.

Who are you talking about? I've never met a person who believes that. America is in the Middle East trying to make the world a better place. Most of us (including me) here in the US think this is the best place to live and the best country in the world. "Moral relativism" is neoconservative FUD. We're all US backers.

The problem is Bush. His failures cause major problems throughout the world, including increased terrorism, arming of radical states with WMD, and trashing human rights and freedom. Don't confuse criticism of Bush and many of his beliefs with criticism of the US.

I'd say an Islamic fundamentalist superstate is pretty harmful.

Of course. Who would disagree with that? However, our policies towards Iran were working, and they had a "liberal" government, less hostile to the West. Thanks to Junior, Iran is now perhaps the greatest threat to the world. That whole "Axis of Evil" thing was crying stupidity. What about China? Remember that they're Communist? Policies in place since Nixon are working: bring them into the world community, accept them, and let them change on their own, inspired by our example. If Junior had been responsible for forming relations with China, we'd be in the middle of WWIII.

Neoconservatives *really believe, quite literally*, in free markets and free peoples and in freedom being the most desirable default state.

So do the vast majority of the rest of us.

But anyone who thinks the US is a police state or teetering on the brink of a "fascist theocracy" (???), after just a faint few years no less, is quite frankly, deluded.

I am more paranoid about protecting my freedoms than most. The whole "price of freedom" and all.

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

By that same logic, major party Presidential votes in heavily favored states are also a waste.

Nope, because Kerry got a fair percentage of the vote. What percent of the vote did any 3rd party candidate get? I'm in Virginia and it was pretty well known Bush would win here too...but it was also quite a bit closer than had been expected.

linky - What I've been saying throughout this thread is you need to have a *reasonable* chance at winning. Meaning your candidate will get a measurable portion of the votes. And 0.34 % is not *reasonable*, 45% is.

Win some House seats and people will start to believe in the 3rd party cause. But until then, they are will always be 'crackpot' candidates to the general electorate.

Re:Vote!

[BigCheese]

We scrape a 911 count of Americans off our highways every 48 hours.

Scary terrorists. Yea, right.

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

Yep, I'd be lambasting you for not voting as well. Because *any* vote/non-vote outside the 2 choices we currently have in a presidential election, is implicitly accepting whatever the outcome is. (This is not an endorsement of 2 party system, I'd love to see a realistic challanger to it).

So if you feel better because you didn't help the situation, then so be it. But that doesn't help the country deal with the myriad of crisises(sp?) facing it that are of Dubya's doing.

Re:Vote!

[telarus]

"I don't vote. Two reasons. First all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around - they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with." -George Carlin

Re:Vote!

[southmc]

Unfortunately it is your logic, that has long been shared by many other citizens, that gives the 3rd party no chance to win. If everyone voted for the canidate they wanted in office, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils, perhaps 3rd party canidates would have a chance. Instead people feel forced to vote for someone they don't support just so the other guy doesn't win. If we knew the true number of people who voted democratic or republican because they felt their vote would be wasted if they went 3rd party, you'd likely find races alot closer than you think.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

Literally, "terror" means fear, therefore "terrorist" means "one who causes fear." That's why I thought it was odd for you to say that a terrorist could never accomplish the destruction of our country, but that fear could.

In other words let, A = terrorist, B = fear, and C = destruction of our country. You said B ---> C and A -/-> C. I assumed A ---> B. Therefore, it should be the case that A ---> B ---> C (by the chain rule), but that logically conflicts with A -/-> C.

See?

Re:Vote!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>it can be dropped when the war is over

In other words, when there's no more terrorism?

Re:Vote!

[BeerCat]

(From Wikipedia entry:)The word "indication" is key as, like all opinion polls, exit polls do by nature include a margin of error. A famous example of exit poll error occurred in the 1992 UK General Election, when two exit polls predicted a hung parliament. In the event, the Conservative Party Government under John Major held their position with a reduced majority.

In this case the exit polls were flawed, as people were too embarrassed to admit to voting Conservative (the incumbent party, who had done a good job trashing the economy, but were still "the devil you know"), so told the pollsters one thing, but actually did another.

Re:Vote!

[RevAaron]

HEY!

But a DEM was mayor at the time! Govenor too! Logic is for bleeding heart hippies!

Re:Vote!

[phantomlord]

Exit polls have a lot of assumptions built into them as well. If a county votes roughly 70% to 30% in nearly every election, all they need to do is call the county and get the voter turnout. From there, they make an assumption that things followed the statistical trend because it's impossible to exit poll every location in the US.

For a specific example, take the case of the Hasidic Jews in Rockland County in 2000. They have a pretty long streak of voting overwhelmingly conservative but they voted 1400 to 12 for Hillary Clinton in the Senate race. Exit polling probably wouldn't have been conducted manually in that district given the past and the results would probably be roughly opposite of what the exit polling would have expected them to be.

In any given two year cycle, things can happen in districts which would make the locals vote in ways they normally wouldn't, but not all of those things make it on the radar significantly enough to warrant manual exit polling.

Re:Vote!

[(trb001)]

I think you could say that the moment the programs started they helped *someone.*

Playing devil's advocate, as soon as Hussein was toppled, many people benefitted and were happy he was gone. Whatever the number, it was a substantial part of the country.

is there anyone who thinks Israel won?

Not quite sure how we segued into Israel v. Hizbollah. That conflict had no decisive winner or loser. Time will tell whether Israel's incursion did anything to weaken Hizbollah or convince Lebanon that having Hizbollah around is not in their best interest.

Unfortunately, the Neocon fantasy that if we just kill or depose the bad guys at the top, we can turn Iraq into a shining example of democracy, is proving to be just that -- a fantasy.

That they've already voted for representatives and a Constitution means they are a democracy. What you want is for Iraq to be a safe, stable Democracy. Nobody, including the adminstration, expected that to be immediate or even within the few years after Hussein was ousted.

--trb

Re:Vote!

[smchris]

Count!

As Stalin said.

Re:Vote!

[aeryn_sunn]

I think you meant to say "Exit polls showed Libertarians whinning"...*ducks*

Re:Vote!

[smilindog2000]

Oh. My. God.

I've just watched the first video. I really like my sig, or I'd change it to: Axis of Evil: Neoconservative FUD

Hey, David Schroeder. I challenge you to watch at least the first video. I'd like to know your reaction. Note that I'm only interested in friendly debate. I can see your posts are intelligent.

Re:Vote!

[Lobster Quadrille]

"Exit polls were the gold standard of election forcasting...until 2000. Funny...that's when all the trouble started, isn't it?"

As much a fan of the current government as I am NOT, there's been trouble with the political system for a lot longer than the last 6 years.

Re:Vote!

[M0b1u5]

...Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms.

You got one word wrong: change "give" to "take" and the sentence is correct.

You haven't seen the obvious: the government needs you to fear terrorism. Forget the fact you're more likely to be killed by bees, and 10,000 times more likely to be killed in a car...

The Bush regime (I won't dignify it with the word "administration", and I equate it with the regime of a despotic and nepotistic dictator, only limited to 8 years - but we'll see about that "8 year" thing too.) requires and demands that you are afraid, and WELL afraid. The only way to make sure you are afraid is to continue scaring you with bullshit, and making new laws which make it sound like they might work.

In fact, the new laws, and the breaking of existing laws, as well as the reduction of freedoms, and rights (particularly to privacy) are designed to do only one thing: keep you scared. THEN - the other laws which have nothing to do with terrorism - like the copyright laws, and every other "nanny state" law passed are all designed to criminalise you. I doubt there's a single US-based reader of slashdot who isn;t guilty of breaking some law in the US, and mostly likely a federal law at that.

So, a scared population, who are all law-breakers can be detained at will, and easily controlled. It's the old story: you're a frog, and the water in the pot is getting hotter and hotter, and you feel a bit uncomfortable, but not uncomfortable enough to jump out of the pot.

Re:Vote!

[Bios_Hakr]

I've thought about that too. About 3000 people died on 9-11-2001 in the Towers. Probably several thousand more died from the things you listed above. However, here is a big difference:

# Heart disease
Prople can stop eating fatty food and reduce their risk.

# Cancer
A bit tricky, but not smoking and getting a bit of exercise every now and again would definately help.

# Drunk drivers
This is really dumb. The classic drunk driver horror story is that little Suzie was killed as she waited for a bus to take her to church or school or some such nonsense. However, the vast majority of drunk drivers do it at like 4am when the bar closes. The only people they endanger is themselves and the other people out at 4am.

# Not drunk drivers
More driver education would go a long way to helping out here. In Europe, most people have to take a year's worth of classes and pay several thoudand dollars to get a license.

# homicide
Not much can be done here. Let the pot heads out of jail and start telling people they *will* spend the rest of their lives in jail for *any* homicide.

# AIDs
Stop fucking! Stop using drugs! AIDS is like social darwinism. It's a death tax on the stupid. I don't think it's a plauge on fags and druggies, but seriously, strap on a fucking condom and AIDS would be gone in a few years.

# Firearms
Nothing wrong with firearms. People misusing firearms is a social problem that *could* be solved. However, to say that guns are bad because a small minority of users are criminals is just wrong. If you take my guns because crack heads like to shoot each other, then you might as well take your computer because some perv looks at little girls on the internet.

# ladders
Read the instructions and follow them.

# Drowning
Don't get drunka and swim. Watch your kids and make sure someone is watching you.

And...

# Terrorism
Convert to Islam and become subservient. Other than that, there is nothing you can do to appease these people.

In short, 3000 people died from nothing that had anything to do with them. If they'd spent another 30 minutes on the treadmill, they'd still be dead. If they wore a condom, they'd still be dead. If they'd never had a drink in their life, they'd still be dead. Absolutely nothing they could have done.

Re:Vote!

[mibus]

This is one of the times I wish there was a +6 mod.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

It started in 1948, I believe ("Dewey Defeats Truman" anyone?? Bueller?).

See Also: "Landslide Lyndon" Johnson.

Re:Vote!

[Deliveranc3]

homicide

AIDs

Firearms

ladders

Drowning

Fascism - There fixed that for you, If you count all the nutjobs out there who might become your government and then shoot you for thinking something bad then your chances are actually way higher. Certainly far higher than being killed by a terrorist.
...

Fear can lead to the destruction our country. Something terrorist could never accomplish.

Re:Vote!

[demigod]

In short, 3000 people died from nothing that had anything to do with them. If they'd spent another 30 minutes on the treadmill, they'd still be dead. If they wore a condom, they'd still be dead. If they'd never had a drink in their life, they'd still be dead. Absolutely nothing they could have done.

"Nothing could be done". "Nothing could be done". You can't fool me with that. If only on 9/11 everyone getting on those planes would of had their shoes x-rayed and not been allowed shampoo in there carry-ons, those 3000 people would still be alive today.

Re:Vote!

[daigu]

The major problem is that the system can be gamed by profiling voters, media control (did you see that extended ad by the president that he did from the Oval Office a few days ago?) and so forth.

The so forth in the above would of course include not counting votes, voter intimidation, ballots that exclude third-parties and what have you.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

when the war is over

Read. (or download another edition)

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, but what exactly would be the alternative to "rationalizing?"

Would that be "not thinking altogether?"

"Partial rationalizing?"

Re:Vote!

[ClamIAm]

There is exactly one person in Washington who represents your district in the House of Representatives. If he's a Democrat, his vote does not count.

My Representative voted against both versions of USA PATRIOT. That sure as hell counts for something, at least in my book.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

The terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11th want to establish a global caliphate ruled by Islamic law

No, they want the U.S. to get the fuck out of the middle east and stop giving blank-check support to Israel. If they wanted to spread Islamic theoracracy, they sure as hell wouldn't start with a country with a Christian majority on the other side of the planet, one surrounded by two huge oceans and a friendly nation to the north and the south.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

I keep hearing this, and I'm a few years from Political Science, but huh? I'm not flaming, I seriously want to be educated. Islam, including radical Islam, is the opposite of fascism?

My local asshat newspaper had an editorial supporting Bush's use of the term "Islamofacist", listing some definitions for "facist". The problem was that their list didn't match up with Al Qaeda at all, but did fit the Republican party very nicely. Two of the more important parts of facism is fanatical support of your nation and it's military. Al Qaeda is independant of any country, and has no military.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

According to the pollsters themselves it appears methodology and political ideology seem to be the main culprits. In the last election there was admitted problems with the methodology used, sometimes due to lack of training and some times due to the law (minimum distances from polling stations). As distance between the pollster and the actual polling station increases the reliability of the results decreases as it becomes more of a matter of the voter seeking out a pollster which greatly skews the results. For whatever reason, according to the polling companies themselves, Republicans are less likely to volunteer to take part in an exit poll so would logically therefore be even less likely to make an actually effort to seek out an pollster.

Timing also plays a major factor. For example women, who vote predominantly Democrat, tend to vote earlier and therefore make up a larger percentage of exit poll results than their actual numbers would dictate.

All GOP myths, I'm afraid.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

Both bloody parties are OWNED by the powers that be now.

Some people are trying to change that. David Siorta is trying to get Democratic leaders to cut off access to any lobbyist who goes bragging about his influence in the party, and any Democrat who whores him or herself out to lobbyists gets thrown off comitties.

Re:Vote!

[will_die]

you are misunderstanding the situation.
the corps basicly has a monopoly on doing all work on the waterways and coasts. They get thier funds directly from Congress/president or from cities and states, who usally get the money from congress.
Most of the direct funding goes to things like keeping the waterways clear.
So what happens is that Congress/President will go and allocate X amount of money to new orleans for water projects, the money is very rarly allocated for specific thing, but is very general like has to go to beaches.
The city will get that money and then tell the corps that they want done. The corps will then contract out the work or do it in house.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

Don't give me any malarky about voting for the "lesser of two evils". If you do that, you are VOTING FOR EVIL, and you deserve this broken government.

Uh huh. Why don't you go ask Ralph Nader if he honestly still believes that the country would still be the same if Gore had gone to the Oval Office instead of Bush.

Re:Vote!

[billeger]

Yes, vote early and vote often! Do whatever is necessary to stop the loss of our nation!

Let's start by calling the wiretapping what it is, UNWARRANTED. That i much closer to the truth that the tepid "warrantless." Let it start here, on Slashdot!

"Unwarranted wiretapping." Doesn't that have a nice ring to it?

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

Surely you aren't so blind as to think this is a republicrat vs. demopublican issue. They both approved the war, they both approved the patriot act. There's no real dissent, except for a handful of folks -- like Ron Paul

Horsehockey. You speak as if those were the only two issues on the table - but they aren't and you know it. Torture, indefinite detentions w/o trial, indefinite troop deployments, domestic spying, unitary executive, braying about security while cutting domestic security budgets, demonizing anyone who questions you as unpatriotic and unAmerican...there is only one party doing these things.

Claiming that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans was bull back when Nader was making the claim in 2000, and the following years have proven him as wrong as a person could possibly be. Making that claim today is just batshit crazy.

Re:Vote!

[paganizer]

I didn't like the Libertarian candidate, either. I wrote in my daughters name.
I just can't bring myself to vote for the lesser evil; if I want to vote for Evil, I'll write in Cthulhu.
This last one was a real tough election for me. I'm a one issue voter; I vote for the person who I think will uphold the 2nd amendment. Kerry was obviously out of the question, But I think Bush is probably a greater danger to our national "reset switch" by making sure less & less people are legally able to own guns and increasing the sheeptitude of the general population.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

Well, first of all, I said that Iraq was one of the largest state sponsors of terror

However, there are still concrete links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Stop lying. Please.

Re:Vote!

[ichigo 2.0]

I just thought it was silly to use them as a source. Next thing you know, people will start thinking government inflation statistics are reliable and other such nonsense, so it's good to be a sceptic and demand independent evidence.

Re:Vote!

[mgcarley]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Must cease leasing servers from United States (A country to which I have never been and will probably not go to, especially while you all have laws like this!) and move them to... China... err... maybe Netherlands... or Sweden.

Land of the Free? My arse.

Re:Vote!

[MightyYar]

That's partially true, but one of their goals is to unite the Islamic world in a pan-Islamist state. This is a form of nationalism... they just don't actually have a nation yet. They most certainly are militaristic, however, and they do consider themselves to be an army... on that point I have to disagree with you.

Re:Vote!

[Cheeze]

It should be called "War on (some) Drugs"

drugs that can be marketted and sold for high profits wouldn't be illegal. If you can grow/make them in your garage, they are "highly illegal" and schedule 3.

Re:Vote!

[Cheeze]

It's not in the news at all in the US. We "won" it because our government tells us so. What exactly did we win? That's the real question, but no one will answer it.

Re:Vote!

[workindev]

That's it? That's the best you could come up with?

Unfortunately for you, "nuh-uh" isn't a very convincing argument.

Re:Vote!

[Straif]

There are serious questions about both Freeman's conclusions and his methodology used.

Most his argument is based upon the use of the early release unadjusted numbers and not the final release values, which were much closer. For those not acquainted with exit polling systems, the numbers are adjusted to coincide with the actual voter turnouts and remove disproportionate representation within the sample group. I.E. if your sample is made of 55% but actual voter turnout has a percentage of only 35% women than the polls are adjusted to compensate for the over representation.

He also tries to use mathematical comparisons where they simply don't work. For example, his comparison of response rates in Blue districts to Red Districts. According to his conclusion, if a GWB supporter has a 56% response rate in Texas they should also have a 56% response rate in L.A. As almost any Conservative living within a Liberal bastion can tell you, vocalizing your Conservative beliefs invokes about the same response as insulting someone's mother or worse, and in terms of vocalizing support for GWB, well you'd probably receive a more favourable response if you just hit someone.

And from his own book (thanks to the review at TPM Cafe):

"In addition to the 1988, 1992 and 2004 presidential elections and the 2000 vote for president in Florida, the only other significant unexplained US exit poll discrepancies on record are the Republican presidential primaries in New Hampshire in 1992 and Arizona in 1996."

As the reviewer points out, exit polling has only been used in the US since the 60's, so out of 11 or so federal elections, 4 have produced questionable results, that's hardly a great confidence builder in their accuracy. But even though Freeman clearly states this, he ignores any implications that may have and continues with his "exit polls are always accurate" argument.

The fact his co-author is the editor of a 'Progressive' magazine also does not help his image as a independant arbiter for truth much.

Overall, I'll stick with Mark Blumenthal's work when it comes to impartial polling analysis.

Re:Vote!

[18r18r13m]

Rationality, so what is rational when it comes to this. Is it "You hit us, you want to kill so we will kill you first" or "You hit us, you want to kill us, so we will try to be your friend so you will like us and not kill us".

I am afraid that you cannot look at those two carte blanc because you also have to rationally look at our enemy, so lets not make this black and white.

Now to talk about voting...
So voting rationally...that would be nice and simple. However both parties are all about ideals. I know most think of Republicans Ideals as Christian ideals so lets leave that as is. But Democrats also are idealists. They believe that humans are good by nature, hard working by nature and if we just share everything then we will have a better society. Well if you look at the data of around the world and through time, people are not all good, not every person is hard working and if we all just shared some people would take advantage of that. So rational voting is only half of what you need to do. You have to have ideals as well as a rational and logical view of the world. If you want to look at it the Constitution is based off of both of those two things. Ideally you see the preamble which talks about the ideals of what this nation was founded on, however if you look at the amendments you will see rational in the way the founding fathers tried to achieve those ideals. They realized that any government can crush humans rights so we have the right to bear arms to not only protect ourselves from enemies but also from ourselves. Right to the press so the government can't keep everything from us. You look down the line, the Constitution is all about the rational human rights that hopefully will bring us to the ideals that the nation was founded on. So the point of all this is that you can't vote solely on Ideals or Rational...You must take both into account.

Re:Vote!

[JourneymanMereel]

Then blame me while you're at it. I actually did vote for Bush.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

That's partially true, but one of their goals is to unite the Islamic world in a pan-Islamist state.

Desire yes, goal not so much. Their goals are to stop the U.S. and Europe from screwing around with the middle east, and end the U.S.'s blank check support for Israel. If spreading Islam was their primary goal, they wouldn't start with a country with a large Christian majority with enough weapons to kill the worlds population a couple of times over with conventional weaponry, with a few thousand nuclear weapons as backup.

This is a form of nationalism

Nope. Note the "nation" in "nationalism".

They most certainly are militaristic, however, and they do consider themselves to be an army... on that point I have to disagree with you.

Not an army. You might be able to call them a militia, but militias don't cut the mustard for facism purposes.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

# Terrorism
Convert to Islam and become subservient. Other than that, there is nothing you can do to appease these people.

Bullshit. Try this instead:

1. Reduce dependence on foreign oil by moving to a smaller city, driving a more fuel-efficient car, walking/bicycling more, and supporting research for natural fuels such as energy cane. See Brazil.
2. Reduce the presence of American soldiers in the Middle East. Close bases, de-fund the many "superweapons" that don't actually work and use that money for #1.
3. Begin cracking down on non-Muslim terrorism at home and abroad, including Christians who shoot doctors, nutjobs who bomb federal buildings and mail anthrax, and Buddhists and Hindus bombing each other.
4. Admit Turkey into the EU with the stipulation that it must respect Western-style human rights including the rights to free speech, peacable assembly, and unusual clothing.
5. Recognize Kurdistan as a separate nation and open trade negotiations.

There, that's just a start. Do those things and watch Al-Qaida shrivel within fifty years; keep playing the They Are Inhuman Madmen card and watch them continue to plan attacks.

Re:Vote!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only enemy I see is the US Government. I live here, and I fear them. I see this series of events, and I can't help but wonder why they keep getting worse. I don't exactly belive that terrorism in the governments definition even destroyed the WTC.
They've lied so many times to us, it's numbing. If they lie this much, what else have they lied about that we haven't uncovered yet? Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to hurt us with. Binladen DENIED any connection to 9/11 despite his proud personality, and the fact that he has claimed responsibility to other attacks around the world even when he didn't have anything to do with them. That tells me that he doesn't have the balls to even think about blowing up that many people. On his FBI's most wanted page, there is nothing there about the 9/11 attacks. That means the FBI knows it was a lie. I'm more likely to get nabbed by the FBI because of copying music than I am to be killed by a middle easterner of ANY type for ANY REASON.
Do you see what I'm getting at? They've taken rights away, they've shut down free information networks, they've expanded the NSA wiretapping law, they've killed innocient people, and they've lied to us. Over and over again.
This government IS my only enemy right now. It is the only thing I fear right now.
I don't know what they are up to, I don't know if they are trying to rule the world, or if they are just money hungry bastards with the power to get it. But I'm not going to stand by them anymore. If this government is supposed to represent us, then they are not doing their job, at all.

Re:Vote!

[sunweight]

Why should I vote for a 3rd party?

Re:Vote!

[MightyYar]

If spreading Islam was their primary goal, they wouldn't start with a country with a large Christian majority with enough weapons to kill the worlds population a couple of times over with conventional weaponry, with a few thousand nuclear weapons as backup.

They didn't start with the US, they started with Afghanistan - one of the poorest countries in the world. They attacked the US for the reasons you mention, plus the US's support for other monarchs in the region. There's a reason that the 9/11 hijackers were all Saudi.

Nope. Note the "nation" in "nationalism".

I think you are probably being intellectually dishonest here. You know that a word's definition need not contain the root word. If that were true, then the American "Patriots" would have had no nationalism on July 3, 1776 - but then on July 4 they were suddenly nationalistic. The fundamentalists do have nationalistic feelings, and would very much like to have a nation.

You might be able to call them a militia, but militias don't cut the mustard for fascism purposes.

What about a militia is not militaristic? They have training camps. They promote self-sacrifice for the greater good, in fact making it the ultimate way to die. Let me repeat that last part for you - they teach and believe that the best, most honorable way to die is as a martyr. If that isn't a militaristic culture, then I don't know how I could possibly satisfy your requirements for one.

Re:Vote!

[ChristTrekker]

In Nebraska it's around 12k and in New Hampshire it's less than 1k. The two candidates in my state district were a retiree and a lawyer...those are about the only people you can get for that.

It's not that it's part-time, it's more like seasonal. It's bad enough finding a PT job, but I could do that. Finding something you can take a 4-5 month break from though...forget it. Especially when in most states the governor can call you in for emergency sessions! If you're going to be seasonal FT and on-call the rest of the year, you deserve a decent salary.

Re:Vote!

[Bios_Hakr]

You are AC, so I have no idea if you'll see this response.

>>1. Reduce dependence on foreign oil by moving to a smaller city, driving a more fuel-efficient car, walking/bicycling more, and supporting research for natural fuels such as energy cane. See Brazil.

Oil has little or no impact on the desires of Islam. As a group, Muslims want to see everyone in the world become Muslim. They are no different from Christians in this respect. However, Muslim law is much more strict than Christian law. Look at the first few hundred years of Islam. None of the people they conquored depended on oil.

>>2. Reduce the presence of American soldiers in the Middle East. Close bases, de-fund the many "superweapons" that don't actually work and use that money for #1.

This is a pretty good idea. However, for a true retreat from the ME, we must abandon Isreal. Are you willing to pull up tent stakes and watch as Isreal is overrun by Muslims? Isreal will respond by nuking anything that moves within 100 miles of their border. A retreat from the ME will mean nuclear war and millions of deaths.

>>3. Begin cracking down on non-Muslim terrorism at home and abroad, including Christians who shoot doctors, nutjobs who bomb federal buildings and mail anthrax, and Buddhists and Hindus bombing each other.

Anyone in the US who commits murder or a hate crime will be punished. However, with that pesky Constitution thingy, there is only so much law enforcement can do.

>>4. Admit Turkey into the EU with the stipulation that it must respect Western-style human rights including the rights to free speech, peacable assembly, and unusual clothing.

What right do we have to tell another country what they can and can't do with their own citizens? Turkey shouldbe allowed to do whatever it wants until it gets bad enough that we are justified in invading it and overthrowing the ruler. Only then do we have the right to say what the Turks can and can't wear.

>>5. Recognize Kurdistan as a separate nation and open trade negotiations.

As soon as you create Kurdistan, Turkey will invade and you'll have ethnic cleansing. Kurds can't defend themselves. SHould we station US troops there? Should we give them weapons?

No matter what you and your buddies at the bar think, thousands of *very* smart people have tried to come up with a way to solve the Middle East problem. Short of killing every Muslim there, there really isn't anything that can be done. And unfortunately, the West does not have the stomach to declare Jihad and start killing Muslims. However, if the shoe was on the other foot, Muslims would kill us in a heartbeat. When an invader lacks the resolve to commit to an action at the same level as the opponent, then the invader will lose.

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

Your logic is at best a stretch. You're claiming that of the NINETY FIVE percent of votes for Kerry or Bush, a *large* percentage of them are really misdirected because of a lack of 3rd party candidates? puleeze.

Where are these votes when 3rd party house seats are cast? If you can't win a house seat on the up and up, you will never, ever, ever win the presidency. Any claim to the contrary is simply denial of the reality you live in.

Re:Vote!

[pixelpusher220]

Nope, I won't blame you...as you wouldn't have voted for Kerry since you didn't vote for Kerry. My beef is with the misguided souls who think that *feel good* voting somehow helps the country. I'll disagree with your vote and all the assorted issues that I find with the current administration, but I won't blame you for the fact that he did win the election.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

That's it? That's the best you could come up with?

Why bother, when even the pathological liars in the Bush Administration now admit there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? I wonder if your ancestors were still insisting the world was flat in 1800 AD.

Re:Vote!

[Scudsucker]

They didn't start with the US, they started with Afghanistan - one of the poorest countries in the world.

Looks like you're thinking of the Taliban, which gave shelter to Al Queda but is a completely different entity.

I think you are probably being intellectually dishonest here.

No, you're being stubborn. This isn't like "cattails", which don't have anything to do with cats or tails. Nationalism is the ardent support for a nation, and without one, there is no nationalism. You might as well try and separate Catholicism from Catholics.

What about a militia is not militaristic? They have training camps.

Because it's stretching it to call Al Qaeda a militia in the first place, because militias are made up of part time soldiers or civilians, and because they have no intentions of being a powerful army. The arms race between the USSR and the US? That was nationalism. China's desire to build a military to rival that of the United States? That is nationalism. Israel building nukes and maintaining vast military superiority over it's neighbors? That is nationalism. Some 17 year old kid learning how to shoot an AK-47 and plant bombs to blow up airplanes? That is terrorism, not nationalism.

Let me repeat that last part for you - they teach and believe that the best, most honorable way to die is as a martyr.

And this would be different from Christians...how? Ask any Chrisitian what the best way to die is, and they'd proabably answer for family, for their god, or for their country. Which is exactly the problem with the GOP pushing their "Islamofacism" term - the right wing of the Republican Party is already standing hip deep in facism country already. Anyone who questions their policy is "part of the blame America first crowd". There was the our-way-or-the-highway "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists". Fanatical support of the military, except for when it comes to serving in it or providing enough armored vehicles or body armor. Which makes them pretty cowardly facists. Throwing civil liberties out the window in favor of more government power. Demanding the right to torure suspects, use secret evidence at secret trials, and holding people, even American citizens, indefinetly without a hearing.

So, broadening the term "facism" enough so it applies to all these Amerian-hating Muslisms means that just about the entire Republican party are also facists, along with a number of Democrats (I'm looking at you, Lieberman).

Re:Vote!

[MightyYar]

Looks like you're thinking of the Taliban, which gave shelter to Al Queda but is a completely different entity.

They are separate "entities", but they share a common set of goals. It is safe to say that you could be a member of, and actively support, both organizations without conflict. Al-Queda actively helped bring the Taliban to power.

Nationalism is the ardent support for a nation, and without one, there is no nationalism.

I still say that you're being absurd - and you managed to duck my example about the pre-US colonials. They had no nationalism until July 4, 1776?

Some 17 year old kid learning how to shoot an AK-47 and plant bombs to blow up airplanes? That is terrorism, not nationalism.

Agreed, but it's still militaristic.

And this would be different from Christians...how?

I never said Christians couldn't be fascist. I also never claimed that there wasn't a strong fascist streak in the US - I happen to agree with you there.

Re:Vote!

[workindev]

Tell that to Bill Clinton. It was his Administration who first claimed they were connected.

You are really good at ignoring facts, aren't you?

Bedtime for Democracy

[TripMaster Monkey]

(Apologies to Jello Biafra)

Here's a quick rundown of SB 2453:

1) Repeal the core requirement of FISA that its procedures and the criminal Wiretap Act (Title III) "shall be the exlusive means" for conducting electronic surveillance. The bill essentially makes FISA optional overall, by explicitly deferring to the President's "inherent" constitutional authority instead.

2) Authorize (but not require) the President to submit the current NSA surveillance program to review and blessing by the FISA courts. This review effectively would be limited to Fourth Amendment issues. The separation-of-powers issues deriving from FISA itself would not be reviewed, because Congress already would have capitulated in Step 1) above.

3) Refer all third-party court challenges to intelligence-surveillance programs to the FISA courts, instead of the ordinary District Courts such as those of Judge Taylor in Detroit, Judge Lynch in New York or Judge Walker in San Francisco, which now have several cases before them. I am uncertain of what effect this would have on Judge Taylor's case, since she already has ruled against the program and issued an injunction.

4) Make some fundamental changes to the definitions within FISA, most importantly removing the current provision that makes FISA apply to any intelligence surveillance acquired within the United States, regardless of who the target is. This apparently would have the effect of authorizing warrantless surveillance beyond that now reported to take place under the NSA program.

More information can be found at Unclaimed Territory.

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[kfg]

Stick a fork in the Republic, it's done.

Ave Caesar!

KFG

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

In Swedish, "fisa" means "to fart".

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[cold fjord]

Eating with the crazy aunt in the basement?

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[Lord_Dweomer]

You know...I would never advocate assasination, however if someone were to knock off bush, lets just say I don't think a large portion of America (or the world for that matter) would be too sad over it. In fact, I think they would be more sad over who would be filling his shoes.

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[kfg]

I believe that, in private, Bush refers to Cheney as "My bulletproof vest."

KFG

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[Lord_Dweomer]

That is perhaps the most chilling and accurate statement I have heard all weeks. You sir, have now been friended.

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[snarkth]

Comparing bush to caesar is a horrible insult to the legions. You should be ashamed :-)

  (although I agree with your other sentiment, shoulda been pulled out of the oven long ago and redone with new ingredients)

  *snark*

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[iminplaya]

Ave Caesar!

Oy Vay!

Please define "no oversight"

[Kainaw]

Going to Thomas - where the REAL text of the bill is located - it clearly requires FISC and Congressional oversight. It does allow for emergency authorization of a wiretap, but not without later Congressional oversight. So, without meeting the narrow definition of an "emergency", these wiretaps have to be authorized by FISC and then go to Congressional oversight. How is that considered "no oversight"?

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[deanj]

Mod parent up

You hit the nail on the head. They people that are against this bill would rather give you a "half truth", rather than actually tell you what the REAL bill says.

It's much easier for them to rally their troops when you have people pointing to a wired article that doesn't say a thing about the fact that the OTHER half of the phone call is to a suspected terrorist, AND that it'll go through a court AND it'll have Congressional oversight.

No, it's much easier to be alarmist and only tell the part of the story that backs up what they want to project.

And they wonder why people aren't flocking to their side of the argument.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[kevin_conaway]

See Thomas for more information.

Section 7 contains the information about Congressional Oversight

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[Stinky Fartface]

Considering how well Congress has asserted itself during the corse of events since 9-11, ceding to almost every single one of the president's demands no matter how illegal or illogical, I define "no oversight" to mean "Congressional oversight."

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no court involved. You people have got to stop lying. America is sick of it.

Fortunately, there is also no ex-post facto law. So what Bush has already done will be reviewed come November and he will be going to prison for breaking the laws of the United States of America.

I have never understood why people supported this criminal.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[HatchedEggs]

Great information. Alot of times "half truth" articles get posted on /. to try and whip the members into a frenzy. People would do well to read the actual documents pertaining to what is going on. Thanks for posting the link, it has alot of good information.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[Anonymous Coward]

The "oversight" is a secret court wherein only the government can testify and appeal. How the fuck is that oversight? And Congres, oversee? Yeah, right, I really trust those pricks to protect my privacy.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[SomeGuyTyping]

Well, then you're retarded or have no sense of what we like to call "words"

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[udderly]

No, it's much easier to be alarmist and only tell the part of the story that backs up what they want to project.

They are just hysterical parrots, mouthing what their overlords at the DNC have taught them. "Squawk! Bush evil! Squawk! Democrats Good! Squawk!"

Not that there aren't the same types on the other side of the aisle--just listen to most talk radio if you want an example. "Squawk! Democrats evil! Squawk! Bush Good! Squawk!"

I just wonder why the truth is always the first casualty in any political discussion. Probably because most people don't care about the truth; they either are just looking after their own interests or they merely want to feel morally superior.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[protohiro1]

Narrow definition? I have read this bill, and it requires the most minimal oversight I could imagine. The president and attorney general can do WHATEVER they want as long as they sign an avidavit that says that it was important and then inform the congress about it after the fact. There is no teeth to the requirements and nowhere does it say when, if ever, the courts or congress could stop this activity. Ok Shaun, think about this for a minute. Do you really want to give the president and future, possibly democratic, presidents this power? How would you feel about Bill Clinton being able to tap your phone without warrent or court order merely by asserting (not proving or demonstrating) that you were talking to a terrorist?

re: Please define "no oversight"

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 9(c) of the proposed legislation reads "Section 102 of FISA (50 U.S.C. 1802) is amended to read as follows...Notwithstanding any other law, the President through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods up to 1 year..."

In Section 3, "electronic communication" is defined as "any transfer of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted, in whole or in part, by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, cable, or other connection furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communication."

So while the bill may authorize FISC to review the surveillance, it apparently does not *require* the President to submit to such review.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[oc255]

I agree. I felt the same way during the net neutrality debate (maybe it's not over). Take this article. He says fast lanes exist (referring to the issue of preferential protocols etc)

Case in point: Akamai. If you are a big Web content provider such as Google, Yahoo or CNN, you can afford to use Akamai's services, which house content in places near the end users. If you are a startup, you may not be able to use Akamai. Take it one step further: If Congress says there's no fast lane, does that mean Akamai can't exist? Hmmm.

This is a gross error in understanding the low-level issue. Slowing down bittorrent because of media giant lobbying and other political based censorship (essentially) is so much different than Akamai which is nothing more than content hosting. The telecoms could give a fast-lane by slowing down "unimportant" content, where Akamai gives a fast-lane by hosting big filetypes (like images, movies).

I know they are two totally seperate issues but once you start getting into sound-bites and politics the technical truths get boiled off to fiction. It's exactly the same as your comment, half-truths in popular issues.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[OverlordQ]

Welcome to Slashdot.
News for Democrats, Stuff that probably isn't true.

Re: Please define "no oversight"

[OverlordQ]

Wow, no wonder you stopped quoting when you did, let me finish it for you:

may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods up to 1 year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title;

Yea, slight difference there.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[ari_j]

They want to feel morally superior. That's why it's harder to legally own a gun in Montreal than almost anywhere in the U.S. but Canada has more school shootings per capita than the U.S. They are morally superior (in their own minds) because even owning the tool to commit such an atrocity is a crime. The Republicans are morally superior to the Democrats because the former support the constitutional right to keep and bear arms while the latter support the constitutional right to free speech; each picks its own parts of the Constitution to like and dislike. The British are morally superior to the U.S. because they outlawed possession of violent pornography and will therefore not have any more sex crime. Etc.

Try to think of a political move that cannot be rationalized as the embodiment of feelings of moral superiority. I am having a hard time naming one (including the two with which I agree the most: the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States of Amerca).

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[pizpot]

school shootings per capita

Troll alert. Made up statistics.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[jrister]

Heres a link to the actual text of the bill as it stands. PDF from GPO : S2453 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s2453is.txt.pdf

Re: Please define "no oversight"

[protohiro1]

Uh, ok, so where is the oversight here, exactly? Certifies, under oath. Again, lets try the clinton analogy: if Janet Reno, certified under oath that what she was doing met these requirements, would you trust her? Promising to be good does not constitute oversight.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[symbolic]

No, it's much easier to be alarmist

We're talking about an inept president, a congress that rubber-stamps everything he does, and some very serious issues regarding constitutional compliance. We're also talking about other figures - a key military player (General Michael Hayden) who doesn't even know the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. There's Gonzales, with no real concern for legalities, or his duty to observe due process- and who is aiding and abetting every step of the way. There is no 'alarmist'. People are justifiably concerned.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[fotbr]

G.W. Bush may or may not have broken laws (thats a separate debate, not really suitable for slashdot) but you're deluded if you think he's going to do any time in prison for anything he might or might not have done as president.

IF the republican party loses control over both houses of congress (I doubt they will, there are too many stupid voters swayed by fear), he might be impeached. He might even resign. But he won't do any prison time.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[logophage]

They are just hysterical parrots, mouthing what their overlords at the DNC have taught them. "Squawk! Bush evil! Squawk! Democrats Good! Squawk!"

Heh... That's pretty funny. Here's a question you should ask yourself though. Would you accept the same level of inscrutability with regard to controls on wiretapping from the Executive branch if Hillary were President?

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[myth24601]

Whenever an article is posted that gives a clear way to dogpile on GWB groupthink tries to take over and it turns into a Bushbashfest.

Jeez, the guy will be out of office in less than 3 years and Congress will be paralyzed for the last year or so that leads up to the next presidential election.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[udderly]

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with it under any president. I wasn't speaking to that. My point is that many people who are political do not address issues with a quest for the truth, but rather a quest for getting their agenda or point-of-view advanced.

But if you're asking is would be more supportive of rights curtailment under one candidate or another, the answer is no.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[glesga_kiss]

How would you feel about Bill Clinton being able to tap your phone without warrent or court order?

It would certainally have made Nixon's life a little easier as well.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[peterpressure]

I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF... first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[peterpressure]

I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>it clearly requires FISC and Congressional oversight. It does allow for emergency authorization of a wiretap, but not without later Congressional oversight.

That is the law as it currently stands. If that were what they wanted there would be no reason for an amendment.

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[Kainaw]

You completely side-stepped the FISC. With the exception of the narrow definition of an emergency, a warrant must come from FISC. Getting a warrant from FISC is harder than getting a warrant from any other Federal Court because you have to prove that you need the warrant *and* you have to prove that the warrant must come from FISC and not a regular Federal Court. It is a very simple concept that everyone was happy with from the time the FISC was formed, through Reagan, through Pappa Bush, and through Clinton. Suddenly, the FISC is a hellspawn of evil because baby Bush is President. I have a funny feeling that the FISC will be cool again after 2008.

And, in closing, shame on you for assuming I'm an average bipolar American. If I don't hate Bush, then I must hate Clinton. If I don't hate Clinton, then I must hate Bush. In other words, you are claiming that since I took the time to research FISA, the USA Act, and the USA PATRIOT Act, I am an absolute moron who loves Bush and hates Clinton. If that is the limit of your intelligence, how do you manage to use Slashdot? Isn't the mouse hard to maneuver with no opposable thumb?

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[protohiro1]

Shaun, can't you be civil? It isn't necessary to be a dick. This is a discussion. I disagree with you. I don't think you are an absolute moron, and well, I researched it too and I disagree. I don't trust the government (ANY government) when they promise things. Why do you?

Also, I believe my thumbs are opposable, but I also think I could use the mouse just fine with no thumb.

Re: Please define "no oversight"

[Anonymous Coward]

The important part here:

"there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;"

Foreigners in another country are considered fair game for spying. It's not nice, but that's the way spying is. It's only when your government is spying in your OWN country that people start to care about human rights.

No talking!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but for reasons of national security this topic may not be discussed in any fashion.

Remember, everytime you question your government, a marine dies in the streets of Anbar.

Re:No talking!

[durnurd]

Yes, but the two events are mostly uncorrelated, an you could say that about every time you do anything.

Re:No talking!

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't I say no talking? Do you only take orders from Osama or something?

National Security transcends petty concepts like logic or truth. Correlation is not necessary if the very freedom of civilization is at stake! Don't you understand that the Islamocomm^H^H fascists hate us because Americans have the freedom to have double caramel moccachinos on their way to work?

Re:No talking!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you've got it backwards. The lack of discussion is what's killing our soldiers.

Afganistan? Threat. The one good thing we did after 9/11. Now it's falling back into Taliban hands since we moved all our guys to...

Iraq. Not a threat, but we send our soldiers there to fight while Osama sits around relatively un-hunted.

Re:No talking!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a way to mod down a comment "uninsightful", or a -1, "missed the point"

The big question is...

[__aaclcg7560]

Will Congress pass a bill to abolish itself or will King George have to declare a state of an emergency if the Democrats regain control of Congress in November?

Re:The big question is...

[mrchaotica]

will King George have to declare a state of an emergency if the Democrats regain control of Congress in November?

Watch for that in 2008, if a Republican is not elected President (not that it would happen anyway, what with electronic voting machines and all). Doing it in 2006, regardless of Congress, would be too obvious and premature, I think.

No worries here.

[boyfaceddog]

This is just political tactics. These loosers will tack this brick onto some Democratic feel-good bill, like free Housing for All, or National Health Care, or Puppies are Good.. Then the Dems will be forced to kill their own bill and the GOP will tell the world how the Evil Democratic Party (tm) doesn't like National Health Care or poor people or puppies.

Re:No worries here.

[Anonymous Coward]

These loosers...

As opposed to tighteners?

Re:No worries here.

[QCompson]

This is just political tactics.

No special tactics are required here. By and large, this isn't framed as an issue of civil liberties, this is framed as an issue of national security. The majority of democrats in the House and Senate are too frightened to be called "weak on national security" to come close to opposing this. The republicans have been extremely successful in narrowing election topics to exactly what they want. The only issue that matters in November? War on terror and national security. Other important issues such as health care, the deficit, education, etc. are barely mentioned if mentioned at all. Iraq is often discussed, but the republicans have been very adept at morphing the war in Iraq into some sort of larger world war against terrorism (and thus any criticism of the war in Iraq is a tacit support for terrorism).

The democrats will lose once again in November, because they never learn their lesson. Instead of choosing their own political battles, they willingly march right into the trap set up by the republicans. The campaign slogan of, "Look at me! I'm just as tough as that guy when it comes to terrorism! I'm just like him but I have a "D" next to my name!" isn't going to work.

Re:No worries here.

[boyfaceddog]

Amen. But when coffin nails are this cheap and easy to come by, why not stock up?

Re:No worries here.

[peterpressure]

I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...

first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....

Re:No worries here.

[Slimbob]

As opposed to tighteners?

As opposed to winers.

No oversight?

[DaHat]

Given that some in the congress were kept informed of the previous warrentless program, I would fully expect that that would be the case again, if for no other reason that the Senators would want some degree of oversight provided by themselves and behind closed doors.

Granted I have yet to read the bill to verify that this is the case, however I would bet good money that it is.

Re:No oversight?

[Anonymous Coward]

t's under Section 7.

Generally speaking, this bill authorizes Bush to do what he was illegally doing before. Gonzalez's argument from the beginning was basically that "The president must abide by the Constitution, the Constitution allows the president to do anything at all in the name of 'national security'" and nothing has really changed about that.

I guess the question then becomes: do you trust a subset of Congress that can have its membership manipulated by any party in power to provide oversight to a likeminded executive branch?

The fact that Congress rubberstamped for Bush for five years does not convince me of their ability to act as a whole in a manner that checks Executive power. That they won't even be acting as a whole on this matter certainly leaves me deeply troubled. Further, the fact that there is so much bitter partisanship in D.C. right now does not leave me hopeful that any change in the body in the future won't result in retribution and abuse.

Re:Confused

[BWJones]

You have been listening to Rick Santorum too much and need to realize that the Constitution does not grant individual rights. Rather it is a document defining the extent of government and the role of government whereas the Bill of Rights was a document that defined what the US government may not do.

Re:but you shouldn't worry!

[lightspawn]

If you have nothing to hide, then why are you complaining, citizen? Only the tourists have to worry!

The Eternal Value of Privacy -By Bruce Schneier

Re:Confused

[narcolepticjim]

Amendment IX

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

A little bit OT, but

[knightmad]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came? I'm not a native english speaker, and this expression makes absolute no sense, except if I'm missing some context-dependent information that is out there. Islamic theocracy (that is, according to the most distorted views on both sides, the ultimate goal of the islamic terrorism) and fascism are so different concepts that "islamofascism" sounds like an oxymoron.

I don't know, I'm guessing here, but it sounds like an attempt to label the "other side" fascist, in order to evoke towards them the anti-fascist feelings that survived after the WWII, and also to avoid to be labeled themselves as fascists.

Anyway, it is a lame expression (meme) and I doubt there is an equivalent for it currently in use in any other country/language.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[helifex]

I agree. It's an absurd construction. I (like you) assume they believe that labeling thier enemy fascists will help misdirect the publics attention from there fascist behavior.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[BWJones]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came?

I put the word in quotes for a reason in that the label "Islamofascist" is a marketing term developed by Rove and company to help define who the enemy is in this "Global War on Terrorism", better defined by General Abizaid as "The Long War".

OT: Abizaid gets it and understands what it is that we are dealing with with radical fundamentalism and is just the sort of person you want in the military.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Epeeist]

> Anyway, it is a lame expression (meme) and I doubt there is an equivalent for it currently in use in any other country/language.

What we need to invent is a single word meme for End Times Christian Fundamentalist Neo Conservative.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[elrous0]

a single word meme for End Times Christian Fundamentalist Neo Conservative

Nutball?

Okay, mod me down now.

-Eric

Re:A little bit OT, but

[elrous0]

I think the term "Islamofascist" is taking advantage of the shift in common usage of the term "fascist" from a specific historical movement to a more general term for anyone who employs similar methodology as said historical movement.

I hate the neocons as much as anyone, but I can't really fault them for this, as it's at least more specific than "Islamic Radicals" ("radical" being such a broad term).

Re:A little bit OT, but

[eosp]

Bush qualifies as all of those but Christian. He has his fair share of anti-Biblical teaching (war, for example. Something about turning the other cheek?)

Re:A little bit OT, but

[polar red]

historical movement

There's nothing historical about fascism ... au contraire.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Just because I was curious about a more exact meaning of "fascit" (wasn't really sure the exact meaning through out time) I ran to wikipedia for a quick read and found this among the descriptions about fascits.

This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.

and I'm left thinking..... which side of this "war on terror" does this sound like?

Re:A little bit OT, but

[knightmad]

You know what is sad? Being a Brazilian (and consequently a South American), I've studied (and saw the demise of) the exactly same thing that is happenning now on the U.S.: a mix of fascist and populist government, conducted mostly by the militar and industrial elite. It's all the seventies again, but this time, on North America instead of down South, and without the clear military coup. It is a proven working tactic: unite the people against a common enemy (like Argentina against England over Falklands/Maldivas island) so there is a "us vs. them" feeling, leaving no room to internal dissent, stir passionated nationalism (like Brasil with the Football world cups), use the internal GDP growth as a way to create an illusion of prosperity while, in the reality, the only thing that is growing is a concentration of the wealth (on of the Brasilian military slogans was something like "let's first make the cake grow and later, to share it", what, of course, never happen), institucionalize mistreatment of prisoners (you think CIA is not torturing, well, they taught Latin America dictators the joys of the interrogation tactics in the Escuela de las americas, and they used it gladly against the average joe when they got ride of all dissidents), etc.

The saddest part is that, at least down here, people took 30 years even to realize what was happenning, and even if the military regimes came down, people in politics are still the same, only changed the party names.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[knightmad]

That's the New testament. I find amazing that so called Christians disregard the very only commandment of Christ himself ("Love each other", specially your enemies) but go look for inspiration on King David slaughters to justify their wars.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

uhmm... Both?

Re:A little bit OT, but

[sethg]

you think CIA is not torturing, well, they taught Latin America dictators the joys of the interrogation tactics in the Escuela de las americas, and they used it gladly against the average joe when they got ride of all dissidents

As an American, I'm starting to feel like those were the good old days--when US officials were sufficiently embarrassed by torture that they tried not to get the blood directly on their hands.

And I thank God that Bush is not as smart as, say, Pinochet or Stroessner....

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Erectile Dysfunction]

To be blunt it's a neologism adopted by those in favor of U.S. intervention in the Middle East. It's been popularized by all of the hawkish "liberals" like Christopher Hitchens and "conservatives" in the current U.S. administration. It is used to evoke sentiments of World War II, since the U.S. is particularly obsessed with World War II. As a side note: Please take Chritopher Hitchens back to the UK; we have enough of our own crazies to deal with without importing them. If you do, we promise not to let George W. Bush massage any future heads of state.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[B11]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came?

Fox Nexs Channel perhaps?

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Xiph1980]

Bush perhaps not but I've got the feeling it's really Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice who are playing the field over there in the white house...

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. So-called 'Pro-Humanity' and 'Minority Rights groups', and especially Muslim organisations, often try to construe the illusion of a threatening common enemy, 'the intolerant and the fascists', 'the neocons', alternately extremely weak (when boasting of their own strength) and extremely strong (when whipping people into support), stir aggressive passions through slogans, anthems and videos, positing an 'us versus them' battle, and denouncing anyone who questions or does not support the battle as belonging to the 'enemy side'.

When they fail to find any immediate enemies they uphold the momentum and thought totalitarianism by converging on someone who makes the mistake of stating that he thinks the group photo of his graduation class should be a close representation of its actual composition.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[tom2275]

No, I think he means Facist like congress approving a bill to give the NSA the power to spy on Americans. "Threats" from congress are just that, only threats. And an ex-president has no power, hence the "ex." And he asked because it did make him look bad, because they had the facts wrong in the story they were telling.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[psykocrime]

I (like you) assume they believe that labeling thier enemy fascists will help misdirect the publics attention from there fascist behavior.

You nailed it. See the Huey Long quote in this blog post.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Yusaku Godai]

Makes him look bad? Perhaps. Whether it were true or not Clinton would probably be apeshit. But even besides Clinton, it makes up blatant, provable falsehoods about current public figures like Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger. Around here that can be considered slander, and has nothing to do with censorship.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[erwin]

Remember who's administratation coined the term "Narco-Terrorist" to justify an attack on another former military strong-man turned deamon-du-jour in the late 1980's? Wasn't his name Bush also?

Re:A little bit OT, but

[elrous0]

Actually, everyone pretty much cherry-picks and interprets whatever they want out of the Bible. If you do this, you can justify or condemn ANYTHING, after-the-fact or otherwise.

Like war? No problem. Jesus came to bring war. (Matthew 10:34)

Hate war? No problem. Jesus warns you not to live by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

Whatever you want to support or condemn, from candy to stem cell research, there's a Bible passage for you. Pull it out, generously sprinkle on some interpretation, and BAM!--a religious belief of your very own.

-Eric

Re:A little bit OT, but

[mrchaotica]

It is a proven working tactic: unite the people against a common enemy (like Argentina against England over Falklands/Maldivas island) so there is a "us vs. them" feeling, leaving no room to internal dissent...

"Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia."

Hmm... maybe somebody needs to make a movie of 1984. Unfortunately, today's media would probably spin it to make Big Brother look cool. : (

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Yusaku Godai]

They didn't even have to make it up. Undoubtedly their Rovian Whitehouse overlords made it up, and they've just dutifully parroted it like they do every other talking point and catchphrase. Truth be told, they're not the only offenders, and there are a few small people on Fox News even who don't cooperate. But they're still the worst offenders.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Alpha Prime]

And I thank God that Bush is not as smart as, say, Pinochet or Stroessner....

Since when has Bush been in power? He's just a puppet for Rove and the Neocons.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Rude Turnip]

Like war? No problem. Jesus came to bring war. (Matthew 10:34)

A little bit of Googling says specifically he brings a sword, not war. Given that the guy had a thing for metaphors, care to clue us in on the context of the passage first?

Re:A little bit OT, but

[operagost]

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

Clearly, national leaders are not intended to follow New Testament principles. If you're going to pretend that you understand biblical teaching and suggest that pacifism is a viable philosophy under which to run a nation, then you have to accept the underlying premise: which is that the only just government is that with the Lord as its head. Israel was run in that manner in its early days, with the earthly authority being the Judges.

I didn't think you would agree.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Mateo_LeFou]

Unless you're Catholic (like me), in which case your interpretation isn't considered absolute. Doing stuff the way some of these fundamentalists do it is one definition of 'heresy'.

'Course if The Church's interpretation is always absolute, we come full circle to Romanofascism?

On a side note, that "turn the other cheek thing" doesn't mean what people think it means. "by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality {or perhaps being defiant to the alledged authority much like a defiant child might involk further wrath}" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek

Re:A little bit OT, but

[mOdQuArK!]

I don't find it amazing.

My personal experience & observation has told me that any zealot can rationalize just about any sort of behavior, as long as they can find someone or something that uses the right keywords to justify that behavior. The keywords don't even have to be used for consistent reasons, since the zealot has the ability to ignore any cognitive dissonance (or they will attack anyone pointing out the cognitive dissonance) that might point that they're behaving irrationally.

For ALL you nutjobs out there, please note that I'm being non-denominational in my condemnation. (I also understand that all those nutjobs will think that my statements don't apply to them - because they're RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG.)

Of course, I'm the one who's right :-)

Re:A little bit OT, but

[maop]

There are fundamentalists Christians and neocons (atheists pretending to be religious). Bush is a hybrid, fundie and neocon in one.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Jeff DeMaagd]

dictionary.com:
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

I'd say that Islamic extremism probably qualify as extreme right-wing. It also doesn't hurt that at least one significant leader in the extremist Islamic movements (at least IIRC, al-queda's #2 man) have gone on record as saying that all non-believers in Islam are acceptable targets, that no tears should be shed for their deaths.

Still, I don't think giving up our freedoms to stop their violent acts is going to solve anything or really slow them down enough to merit any loss of freedoms. I think the US curtailing freedoms is exactly what they want to happen.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[BandwidthHog]

There is one. I haven’t yet seen it, as NetFlix has it as “availability: unknown,” but it does exist.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Scaba]

What we need to invent is a single word meme for End Times Christian Fundamentalist Neo Conservative.

We have one: Republican

Re:A little bit OT, but

[mspohr]

I have thought the term "islamofascist" was odd since it really doesn't describe the terrorists... but it was invented as political rhetoric so I guess we can't expect it to be accurate.

I do agree that the term is better when applied to the "neocons"... "neoconfascists" (or perhaps "neofascist") which would be a fairly accurate description.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[lawpoop]

There's been two. One was made in 1946, and it was lousy. Edmond O'Brien, as Winston Smith, had a 3-day beard and excess body fat in about the face after days or weeks of being tortured in the Ministry of Love.

The other one, made in 1984, stars John Hurt as Winston Smith, and it is incredible. Ironically, John Hurt plays Supreme Chancellor Sutler in V for Vendetta. I guess Smith had an incredible career after being released from the Ministry of Love ;)

Re:A little bit OT, but

[teh_chrizzle]

this is grossly over simplified, but this is a slashdot post, not a dissertation...

there are essentailly two extremes of government, government for the good of the state (fascism) and government for the good of the people (communism). these two types are represented by the classical philosophies of the republic, and democracy.

the founding fathers believed that those two extremes are flawed and our consitution was founded on the idea of a "moderate" government called the "democratic republic".

the central philosophy is that the government should work for the good of the state AND for the good of the people. often times, those two goals are at odds with eachother and the result is not a "happy medium" but more of series of backlashes.

one by product of this philosophy is that the populace sees both communists and fascists as enemies, and looks to attribute either aspect to groups perceived as a threat.

the term "islamofascist" is a simple way of saying "we feel threatened by islamic extremists because they remind us of fascists". obviously, militant islamic extremism is not a state, and does not govern for the good of that state. americans often use those terms to describe or ridicule groups or philisophies. terms like "grammar-nazi" or "fashionista" are common in american editorial writing.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[discHead]

You are right. The term "Islamofascist" seems to have been coined specifically so the administration can draw comparisons between Islamic terrorists and the Nazis, which they've started doing heavily sometime over the past couple of weeks. See, everyone knows that Nazis are bad. Unless, of course, they're wealthy men with a stake in the oil industry. In that case, they are good, honest, trustworthy folks, and we should stop worrying our little heads and believe everything they tell us.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Lonewolf666]

I don't know, I'm guessing here, but it sounds like an attempt to label the "other side" fascist, in order to evoke towards them the anti-fascist feelings that survived after the WWII, and also to avoid to be labeled themselves as fascists.

I think that the "Islamofascist" expression showed up after the Iranian president Ahmadinejad made noises about Israel being wiped off the map some day. Which was of course an invitation to compare him to Hitler, even if antisemitism is only one of many aspects of the Nazi regime.
So I think certain US politicians took this as a welcome opportunity for anti-Islam propaganda.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[geoffspear]

On a side note, that "turn the other cheek thing" doesn't mean what people think it means.

...According to some people who don't like the message Jesus was trying to get across. I suppose they have a good figurative explanation with "historical and other factors in support" for the whole "blessed are the meek" thing, too. Yes, you too can have your Nietzschean Supermanness and your Judeo-Christian Morality all rolled into one!

Re:A little bit OT, but

[elrous0]

care to clue us in on the context of the passage first

No, that's the beauty of cherry-picking. I don't have to.

-Eric

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Darby]

What we need to invent is a single word meme for End Times Christian Fundamentalist Neo Conservative.

There already is one:

"ChristoFascist".

That describes the modern Republicans perfectly.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[AndersOSU]

Actually, a good portion of the islamic fundamentalists should be considered fascists.

Their stated goal is often times to have a islamic government, like Saudi Arabia, or Iran. I would argue that these are definately fascist governments. Fascists typically are authoritarian (check), highly nationalistic (in an islamic state the nation is suposed to represents the religion - so check), and anti-communist (see the Taliban.)

Re:A little bit OT, but

[elrous0]

GOOD NEWS, already we have a great example here of two Christians battling it out, each with his own cherry-picked passages and interpretations! One believes Jesus was a hippie pacifist, the other believes that Jesus was a conservative tough guy. Watch as they go at it!

Stay tuned for more fun!

-Eric

Re:A little bit OT, but

[geoffspear]

Actually, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Christian.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[mrchaotica]

Well yeah, but there needs to be a new one (with purdy special effects) so the sheeple might actually go watch it.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Wah]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came?

It came from bastions of hate and ridiculousness like "Free Republic" and "Little Green Footballs".

It is the lingo of the "glass parking lot" crowd. You should be very afriad when real people, and not internet racists, start using the term.

It's a ridiculous term on the face of it (fascist=uber nationalist), and is better expressed, from a literal linguistic point of reference, as "Islamofearism".

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Smurf]

Thanks for your extremely insightful posts. We really need people like you helping us gain some perspective on the current situation.

I only have one small correction: the Spanish names for the Falkland Islands is Malvinas, not Maldivas. The latter, Maldives in English, are a group of islands in the Indic Ocean, just south of India.

To stay a little bit on topic, here is a link to the relevant entry on the School of the Americas in Wikipedia.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Analogy Man]

I would bet that it came out of one of the many Neo think tanks that have been building up the GOP for the last couple decades. The phrase no doubt was thoroughly test marketed with use of demographically selected focus groups from an array of alternative phrases.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[logophage]

Lock the "Christo-fascists" and the "Islamo-fascists" in a room. The last one standing gets to be either Raptured or receives 70 virgins, respectively. Note that we could have a round two where the winner gets to be locked in a room with the "Ziono-fascists".

Re:A little bit OT, but

[jafac]

It came from far-far-rightwing radio commentator Michael "Savage" Weiner. (yes, his real name is Weiner, but he goes by "Michael Savage".)

I take it to mean;
Islamofascism - the religious/cultural/political movement to establish fundamentalist Islamic rule, impose Sharia law, put all women into bhurkas and subject them to; no education, stay at home, and stoning for accused adultery, trading your daughter for a couple of goats, and hanging for accused homosexuals - you know, the whole nightmare story you read about. (as if rightwingers actually gave a crap about women's rights and gay rights).

They equate this with fascism, which isn't actually too far from the truth, because the broadest definition of fascism is "authoritarian ruling through force or threat of violence". However, most modern definitions of fascism include an element of corporatism, which frankly, isn't possible in an Islamic republic, because the entire economy is structured differently: strict interpretations of Islamic Law forbid charging interest for loans as Usury - which is really the essential element to any modern industrialized economic power.

"Islamofascist" is really a curious term, and a curious concept, because it exposes a problem in leftist thinking - that respect for other cultures and religions should trump respect for basic human rights of conscience. I don't think that all people who lean left, (or even who sit in the center) buy into that. Most lefties I know are appalled at the fundamentalist culture in Islam, but simply oppose use of force to change it. Some fairly brutal practices like wife-beating and female genital mutilation are deeply culturally ingrained in Islamic cultures (while not strictly being part of religious law itself - they're more like cultural traditions that were bolted on to the religion after the fact, by the men who "run the religion"; the imams who issue fatwas, etc.).

I don't think that the left can really effectively fight against the current rightwing stranglehold on power in the west, until it comes to grips with this cognative dissonance, and puts to rest the FUD that they're "objectively pro-terrorist". In fact, I think that if the representatives of the left (politicians, and other public figures) can make it clear that secularism is about human rights, and not about letting some other religion or way of thinking completely take over, then they can also begin to argue effectively that the things that westerners find objectionable about fundamentlist Islam, are also the same things that westerners should be finding objectionable about fundamentalist Christianity, or Judaism. What we're fighting for is peaceful coexistence, not a "clash of cultures". While the amount of global friction with fundamentalist Islamists is hard to deny, and convincing them to lay off on the "convert by sword" approach is going to be very difficult - an essential element is to convince our own radical militant fundamentalist Christians to lay off and coexist peacefully (and prosperously) as well.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Wah]

Ironically, John Hurt plays Supreme Chancellor Sutler in V for Vendetta.

That's not ironic, that's a cinematic Easter Egg for those paying attention.

And yes, one can have quite a career after giving in completely to the system and loving Big Brother. It certainly gets you a job at the National Review.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Darkforge]

Their stated goal is often times to have a islamic government, like Saudi Arabia, or Iran. I would argue that these are definately fascist governments. Fascists typically are authoritarian (check), highly nationalistic (in an islamic state the nation is suposed to represents the religion - so check), and anti-communist (see the Taliban.)

Agreed; +1. And don't forget racism! They'd throw every Jew in Israel into ovens, except they can't afford the infrastructure.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[deKernel]

Oh, I didn't realize that torture did not exist in this world until the CIA came into existence. Silly me, I guess all of those history books discussing the Middle Ages were actually in the fiction section of the library.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[deKernel]

Gee, yes because Sandy Berger is a good person to belive. Oh wait, he was the person convicted of stealing documents in his pants from the National Archives. Personally I have the same habit of stashing documents in my pants and socks while walking out of my local library.

When talking about the credibility of Madeline Albright, there is not enough space here to even begin to describe.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[deKernel]

Gee I guess threating a broadcasting company that there could be issues with renewing their broadcasting license is just a joke. What does ABC really need with a broadcast license anyway? I always thought that the Fascists in Europe before and during WWII tried to control what was broadcasted to the general population.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[rkanodia]

Ironically, John Hurt plays Supreme Chancellor Sutler in V for Vendetta.

I had completely forgotten ever having seen 1984 until I started reading your comment... and then, just before I got to the line I quoted, I suddenly realized, "Wait a minute, wasn't the actor who played Winston the same one who played Sutler in V for Vendetta?" Man. That is totally awesome. Best. Casting decision. Ever.

(Except possibly for choosing Patrick Swayze to play the perverted motivational speaker in Donnie Darko.)

Re:A little bit OT, but

[meringuoid]

It is a proven working tactic: unite the people against a common enemy (like Argentina against England over Falklands/Maldivas island) so there is a "us vs. them" feeling

As I read it, the Falklands invasion was a bit of a desperate move by Galtieri. As the ruler of a military dictatorship, his position depended upon the prestige of the army. He felt his control beginning to slip - people no longer respected the Argentine military as perhaps they once had. So: pick a fight with a major power, but one so far away it probably won't make too much of a fuss, over a symbolically important but otherwise bloody useless scrap of rock.

Unfortunately for him, Thatcher's prestige was also on the slip at the time, and probably the best thing any British prime minister can ever do for their popularity is win a war.

Now, note what became of Galtieri's regime after losing the war with the UK. If you're basing your regime on military prestige and jingoism, whatever the hell you do don't lose a war. Now, take a look at Iraq. And for that matter at Afghanistan in recent months.

Oops.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[elrous0]

I would be nice if we could solve all our disagreements with Thunderdome. Come to think of it, it might be a good way to decide our political races as well. The only downside is that all our leaders would be hulking giants who happen to be handy with a chainsaw.

-Eric

Re:A little bit OT, but

[knightmad]

Actually, it existed in Brazil both before and after CIA intervention. The only difference was that, well, the first wave had no training from CIA, and the second one had. Well, because everybody else were doing it, does it make right for CIA to employ this shameless tactic (back than, and now)? Actually, the worst part is not the fact that U.S. intelligency (and law enforcement, who knows?) is resorting to torture, but the fact of U.S. people refusal in admiting/acknowledging that is happening. That is sad, the king is nude but everybody is seeing the golden clothes.

Now, two semi-rhetorical questions:

1st) Is torture being practiced by/for U.S. government?
2nd) If so, is it right (ini any circunstance)?

Re:A little bit OT, but

[knightmad]

Oh, yeah, Malvinas, a small slip of the mind. Thank you.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[shutdown -p now]

there are essentailly two extremes of government, government for the good of the state (fascism) and government for the good of the people (communism). these two types are represented by the classical philosophies of the republic, and democracy.

Republic is a form of government (as opposed to monarchy and dictatorship, for example). Democracy is a characteristic of the political system. Fascist state may or may not be a republic, but it cannot be a democracy pretty much by definition. Communist state may or may not be a republic, and it may or may not be democratic.

The USA is indeed a democratic republic. It is not something "moderate". It is simply a republic in which the ruling body is democratically elected. It does not imply anything about working for the good of the state, or for the good of the people.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

> Gee I guess threating a broadcasting company that there could be issues with renewing their broadcasting license is just a joke. What does ABC really need with a broadcast license anyway?

ABC does not have a broadcast license. Broadcasters have broadcast licenses to operate on a particular frequency. It's not that they aren't still used in the same way you imply, but there's a technical reason for the license. I don't imagine the net will render the broadcast system obsolete for another couple decades yet.

If you're going to fight the power, do make sure you don't fight mirages.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[lawpoop]

Sorry, the first 1984 was made in 1956, not 1946.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Yusaku Godai]

Haha, I remember that--it was pretty funny.
Regardless though, credibility doesn't even enter into it. There are scenes involving all of these people that are admittedly, by the screen writers, pulled out of their asses. Things that, while they claim the entire thing to be based on "the facts" as presented in the 9/11 Commission report, are not in there, and have never been reported by *any* previous source, credible or not. In other words, fiction.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[lawpoop]

Couldn't an easter egg also be ironic? ;)

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

"...stir passionated nationalism (like Brasil with the Football world cups)..."

Well, there's where they'll surely fail. The US Soccer team sucks.

(Ha. The confirmation word is "liberal")

Re:A little bit OT, but

[teh_chrizzle]

see disclaimer about gross over simplification. the terms "democracy" and "republic" are seriously overloaded terms, and in political philosophy (i.e. "democracy" by socrates, and "the republic" by plato) they are central ideas. political philosophy and government are not the same thing, even though they use many of the same terms. i admit it's been a few years since college, so i may have the terminologies confused.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Stanistani]

Oh, it existed, all right.

It just qualifies as prior art.

See their patent application for more details.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[MadMidnightBomber]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came? I'm not a native english speaker, and this expression makes absolute no sense, except if I'm missing some context-dependent information that is out there.

I am a native speaker, and you're right. It makes no sense. Feel free to mentally substitute Emmanuel Goldstein[1] if it makes you feel better.

[1] No, not the hacker.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[RevAaron]

While I don't agree with the schmucks over at places like the Free Rep or LGF, I'd like to point out that a lot of the so-called Islamo-fascists are in fact quite nationalist. And a lot of them have pan-Arab/pan-Muslim ideas- sort of like Hitler's conception of Volksdeutsche united in a Grossdeutschland, a lot of the so-called Islamo-fascists would like to see the Muslim world brought under a single Islamic Caliphate.

I personally am of the libertarian revolutionary left; but I can't stand those who support anyone who is the enemy of the so-called Christian fascists. That may not be your angle, but I am of the mind that so-called Islamo-fascist ideas are just as poisonous as those of many other reactionary schools of thought.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[RevAaron]

Like you said- Jesus was totally big on metaphor. So, I'm willing to bet BIG DOLLA DOLLA that his statement that you should bring a sword has nothing to do with war. Rather, Jesus is of the mind- and we should be too- that you should always show up at a party with your dick in your hand. Or someone else's. At least, I imagine that is the interpretation of the TMC+A.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Shawn is an Asshole]

There is a good movie that borrows from 1984 and Brave New World pretty heavily. It's called "Equilibrium" (warning: link contains spoilers). Basically everyone is required to take a drug called prozium that suppresses emotion. People who don't take the drug are called "Sense Offenders" and are burned alive when caught. People are encouraged to turn them in, and they do. The people are monitored constantly. The "Father" (like big brother) censors anything that can cause people to feel.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Wah]

And a lot of them have pan-Arab/pan-Muslim ideas- sort of like Hitler's conception of Volksdeutsche united in a Grossdeutschland, a lot of the so-called Islamo-fascists would like to see the Muslim world brought under a single Islamic Caliphate.

And the war is being expanded and championed on our side by a group that wants to set up a global "Pax Americana", where American military might rules the planet for 100 years by controlling access to the black gold modern economies are so enamored with.

Both of these "sides" are actually on the same side. And both have ridiculous, impossible goals.

Hence the term, "Islamofearists", which applies to the nutjob militants on both sides of this "War for Civilization".

Buying into the terms, is buying into the whole argument.

The argument, and the "sides", should instead be defined by those that wish to use violent means to achieve political goals (Neocons and Al Qeada, etc), and those that feel using such means invalidates ones ends (The Rest of the World).

We should be treating Al Qeada like the KKK, not the Nazis. The similarities are extensive. Exposing their hatred and violence as foolish and counter-productive. Instead, we, led by the Neocons, have decided that the "right" strategy is to be more full of hatred and violence than they are.

BTW, my dichotomy also allows one to make more friends on the "other side" (i.e. the Middle East), while the "Islamofascist" argument, by its very linguistic nature, casts aspersion and insinuates the guilt of 20% of the population of the planet (i.e. all followers of Islam).

The only people that could "win" by using that term are those calling for more war and more destruction, i.e. Neocons and Islamist Radicals.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[demachina]

Fascism is also a fusion of government with corporate interests and those of wealthy and influential party members. German industrialists, especially the Thyssen family, one of Germany's richest, helped put the Nazi's in power because they thought it would be good for business, and that they would smack down labor unions. George W.'s grandfather Prescott Bush was a U.S. banker and broker for the Thyssen family, at Union Bank, during the same period they were bankrolling Hitler's rise to power. Union Bank's assets were seized for trading with the enemy when America entered World War II to the great embarrassment of the Bush family.

Fascists use the power of government to enrich themselves and their business interests. They usually mouth their love for "free markets" at the same time they pull strings to have their party and government intervene in the "free market" to make them winners and their not so well connected competitors losers. If you want to get ahead in such a system you strive to advance your standing in the party, and the party rewards you with lucrative business, and by punishing your competitors who are not in favor with the party.

Fascism is a decidedly anti labor political system, and very anti trade union, which is why it was often viewed as a bulwark against the spread of Communism and worker centric Socialism.

Everyone is reluctant to use the term since World War II but the U.S., U.K. and especially China are decidedly Fascist leaning governments these days. China abandoned any pretense of Socialism or Communism when all the leading party members deduced they could get rich using their control of the government and economy if they just it coupled with a huge infusion of western capital so they did a 180 and blessed private ownership of capital, stock markets and profiteering. They almost overnight became a Fascist regime when they did.

The origin of Islamofascism as a word in our lexicon is nothing more than a PR gimmick. After using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" in every other sentence for five years the electorate has grown weary of them and they no longer register. No one knows what winning the "War on Terror" means. So the Bush administration is attempting to link the current "war on terrorism" with the glory days of World War II by linking today's enemy with yesteryears boogie man, in an effort to better paint the war as one of good versus evil. In fact it is really just a marketing campaign much like you would use to sell soap. The Baathist governments in Syria and Saddam's Iraq were quite Fascist in character. Al Qaeda has no resemblance to the term. The quagmires the Bush administration is in in Iraq and Afghanistan are no win situations but at least until they midterm election is over they want to pretend like they are noble causes like World War II was. Resorting to the use of the word Fascist in this particular struggle shows how rhetorically bankrupt they are.

Another possibility is its becoming increasingly common for an increasingly large number of people to brand the Bush administration and the Republican parties as Fascists and it is a term that does have a degree of fit. By repeatedly referring to their "enemy" as fascists it creates the illusion the Bush administration must not be. If they are fighting "Islamofascists" how could they be Fascists too. Well its easy they still are, and maybe we need to coin a term that matches and does fit, JudeoChristianFascists".

If you haven't seen it the Wachowski brothers film "V for Vendetta" which is out on pay per view now is a stinging jab at the rise of Fascism in Britain and the U.S. and the mechanisms that are being used to foist it on the ignorant masses.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Wah]

the word that means what you are trying to say is "Theocracy".

Teh connotation for "fascism" is all about fear.

Hence, anybody who uses the term is actually an 'Islamofearist'. Defined as someone who uses fear of an unknown culture dominated by brown people to achieve political goals.

You miss the corporate element of fascism, which is completely and utterly removed from the Islmaist movements, which are populist (see: Zawahiri's call for democracy).

Re:A little bit OT, but

[F1Rumors]

Actually, a good portion of the islamic fundamentalists should be considered fascists.

Then again, here's an exert from a reference.com's entry on fascism:

Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic. The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality.

Rather a good description of the home team, too, it seems...

Re:A little bit OT, but

[SonicSpike]

From my understanding it came from Dr. Michael Savage out of San Francisco, CA (USA) a radio talk show host.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[smchris]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came? I'm not a native english speaker, and this expression makes absolute no sense

You may not realize how right you are. It makes "absolutely no sense" and that's what they are hoping to achieve.

What I was taught in political science is that fascism is a "post-industrial" form of government. It is also a merging of government and industry. It makes no sense to apply the term to religions or pre-democratic societies or pre-industrial agrarian societies. They can be authoritarian, dictatorial or even crazy -- but not fascist.

What is fascist is a government that exhibits:

1. "A distrust of reason": think creationism, think eliminating a science member on the cabinet, think changing scientists' reports on web sites or making them ask permission to speak at conferences or to reporters.

2. "Denial of basic human equality": think gay rights, think abortion rights if you believe a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body, think torturing the crap out of somebody indefinitely on the executive's say-so (citizen or not).

3. "Code of behavior based on lies and violence": WMDs and Iraq anyone? Saddam and the elusive al Quida link?

4. "Government by elite": George II anyone?

5. "Totalitarianism": What we are talking about here with total wiretapping.

6. "Racialism and imperialism": New Orleans and the conquest of the Middle East anyone?

7. "Opposition to international law and order": Appointing John "Who-me-anger-management-issues" Bolton to the U.N. And how many international treaties have we decided we don't have to comply with in the last few years?

You see, it is pure Orwell. They are making the word "fascist" _mean_ nothing. If someone tried to give a reasoned argument that the Bush regime is fascist, the typical American will only receive "angry bark, angry bark" because he has been conditioned to understand that "fascist" is just a biased partisan retort like "icky". It is quite ingenious actually -- at least as such things pass in politics.

[Incidentally, the seven points above are from an old edition of Ebenstein's Today's Isms: Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, Socialism, Fifth Edition, p 115.]

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it happens doesn't mean that it's right.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

"They'd throw every Jew in Israel into ovens, except they can't afford the infrastructure."

That's untrue. You think every single Saudi is an anti-semite? Does every single Jew want the Muslims wiped out?

Re:A little bit OT, but

[mr100percent]

Actually, female genital mutilation is pre-Islamic, and non-Islamic. African Christians and animists do it as well, and Muslim leaders have decried the practice. Wife beating isn't in the religion either, the worst allowed thing after all else fails is to slap her, and scholars say even with a fist is often too harsh.

Also, no Muslims, radical or not, have a "convert by the sword" mentality. Did you bother to learn anything about Islam in the last 5 years? Oh well, you made reference at the top of the post about Muslims "trading daughters for goats." (where? What country?)

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Ender_Wiggin]

Saudi Arabia? Iran? Neither.

Saudi Arabia is regarded by Muslims as corrupt (the royal family breaks plenty of laws), and its laws superficial. Religious police to make sure your skin isn't exposed, but they allow interest (usury)? And I'm a Muslim saying this.

Iran is Shi'ite and Sunnis generally don't consider their government to be correct.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[Anonymous Coward]

actualy look up the defention of facasim, the islamic ideals fall in line with that since they want one relegion/nation state (under god) and extroll the vitures of a state/relegion/race over the individual (suicide bombers anyone?)

so actualy, despite its obvious word mashing islamofacist is actualy pretty accurate.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[heybo]

I put the word in quotes for a reason in that the label "Islamofascist" is a marketing term developed by Rove and company

Dont we have ENOUGH "MarketSpeak"? MarketSpeak is just words made up by marketing companies such as Rove and Company to cover up the truth in a statement. Wether it be about software or politics. Just another way to tell a lie.

If your looking for fascists then just go to Washington and you will find all you want. If you don't believe that the Bush regime is not fascist then go check the history of Bush's Grandfather and Uncle during WW II. Find out who they were in bed with then. The family hasn't changed they are just in bed with a differant buch of assholes. Fascisum is a live and well and living in the US.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[smchris]

Actually read a book. Dictionaries are the lazy man's knowledge. If you get a specialization in any field you will realize that even good common dictionaries are inadequate. Philosophy, for instance, has several dictionaries because common definitions of words like "art", "reality", "truth" and "virtue" are grossly simplistic.

If you read Fascism: A Very Short Introduction by historian Kevin Passmore you find that he has some difficulty defining what fascism is by exploring history. Romania, Italy, Germany, Spain and elsewhere all seem to have developed different "fascisms" from different roots. There aren't even defining theoretical texts like Das Kapital or The Communist Manifesto to hold "fascism" together. An overly lengthy whine called "My Struggle"? Poor baby. Give me a break. Which leads Passmore to return to his opening quote by Jose Ortega y Gasset from 1927:

"Fascism has an enigmatic countenance because in it appears the most counterpoised contents. It asserts authoritarianism and organises rebellion. It fights against contemporary democracy and, on the other hand, does not believe in the restoration of any past rule. It seems to pose itself as the forge of a strong State, and uses means most conducive to its dissolution, as if it were a destructive faction or a secret society. Whichever way we approach fascism we find that is is simultaneously one thing and the contrary, it is A and Not A..."

If one likes one sentence definitions perhaps one could say fascism is the irrational paradox of liberation through absolute obedience as a cog in the masses directed toward a national goal. But how helpful is that? Were the Khmer Rouge fascists or totalitarian communists?

So you see, if you want to be _analytical_, if you want to categorize governments through the lens of political science fascism is difficult. When you have something as historically different in their various origins and often not very formalized goals as the recognized "fascisms", something like Ebenstein's list is valuable as a foundation for recognizing commonalities.

Text of the Fourth Amendment

[$RANDOMLUSER]

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.

In case you'd forgotten.

Re:Text of the Fourth Amendment

[faloi]

But what if you're all about strict interpretation of the Constituition. It doesn't say anything about phone calls!

I kid, I kid. I hope.

Re:Text of the Fourth Amendment

[ArcherB]

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.

You left out the part about conversations shall not be listened to.

Re:Text of the Fourth Amendment

[zerocool^]

In Soviet America, phone listens to you! ...but for real this time! What a country!

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

The 14th amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connectic ut

Re:Confused

[daspriest]

I always figured these two little blurbs at the end of the bill of rights covered that. But what do I know, I am just a citizen that takes his rights seriously. IANACS(I am not a constitutional scholar, or a lawyer for that matter)

Amendment IX

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

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

1984, just 22 years late!

[RhysTheElf]

Big Brother http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_(1984) must have had a longer nap than George Orwell envisioned!

;) or did I mean :( ?

Re:Confused

[grasshoppa]

Illegal search and seizure?

You know, that wacky fourth admendment?

Don't Look at the Man Behind the Curtain

[geoffrobinson]

I don't mean the following to be snide or flamebait, etc.

The Constitution relies on natural rights (human rights), etc. And there are major philosophical and epistemological problems regarding human rights.

It is really hard to resolve controversies over rights not enumerated by the Constitution because

a) they are assumed to be there
b) there is no mutually agreed upon way within jurisprudence or society to figure out what rights are there or how rights may be limited between competing rights

Most controversial Supreme Court decisions revolve around this philosophical problem which is buried right into the Constitution.

So rights which are obvious to some people aren't to others. That doesn't mean they don't exist. But that's why we get to argue about this kind of stuff.

Re:Don't Look at the Man Behind the Curtain

[0123456]

"It is really hard to resolve controversies over rights not enumerated by the Constitution because"

The Constitution explicitly states what the government is allowed to do... anything outside those narrow limits is unconstitutional.

What's so hard about that? The hard part is _stopping_ them from doing things that are blatantly unconstitutional, not figuring out whether they are.

My Favorite Part of the PDF

[eldavojohn]

My Favorite Part of the original PDF is this tastey excerpt from pages 2 & 3:

(4) Although it is essential that the President
12 have all necessary means to protect us against our
13 enemies, it is equally essential that, in doing so, the
14 President does not compromise the very civil lib
15 erties that the President seeks to safeguard. As Jus
16 tice Hugo Black observed, ''The President's power,
17 if any, to issue [an] order must stem either from an
18 Act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.''.
19 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.
20 579, 585 (1952) (opinion by Black, J.).
21 (5) In 2004, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ex
22 plained in her plurality opinion for the Supreme
23 Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: ''We have long since
24 made clear that a state of war is not a blank check
25 for the President when it comes to the rights of the

1 Nation's citizens. Youngstown Sheet & Tube, 343
2 U.S., at 587, 72 S.Ct. 863. Whatever power the
3 United States Constitution envisions for the Execu
4 tive in its exchanges with other nations or with
5 enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most as
6 suredly envisions a role for all three branches when
7 individual liberties are at stake.''. Hamdi v. Rums
8 feld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (citations omitted).

Of course, with Republicans owning (not by 2/3 thank god) the majority in the house, the majority in the senate and the white house, what else would you expect?

Goodbye checks and balances! Hello fascism!

Re:My Favorite Part of the PDF

[Y-Crate]

"Of course, with Republicans owning (not by 2/3 thank god) the majority in the house, the majority in the senate and the white house, what else would you expect?"

To be perfectly honest, I don't think you could really expect Democrats to do much better. The party has cozied up to Bush and the GOP to such an extent in recent years that they have completely lost the will to provide any real challenge to the administration beyond the occasional displeased remark, or half-hearted disagreement with a particular bill/nominee/etc.

They let Bush have his way for so long, I don't even think they realize how pathetic they've become.

Re:My Favorite Part of the PDF

[eldavojohn]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think you could really expect Democrats to do much better. The party has cozied up to Bush and the GOP to such an extent in recent years that they have completely lost the will to provide any real challenge to the administration beyond the occasional displeased remark, or half-hearted disagreement with a particular bill/nominee/etc.

I'd expect backwards inbred bills with either party owning majority over all three branches. I'd be bitching just as much or more with the Democrats in the same position.

It's the checks and balances we're now missing.

Re:My Favorite Part of the PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd expect backwards inbred bills with either party owning majority over all three branches.

It's the whole "party" crap that's the problem. These people supposedly have important jobs to do but instead of trying to do them to the best of their ability their busy playing the most moronic games you can imagine based around whether the president, or a potential judge or whoever, is a member of their gang or the other gang. It's stupid, it's pathetic and it's dangerous.

Filibuster

[RyanFenton]

Consider encouraging Democratic (and Republican - though that's unlikely) senators to filibuster this.

Senator contact list

It looks like filibusteris the only realistic option on this one.

Oh, and vote however you prefer to end this destruction of personal and public liberties in November. I'd HIGHLY suggest Democratic in most cases this election.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Filibuster

[Bob_Villa]

This won't work for me, my Senator is Frist. I've contacted them on numerous issues that I felt were wrong. All his office tells you is thanks for contacting him, he is working hard for Americans and then you get a blanket email on some random topic that you didn't even email him about. He is Bush's rubber stamp so he doesn't care what his constituents think.

I've contacted other senators (Democratic) in other states and they say they can't really help me with my issue, I should contact my own Senator. I know I should try calling, but I assume you get an operator who will make sure all you do is leave your comment on a voicemail that is never answered. Has anyone called successfully?

And I don't just write emails saying something sucks, I spend hours putting together possible solutions that consider several angles, like with how to help with health care costs or prescription drug prices skyrocketing. But when all you get back is a blanket email, it is very discouraging. I think only the lobbyists with the big bucks have their attention in Congress now. :(

Re:Filibuster

[RyanFenton]

In the case of a filibuster, there is a special exception to the usual sources of motivational pessimism. You can contact ANY senator, or team of senators, and they can create a working filibuster. They don't have to represent you, they just have to have enough interest and motivation to go through with the process of filibuster. And modern procedures mean that they don't have to starve themselves or go through too many crazy gyrations to do this - they just have to not have a successful vote to stop the filibuster.

So - write some letters, call some numbers, or whatever is appropriate for you, and you can help stop this law, in a way rarely possible in terms of the importance of your contribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

Just getting a filibuster working should be enough to draw some clear lines, lines which should be stronger than how the vote currently appears. It's subjective, but I think a filibuster would hold here.

Ryan Fenton

Nothing New Here

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is overhyped and one of the charges:

"Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight. Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications such as phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance."

Is nothing new. Since phone numbers, web addreses and email addresses all pass through third parties and those third parties have to review them in order for the call, web request or email to get through there is no right o privacy on them. As long as the substance of the content isn't reviewed this isn't a major change.

Constitution - What's That?

[organgtool]

I wonder how long and how far the neocons will get in their quest to completely destroy the constitution. The sad part is that they didn't even need to raise the "terror alert" to get this passed. The time may come when U.S. citizens envy the "freedom" of the people of China.

Re:Constitution - What's That?

[ArcherB]

The time may come when U.S. citizens envy the "freedom" of the people of China.

When that time comes, I'm sure you will be free to move to China.

Re:Constitution - What's That?

[Anonymous Coward]

When that time comes, I'm sure you will be free to move to China.
--
How does something get modded 100% Overrated?

I'm ROTFL here...

Re:Constitution - What's That?

[BigCheese]

We could move to China and all see where our jobs and money went.

Can I have my country back?

[drewzhrodague]

Hay, can I have my country back? I didn't sign up to be wiretapped, monitoried, surveiled, folded, spindled, or what have you. And while I'm at it, can I please go to college without having to give up two arms and a kidney?

Re:Can I have my country back?

[FirienFirien]

You may have not signed up for it, but at the same time the government can work on the fact that you haven't signed up against it. Tacit acceptance! Watch the bills roll through.

Re:Can I have my country back?

[drewzhrodague]

No, I kinda have signed up against it. I call Fetus Master Santorum sometimes, but he doesn't seem to care about the things I say. I have a pile of form letter responses from him here.

Re:Can I have my country back?

[mwilliamson]

you forgot torture

Re:Can I have my country back?

[neoconspirator]

No...We stole it right from under your nose(s).

We gave up the silly notion of only taking arms and kidneys after we realized we already have your ass!

Re:Can I have my country back?

[twifosp]

Uhm, one moemnt please, let me check with our voting population.

Ok, the two geysers in the back said no.

The young hipster who listens to NPR said "Leave me alone you facist, I'm trying to protest a highway here".

The under educated rural American could not be reached for reply. Allthough one of her 7 kids did throw a rock at my car.

The middle class family I spoke with said, and I quote, "what are you talking about, this is America you left wing commie pinko terrorist supporting liberal". Well, at least the Father did, between commercials of Fox and Friends. The mother had no idea who her senator was, and the kids were trying to talk to me about government responsibility and all kinds of neat stuff, but who cares what they think, they were only 11 and 13. Not old enough to have purchasing power, or vote, so they don't exist.

Well that's about your voting population. All 15% of em.

Yea, so your answer is... no.

Re:Can I have my country back?

[clear_thought_05]

How is it your country? How much taxes do you pay? How many times have you voted? Were you born here? Were your parents born here?

What makes you think you are being wiretapped, monitoried, surveiled, folded, spindled? How do you know? What makes you think that you in particular are subject this as opposed to someone else?.

As for the cost of college, it is a natural result of competition and capitalism. If you want the best job go to the best school. Best meaning money all around. Whether you like it or not, you are a willing participant in that capitalism (as can be seen in your ads on your websites). And I guess your upset because you are paying for the education all by yourself without any assistance from loans, grants and family members?

"No definition of 'terrorist.'"

[ChePibe]

No definition of 'terrorist.'

While I realize the author's complaint regarding the law, it should be noted that the definition of terrorist has changed at least a dozen times since the term was coined in the 1790's - scholars who study terrorism for a living still don't have a working definition of what it means to be a terrorist that is widely accepted, and most books I've seen on the matter take about a chapter to come up with a loose working definition but ultimately apply a "you know it when you see it" approach.

Defining a term whose meaning moves a great deal - and has strayed so far from its original meaning - is no easy task, and present USG definitions from State and DoD aren't too satisfying either.

Re:"No definition of 'terrorist.'"

[Dhalka226]

In this context, the definition of the word doesn't really matter. It can be as arbitrary as one wishes and while "bad" definitions won't make people happy, and are less likely to pass, that isn't the problem.

The problem is when you say "we're authorizing a wiretapping program to listen to calls placed to terrorists!" and then don't define "terrorist" somehow. It's akin to a legislative blank check to the executive. Anybody they want to call a terrorist, by whatever definition they want at the time, can be legally wiretapped.

It's kind of like the debate over Pluto and the definition of a planet. The definition doesn't really matter. What matters is that there IS a definition that is used the same way wherever it is used.

That said, I'm not overly worried about this passing committee because I think Bush is going to have a rough time getting it through the full Senate. He's disliked enough that Republicans are starting to break ranks with him, and you can be pretty sure the majority of Dems (probably damn near all) will be voting against the bill, if for no other reason than to keep the issue alive as a election topic; the wiretapping is fairly unpopular in general, and definitely unpopular with the Democratic base.

Re:"No definition of 'terrorist.'"

[ChePibe]

Please note my first sentence:

"While I realize the author's complaint regarding the law..."

Re:"No definition of 'terrorist.'"

[mcmonkey]

I can't comment on its linguistic history, but for now (and likely for the rest of our times) the definition of 'terrorist' is, 'the folks on the other side.'

The folks they're fighting against, the ones on our sides? Oh, they're 'freedom fighters.'

Re:"No definition of 'terrorist.'"

[ChePibe]

Which is much of the difficulty.

From a scholarly perspective, one of the few things really agreed on is that terrorists almost never call themselves terrorists...

Re:"No definition of 'terrorist.'"

[peterpressure]

I mean please, all of you are talking about elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78' which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talking about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections or how much dems ROXOR.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not telling the truth when it states no oversight....

U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[unity100]

It now belongs to some white-assed neocons, rich of oil without having to do anything for it, now reducing the american people to the satus of 'property' bit by bit.

TOO harsh ?

not one bit of harsher than what neocons did to american people during the last 8 years - sent them to die in distant hells, taken away their almost every right, cut down the social security and used it for means other than where it was intended, hijacked 2 elections, and supressed your voices in wherever can and whenever they can.

Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[Anonymous Coward]

I just have one concern... can all these damages be undone when democrats win the election?

Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[ArcherB]

It now belongs to some white-assed neocons, rich of oil without having to do anything for it, now reducing the american people to the satus of 'property' bit by bit.

TOO harsh ?

not one bit of harsher than what neocons did to american people during the last 8 years - sent them to die in distant hells, taken away their almost every right, cut down the social security and used it for means other than where it was intended, hijacked 2 elections, and supressed your voices in wherever can and whenever they can.

I find it ironic that you are complaining that you have lost every right while you criticize the government who you claim is taking those rights. There seems to be a lot of talk about repression around here by those who, evidently, are not very repressed.

Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[Woldry]

Son't be silly. Once the Democrats win, they will find some other justification for keeping this act intact. No politician of any party would willingly relinquish power handed to them, no matter how bitterly they protested seeing that power handed to the OTHER guy.

Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[Maximilio]

I find it ironic that you are complaining that you have lost every right while you criticize the government who you claim is taking those rights. There seems to be a lot of talk about repression around here by those who, evidently, are not very repressed.

The laws in question allow selective enforcement. Basically, if you catch the eye of the authorities, you can become somebody's bitch without having any legal justification. Just because they aren't repressing all of us does not mean that repression isn't happening, or cannot happen. The fact that evidence can be kept under wraps, and people have been held without trial for years and years and years, means that we don't really know what's going on, only that certain people are being pulled into the system and disappeared, and their rights to an open process are denied. And in a truly free society, repression against one does mean repression against all. Are you going to wait like Pastor Niemoller, until there is no one left to speak for you?

Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[ArcherB]

The laws in question allow selective enforcement.
Not necessarily. What we are talking about here is evesdropping, nothing more. Doing something with the data collected is another matter entirely. Personally, I don't see how someone listening in on my conversations overseas as violating any of my rights, since I have no idea it is happening, it really doesn't have any effect on my life whatsoever.

The fact that evidence can be kept under wraps, and people have been held without trial for years and years and years, means that we don't really know what's going on, only that certain people are being pulled into the system and disappeared, and their rights to an open process are denied.
This is not happening to citizens of the US. Even Zac Moussaoui got a fair trial with a jury and everything. So it appears to me that the rights of citizens are fully intact and repression seems to be a myth.

Are you going to wait like Pastor Niemoller, until there is no one left to speak for you?
When I see citizens rounded up and thrown into labor camps or marched to gas chambers, I'll speak up. But to scream repression none exists, block our gov't's ability to gather information to defend the population and to demand rights for foreigners who would gladly die killing as many of us as possible is more of a danger than any present threat to the Constitution. If you strip away the governments ability to defend We The People, there will be no Constitution at all.

Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[Maximilio]

What we are talking about here is evesdropping, nothing more. Doing something with the data collected is another matter entirely

Stop right there. Because I did. As long as the data being collected cannot be reviewed, and its source cannot be determined, it is outside of the very carefully designed restrictions established by our Framers to prevent: bullying, intimidation, bills of attainder, and all of the other tyrranical behavior against which they fought a Revolution.

Personally, I don't see how someone listening in on my conversations overseas as violating any of my rights, since I have no idea it is happening, it really doesn't have any effect on my life whatsoever.

Then, excuse me, you're a fucking sheep. I thought I was talking to a citizen in a free democracy.

Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[ArcherB]

As long as the data being collected cannot be reviewed, and its source cannot be determined, it is outside of the very carefully designed restrictions established by our Framers to prevent: bullying, intimidation, bills of attainder, and all of the other tyrranical behavior against which they fought a Revolution.
Agreed! It's the "bullying, intimidation, bills of attainder and all that other tyrranical behavior" that I have a problem with, not the evesdropping. Currently, I don't see any of that happening to citizens of the US. When I do, I'll scream louder than you are!

Then, excuse me, you're a fucking sheep.
So if I don't wear a tinfoil hat, I'm a "fucking sheep"? I assume no more privacy on the phone than I do when talking to my wife in at the local Applebees.

I thought I was talking to a citizen in a free democracy.
You are, and I plan on keeping it that way by fighting against those that would strip my gov't of any power to defend me against those that would gladly kill those that live such a free democracy.

Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more !

[mrchaotica]

There seems to be a lot of talk about repression around here by those who, evidently, are not very repressed.

Of course those around here who talk about repression aren't very repressed; everyone who is repressed is no longer around to talk!

Do I really need to whip out the Niemöller quote again, or do you get it?

how is this confusing?

[farker haiku]

Confusingly, the committee also voted out two other bills, one of which "all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal," according to Wired.

Big brother wants warrantless wiretapping. Obviously, big brother will then shut down any attempt at making warrantless wiretapping illegal. Who's confused?

Hey, the UK has prior art on police state!

[Morgaine]

You'll be hearing from our lawyers. :P

I'm just laughing as a defence mechanism though. This is very sad news for you guys, and probably for the west as a whole. :-((((

Re:Hey, the UK has prior art on police state!

[Cybrex]

On behalf of the outraged subjects in the rest of Oceania, I thank our brethren in Airstrip One for their support.

In the good old days

[MECC]

Actually, by declaring 'war on terror' (the pretense for invading Iraq and his mad rush for 'war powers'), GWB has done something that hasn't happened since King Charles I of England started a war with Scotland in 1637 without consulting Parliament. Parliament later didn't give him an army when the Irish rebelled, and in 1649 beheaded Charles.

GWB is trying to take the country in the direction of Caesar-like rule, in that a leader under the pretense of fighting defending the empire/country could act with total impunity and a complete lack of accountability. He's actively fighting the constitution itself, even though he twice swore to defend it. Separation of powers in a standing government isn't just a hallmark of democracy - its a sign of being a civilized society.

Also, its one thing to temporarily alter the separation and balance of powers laid out in the US constitution during a time of war - but in this case war has not been declared, and it also a 'war' with absolutely no end in site. As long as there is one terrorist group "plotting and planning", the undeclared war will continue. This is clearly a grab for permanent power, and he's using the pain of 9/11 to do it.

Re:In the good old days

[hacker]

Is he really defending it, even when he's openly called the Constitution just a goddamned piece of paper!?

Re:In the good old days

[complexmath]

Also, its one thing to temporarily alter the separation and balance of powers laid out in the US constitution during a time of war - but in this case war has not been declared

I thought there was a formal declaration of war against Iraq. Granted, that's not quite the same as an unending war against an idea, but it's made a good excuse for the past few years.

Re:In the good old days

[demigod]

GWB has done something that hasn't happened since King Charles I of England started a war with Scotland in 1637 without consulting Parliament. Parliament later didn't give him an army when the Irish rebelled, and in 1649 beheaded Charles.

Are you say we have to wait 12 years for George to be beheaded?

Seems like a long time to have to wait.

Re:In the good old days

[Anonymous Coward]

Recognize that in order to travel down this road it is only necessary to hijack the *presidency*. This is because the president is "commander in chief" of the military. He can do anything he wants with the military as long as no *war* is declared. The constitution gives the president the right to ignore any attempt by congress to control the actions of the military. So, what's stopping him from deploying the military to maintain *order* on US soil - to keep America "safe"? This is what has been happening around the world for decades - US forces and or the CIA operating all over the world without congressional oversight.

The neocons are *very* intelligent. They control the mainstream press through their links with big business. They may control the election machinery for the same reason, supported by Republican links in the infrastructure that runs the elections. These provide two very effective tools to influence election results. Simply smear the opposition in the press and rig the election results in close elections. Any laws passed by congress can be simply ignored, or interpreted in such a way to negate their effect (the president controls how the laws passed by congress are *interpreted* by the public service).

It really doesn't matter who controls congress when the president can simply ignore what happens there.

Re:In the good old days

[QCompson]

I thought there was a formal declaration of war against Iraq.

There was never a formal declaration of war against Iraq. Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq, and thus it has become an extended military engagement, but there was never a formal declaration of war.

Re:In the good old days

[foniksonik]

Question... who would allow any form of permanent government in US?

The public might be fooled into it.

The hundreds of powerful corporations, non-profits and private enterprises would not stand for it and they individually have enough power and resources to stop it from happening. You think Bill Gates would allow GWB to stay in power, even if given some sweetheart deal? How about Steve Jobs or any of the other very wealthy anti-GWBs out there? No one could get them all on board for it and each has enough resources to stop it from happening. Billions may not buy you a whole lot of bombers but it will buy you enough influence to stop any single family or individual from gaining complete control over a trillion dollar economy.

Re:In the good old days

[jeti]

Well - I don't know much about King Charles I.
But I see some frightening parallels to the Reichstag Fire Decree.

Re:In the good old days

[workindev]

You have a typo. You typed "openly" when you meant to type "allegedly", and considering where that allegation came from it's surprising that people still toss it around as though it is fact.

Re:In the good old days

[Bob9113]

even though he twice swore to defend it.

Thrice. He was an officer "in" (didn't actually show up much) the "military" (the "champagne brigade" of the Texas National Guard).

Re:In the good old days

[Chacham]

You haven't actually read the proposed law, have you?

The proposed law has to do with the congress and agencies, not the president.

Re:In the good old days

[Rhipf]

I was watching Jay Leno the other night and James Woods was his guest. James made a statement something to the effect that this was a different kind of war because "other side" had no clear objective. If the US wanted to surrender what would the terms be. Since the terrorists don't have a clear end game (other than simple fear) what could the US offer to give up to concede defeat. My thought on this were, would the "war on terror" end if Osama bin Laden all of a sudden came out of hiding and said "I give up". I doubt it. The focus would shift to some other theater but the "war" would continue. That is the great thing about declaring war on an idea. There is no end game and you can play it as long as people are willing to follow you.

Re:In the good old days

[Shadowlore]

Actually, by declaring 'war on terror' (the pretense for invading Iraq and his mad rush for 'war powers'),

Ahem ... nice ploy. But you forget that Congress is complicit in this 'plan', even the Dems. Historically, Congress has given a President authority to carry out use of military force against unspecified countries. This time they added in unspecified persons and organizations

Section 2(a) of the joint resolution 23 which passed 98-0 in Senate and 420-1 in the house IIRC, authorizes the President

"to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

It isn't so much as a grab as it an abdication by the congress, Republicans and Democrats alike. Congress essentially handed him a writ of war against any person, nation, or organization he wanted so long as he could claim they aided the attacks of September 11, 2001. Period. Bitch all you want, the primary fault lies in the Congress handing him a "blank check of force use". History proves time and time again that given such blank checks, those in power will use them however they choose to, and the rest of us won't generally like it.

This is very much like the story of the scorpion and the frog. Teh scorpion wants to cross a pond and asks a frog to carry him across. The frog says "But you are a scorpion, it is your nature that you will sting me and I'll die." The scorpion replies "That would be foolish of me for if I sting you, I too will die." So the frog agrees. As the frog is swimming across the pond with the scorpion he feels a sting. He tells the scorpion "What have you done? We will now both die! You tricked me.". To which the scorpion replies "You knew what I was when you allowed me on yor back.".

For those who missed it, Congress is the frog and the blank check is the scorpion. yes, Bush is responsible for his actions. But in this case so are the 518 Congress critters who gave him the authority to do it. People like you only want to blame Bush. That is a mistake of monumental proportions. The people who gave him the legal authority need to scolded and put out of office as well. After all, Bush going away does not remove the authority. The Congress gave the Office of the President, not George W. Bush the authority.

You see, Bush has to go away after the next election. But the congresscritters who made such a monumentally stupid choice have no such limits. They'll be around to do it again. And you can bet your ass that if a Dem makes it in, the Dems will stop whining about the President having the authority they voted to give him. I recall one of them saying in an interview they don't disagree with the president having the authority, they just don't like Bush having it. That doesn't cut it. This mentality is far more dangerous, particularly when coupled with the lack of term limits to get this mentality out.

.

Re:In the good old days

[myth24601]

"The constitution gives the president the right to ignore any attempt by congress to control the actions of the military. So, what's stopping him from deploying the military to maintain *order* on US soil - to keep America "safe"? "

All it takes is a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to remove the President.

Nutters can blather on all they want about how Bush had distroyed the contry and is a Dictator etc. but he still can't do anything he wants. Congress can stop him in an extream case with removal from office and in a less extream case with removal of funding or legislation.

Right now his supporters control Congress but they are quite aware that there is an election comming too.

Re:In the good old days

[jtosburn]

I've been wondering why the administration never references the previous declaration of war. Since Saddam never signed signed the formal surrender, one could make a plausible argument that it is still in effect. Certainly it was the justification for continued enforcement of no fly zones in Iraq, and for bombing radar installations any time they lit up a US plane.

Not that this makes any of the false pretenses used to "justify" the invasion any more palatable. They don't.

Re:In the good old days

[teknognome]

I've been wondering why the administration never references the previous declaration of war.

They'd have a hard time doing that, since the Persian Gulf War also just had an authorization of military force. The US Congress hasn't formally declared war since World War II.

Re:In the good old days

[glesga_kiss]

James made a statement something to the effect that this was a different kind of war because "other side" had no clear objective. If the US wanted to surrender what would the terms be. Since the terrorists don't have a clear end game (other than simple fear) what could the US offer to give up to concede defeat.

This sickens me and is an indicator of one of the largest problems. Your government is continually lying to you.

The terrorists have a clear goal. What do you think Bin Laden is saying in those videos you aren't allowed to see? In fact, you bomb the TV stations that dare to show them.

Their objective is simple. They want you to stop messing around with their countries in the middle east. From the CIA toppling democratic governments in Iran to the modern day occupation of Iraq.

They simply want to be left alone and will not stop attacking us until we do that. I'm all for just leaving them to their own devices. Instead we meddle and arm despots like Hussain (an enemy of Al Qaida) who brutally surpress their populations. Did we think they would just lie down?

Re:In the good old days

[MECC]

"Congress essentially handed him a writ of war"

Is that the same thing as a declaration of war, would one think? Does the AUMF give the president complete wartime powers like those exercised by Lincoln for FDR? My point, or 'angle' as it is deprecatingly characterized, is in part that the AUMF isn't a declaration of war, and the 'war on terror' has become rational for invoking wartime powers. GWB is the one establishing that the 'war on terror' is a was, and is why he needs wartime powers. At least, I seem to remember the GWB started the 'war on terror' rhetoric. I think you're right that legislative abdication is part of the formula, but what are they to do? Pass a law that GWB will then ignore at his choosing?

Does the AUMF say for the president to run around the legislative branch, ignoring them to set up his own version of the judicial branch? I just don't see that in the AUMF. I don't think the AUMF alone is a blank check, but combined with 9/11, it effectively seems like it.

The threat to democracy arises from the fact that the presidentially-declared 'war on terror' has no end. Perhaps history will see this not as a struggle between political parties or even ideologies, but a test to see if we were able to resist the temptation to slide into rule by a person rather than by consent and rule of law, to see if we had what it takes to hang onto democracy.

Once Bush is gone, we might be left with an executive ruling not of consent by the people, but by the divine right granted to fight terrorists as long as they exist, with little if any accountability. Was is congress's fault, or the president, our all of our fault? Good question.

As for the 22nd amendment, there's always the chance that little technicality might just get in the way of defending America. After all, how far is too far?

Convenient thing about the 'war on terror' is that its self-sustaining. The more we fight it, the more terrorists appear. Since we invaded Iraq, international acts of terror have increased, not decreased, and Iraq went from having no terrorist problem to a thriving terrorist export market. I think your point the congress is as much to blame makes sense in any event.

Re:In the good old days

[Shadowlore]

At least, I seem to remember the GWB started the 'war on terror' rhetoric.

Which he appropriated from the "War on Drugs" and the older "War on Poverty" rhetoric of the past. But these are just rhetoric, right? Rhetoric carries emotional and political value but no legal value. War is practically one of the Four Horsemen. Terrorist, Drugs, Poverty, Child Molesters.

SJR 23 gives the president authorization to use military force against ANY person, nation, or entity he associates in practically any way with 9/11. Period. That can be a pretty damned big umbrella. I'm not agreeing with it (just in case it's not obvious I disagree with it), just saying it like it is. I quoted the precise language. It doesn't say anyone the Judicial branch or the legislative branch, or the Dod, FBI, CIA, VP, or NSA determines. Just him. In practice it means any link however tenuous.

As much as it may suprise people, SJR 23 didn't give him authorization to attack Iraq w/o such a connection. But SJR 23 is irrelevant unless needed. And it was not/is not needed. You see, the first Gulf War was never officially ended. It was merely in a cease fire state. Further (and again I don't like it) it was authorized under UN language and US laws regarding treaties.

Convenient thing about the 'war on terror' is that its self-sustaining. The more we fight it, the more terrorists appear. Since we invaded Iraq, international acts of terror have increased, not decreased, and Iraq went from having no terrorist problem to a thriving terrorist export market. I think your point the congress is as much to blame makes sense in any event.

Actually international terrorist attacks have not increased globally. Attacks against military targets, yes. But the vast majority f those do not qualify as international terrorism any more than a flight between Iowa airports is an international flight.

Further, there is a specific goal for ending the war. Most have forgotten it, however.
"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." - George W. Bush 20 September 2001 in congressional address.

So there you have it: when you've stopped the global groups that have "global reach", you've accomplished the mission. How many groups still have this? Arguably al-Qaeda was the only one with it, and it is arguably no longer in possession of that capability. It just takes an honest and gutsy government to admit it.

But don't hold your breath. Even if Bush did so and called an end to it, the Congress will grip to it tightly, even more so. If Bush declares victory and proceeds to "power down" the war machine, the Democrats in particular will wail and gnash their teeth because it would de-fang their limited campaign platform. They'd claim he is merely saving face, and that there is a lot more to do. And so would Republican congress-critters.

Tin Foil Hat Brigade - UNITE!

[Skippyboy]

[sarcasm] Oh no - the government can tap my phone conversations any time they want to now!!! Ack! Now they are gonna find out that: 1. I watch daytime TV and Springer is my favorite. 2. I can't stop calling Home Shopping Network and buying overpriced, useless, crap. 3. I like to have phone sex with girls from "Spank Me Harder, Mommy" sex line. 4. Nobody ever calls me because I am a 47 year old virgin, who smells like cabbage. (They will learn this because of my conversations with anyone who picks up the phone in sections 1-3 above.) Now is the time to ACT! Don't let your personal and private secrets get listened to and filed in the "Useless Loser" category of the government's database! Vote to impeach George Bush, and make all future president's wear French Maid outfits and say "Mother May I" before and after every public appearance. [\sarcasm] Really people - this has been going on for a very long time. It is becoming politicized simply because one party controls the media, and the other controls the government. When the same party controls both media and government, this type of thing was routinely swept under the rug. If you are REALLY concerned about YOUR privacy - there are plenty of websites that will tell you how to "live off the grid" and disappear. Yes - I am a veteran. I may disagree with what you have to say - but I HAVE served and I DO believe in your right to say it.

Re:Tin Foil Hat Brigade - UNITE!

[TripMaster Monkey]

It is becoming politicized simply because one party controls the media, and the other controls the government.

Ahh...so I see you're trotting out the old 'liberal media' chestnut yet again. How cute.

Read this to see why the myth of the 'liberal media' is exactly that...a myth with zero basis in fact.

Re:Tin Foil Hat Brigade - UNITE!

[Donniedarkness]

It's not that this single act worries us so much-- it's that they're going to slowly take our liberties away.

This is just one more step in the wrong direction.

Oh, and just in case you didn't realize, the president isn't supposed to have absolute power. We've got this little thing called checks and balances-- he's the head of the executive branch, not a king.

2112

[Heem]

Attention all planets of the solar federation
Attention all planets of the solar federation
Attention all planets of the solar federation
We have assumed control.
We have assumed control.
We have assumed control.

Re:2112

[reconn]

What can this strange device be?
When I touch it, it gives forth a sound
Its got wires that vibrate and give music
What can this thing be that I found?

rush -> english translatrix:
stop working, start rocking!

editors addendum:
stone-age cultures enjoy roughly 94% leisure time.

Holy Shit!

[hellvis80]

This is probably one of the most frightening things I've ever read.

Re:Holy Shit!

[Mr. Competence]

I agree! How dare Wired misreport this so badly!

Unfortunately, it looks like most of Slashdot is swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.

Read the PDF

[deanj]

"The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that not only authorizes, but extends, US warrentless wiretapping. No accountability. No oversight. No definition of 'terrorist.' No record of who voted for what. Great way to devolve a democratic republic into a fascist theocracy. Me worried? Yea."

Read the text of the bill linked above, not the Wired article for the full story.

Oh, and that "Me worried? Yea." part? You're overstating your importance...to...well, anyone.

Don't worry. If you really read what's going on with that bill, you'd know that 1) It's for people communicating the terrorists, 2) It's being overseen by a court, and 3) it's ALSO being overseen by Congress.

Re:Read the PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's OK for a law to be unconstitutional as long as Congress agrees?

Re:Read the PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 9(c) of the proposed legislation reads "Section 102 of FISA (50 U.S.C. 1802) is amended to read as follows...Notwithstanding any other law, the President through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods up to 1 year..."

In Section 3, "electronic communication" is defined as "any transfer of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted, in whole or in part, by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo electronic or photo optical system, cable, or other connection furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communication."

The bill may authorize FISC to review the surveillance, but it apparently does not *require* the President to submit to such review since he'll be able authorize surveillance on his own anyway.

Re:Read the PDF

[vertinox]

Don't worry. If you really read what's going on with that bill, you'd know that 1) It's for people communicating the terrorists

So who or what constitutes a terrorist?

Re:Confused

[mgpeter]

Amendment IV

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.

-----

If you want to learn more about the United States Constituion while you are learning about OpenOffice.org Writer styles check out my OpenOffice.org Styles Tutorial at

http://www.pcc-services.com/tutorials/OOo/basic_st yles/page1.html

Maybe you will learn a thing or two about Freedom (in reguards to both Society and Software).

Banned Books

[nuggz]

What you weren't supposed to know what we're doing, we banned that book!!!

Re:Banned Books

[RhysTheElf]

Who are "we" and why would you ban that book?

I mean, it should only be put on a restricted list so that it could be used as blueprints for future legislation!

Thanks for the reply!

How Congress works

[glorpy]

As a reminder to those of you who want to believe that the Senate is a rubber stamp for its committees, Senate and House committees are merely supposed to filter out the meaningless and/or ineffective gibberish, not decide whether they should become law or not. By that standard, they did their jobs.

Re:How Congress works

[Anonymous Coward]

..., they did their jobs.

Seems to me, the House and Senate haven't done their jobs in oh, 10+ years. Working for the people, not corporations... AND NO!!! CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!! I only started paying attention to politics when I turned 18 in 1996. Hmmm. Is it merely coincidence that that is when I became eligible to vote??

As example of the absurdity that gets passed in committee, I point you to pork-barrelling, and the Alaska 'water highway' (or whatever). As reference to Congressional in-action, I submit impeachment for a blow-job, and non-impeachment for a MASSIVE unending foreign police-action, violations of the consitution, violations of the Geneva Convention, and a debt in downward spiral.

The questions people need to ask themselves is this: Are those in charge the best we can get?? Is this the best they can do?? If the answer is yes, this country and its citizenry are in trouble!!!!!!

Dude?

[deanj]

"Me worried? Yea."

Dude... Seriously, no one cares about what your phone calls are, unless you're calling out of the country to terrorists.

Go grab your latte and relax. You sound paranoid.

Re:Dude?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh ok, by the way, we have some nice stars you might want to attach to your shirt while we wiretap everything. kthx!

Re:Dude?

[ab0mb88]

unless you're calling out of the country to terrorists.
Or you belong to the wrong faith (Muslim),
Or you subscribe to the wrong magazine (2600),
Or you get an abortion (in Kansas),
Or you don't agree with the President...

What are you trying to hide?

Re:Dude?

[filterchild]

First they came for the paranoid, and I wasn't paranoid, so I didn't speak up.

Re:Dude?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, yet ANOTHER post that falls back on "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:Dude?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's paranoid: you, who think evil brown-skinned people are everywhere trying to blow us up, or us, who see you spying on millions of innocent people, imprisoning thousands of people without trials, eviscerating the freedoms that defined America, throwing our wealth away to snake-oil salesmen, all because you're scared of the "terrorist" boogeymen?

"Seriously, no one cares about what your phone calls are"

If they don't care what his phone calls are, then they don't need to listen. If they do care, they can get a court-approved warrant after presenting reasonable suspicions to an independent court.

"Theocracy"?

[Cyryathorn]

Can anyone explain to me how the passage of this bill would help bring about "theocracy"? The poster said that this would be a "great way" to do it, but I fail to see the connection. (N.B. I'm specifically asking about the "theocracy" bit.)

Re:"Theocracy"?

[COMON$]

Because obviously if something is a dumb move it must be due to those ignorant God fearing individuals. Be your religion, Buddism, Islam, Christianity, or Judaism.

This is slashdot, anything short of Athiesm is consiered ignorant, facist and the source of all of today's problems.

Re:"Theocracy"?

[COMON$]

Flamebait, case and Point.

Re:"Theocracy"?

[Cyryathorn]

You're being a bit hyperbolic, but you see my point: even though there is no significant connection between the bill in question and "theocracy", the poster still saw such a connection as patently self-evident. It strikes me that the poster is the sort of person (at least in this case) who has a theory, and then looks to shoe-horn evidence to fit. (Rather than, of course, gathering evidence and then forming a theory).

Their line of thought went something like this: "infringements on civil liberties? It must be the theocons!" And so, since they fixed the blame on the theocons, this particular episode provides them greater assurance that they were right all along about those dastardly theocons. (There's some circular reasoning in there, in case you missed it.)

An only vaguely related thought: if you started pointing fingers at the "neocons" that stalk the halls of power, you're more likely to end up pointing at a not-very-observant Jew than you would a dominionist Christian. So it's hard to imagine what sort of "theocracy" is coming our way. Will we all be forced to live by the strictures of Reformed Judaism? Personally, I'm looking forward to voting for Mitt Romney for President in 2008, a Mormon of all things! (I'm a run-of-the-mill Baptist.)

Re:"Theocracy"?

[n00854180t]

The bill itself has nothing to do with turning the US into a "theocracy" directly, no. However, the neocon agenda has an will always be to turn the US into a police-state theocracy. This is part of the neocon agenda, and therefor part of turning the US into a theocracy.

Re:"Theocracy"?

[Cyryathorn]

Horrifying, if true.

How might an impartial observer verify your assertion that "the neocon agenda has an[d] will always be to turn the US into a police-state theocracy"? Again, I'm especially interested in the "theocracy" bit. Have any neocons written any books to that effect? Their own "Mein Kampf" so to speak? Have any of them expressed a belief in Christian dominionism? (please don't knee-jerk answer yes to this question unless you know what "dominionism" is.) Perhaps they're not forthright with their agenda -- has someone intercepted secret communications amongst the cabal, blowing the lid on their hidden agenda?

I'm honest-to-goodness interested in finding out why a rational person should come to accept this as true (i.e., based on evidence). I'm a rational person. Or at least, I hope to be one some day. Convince me!

Re:"Theocracy"?

[COMON$]

I am not so worried about a Theocracy in general, as I am a Theocracy where one Church/Synagogue/Temple is in control. Then we start the witch hunts where the holy book gets abused for power sake, much as the constitution is abused today. But we then start to see people divinely inspired to die to serve their lord. This is where theocracy is fitting into the picture here I think. The saying, the ends justify the means, tends to be a theocratic idea but not exclusively. Check extreme left environmentalists here.

Also the tendancy for the public to need a scapegoat is frightening as well. Right now it is the neocons, it used to be the communists, before that the natzis, before that ...you can go on and on until you go back to first century rome where you get back to Christians. Then it goes back to the Jews and so on. Just pick your gov't and there somewhere will be a scapegoat.

Why can't they just say it?

[aliendisaster]

Hey. Your living in a police state. You have no rights. If I even suspect you did something wrong, your ass is mine. Oh, you know your rights and you got a lawyer. Ha ha ha. I laugh at your pitiful attempt at freedom.

I have the solution!!!!

[tommyatomic]

Fire the incumbants. All of them. Both sides. Show them that everyone means business and that our rights are not for sale; not for lease and certainly not on loan to a fairytail land somewhere. If this was majority voted-in then we have a simple issue of too many bastards and the few folks in congress doing their duty and protecting our rights arent working hard enough.

Far far away.. in the country of Sweden..

[TheJaff]

..the sitting minister of justice want to give the police more slack when it comes to wiretapping "when there is suspicion of crime". He will probably be out of a job on monday though since the election on sunday will probably shift the entire goverment to a new rule (to the Alliance - four collaborating parties where the Moderates are the biggest party).

To War, Or Not To War

[dereference]

The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit, and guess what we are at war. Our enemy has said that they are at war with us.

Oh, I see. So I guess Congress no longer needs to declare war, what with all the bureacratic trivialities of debate and voting; as long as our "enemy" says we're at war, we are. Ah, that should be a real time-saver. I sure hope that's a troll, but I fear you were serious (albeit terribly misguided).

Yes, Congress grants special power to the President in a time of declared war, but only when Congress agrees indeed there is a war. The "war" on terror, the "war" on drugs, and the "war" on child pornography are all marketing campaigns at best, not actual legally-declared wars.

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[oc255]

And most of this "warfare" legislation is happening within the borders of the US. This isn't wiretapping in Iraq.

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[mrchaotica]

By the way, are you aware that the Korean "War," Vietnam "War," Gulf "War," and Gulf "War" II are all similarly fake? The last time the US was actually at war, FDR was President!

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[AHumbleOpinion]

By the way, are you aware that the Korean "War," Vietnam "War," Gulf "War," and Gulf "War" II are all similarly fake? The last time the US was actually at war, FDR was President!

And as one of the posters above pointed out, the enemy declared war first. You only need one side to decide that a war has begun. Radical Islam has made that decision.

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[mrchaotica]

What are you stupid or something? The Constitution explicitly states that the US may be considered "at war" if and only if Congress declares it!

This, you may note, is why even though Japan declared war on the US a few hours before Pearl Harbor, the US also declared war on Japan a short time after.

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[Qzukk]

As other people have pointed out, all Bush has to go to war is his "authorization to use force" against "terrorists". It's been determined that not only was Iraq not related to Al Qaeda, members of the administration clearly manipulated intelligence to show that Saddam was, indicating that members of the administration knew that Iraq was not a terrorist target and therefore did not fall beneath the authorization of force.

Even in your dream world where we are at war with every nutso who waves a rifle and claims so, Iraq was not part of Radical Islam (and in fact was our last real buffer against it in the region) and therefore the attack on Iraq was not justified by that. Since the terrorists did not flood into Iraq until we created the power void by removing its dictator with no plan whatsoever for future control of the country, you cannot claim that the terrorists there now are what authorized the attack initially.

So the President directed the army to attack a nation that we were not at war with, that he was not authorized to attack. That sounds like an impeachable offense to me.

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[AHumbleOpinion]

What are you stupid or something? The Constitution explicitly states that the US may be considered "at war" if and only if Congress declares it!

There are various definitions of "war", you are fixating on the lawyer's view. I am using the more practical and realistic view, the soldiers view, and also President Roosevelt's view (explained below). Perhaps you missed the GP's use of the terms "Korean War", "Vietnam War", "Gulf War", etc. That would be what some people would call context. I'd be careful tossing around the word "stupid", it is not sticking to who you had expected.

This, you may note, is why even though Japan declared war on the US a few hours before Pearl Harbor, the US also declared war on Japan a short time after.

I think you should read not skim you history textbook. Even President Roosevelt acknowledged that war existed at the time of the attack not at the time of our declaration of war. Note the past tense of "existed" as he asked Congress for the declaration of war: "I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[AHumbleOpinion]

It's been determined that not only was Iraq not related to Al Qaeda, members of the administration clearly manipulated intelligence to show that Saddam was, indicating that members of the administration knew that Iraq was not a terrorist target and therefore did not fall beneath the authorization of force.

I'll ignore the very heavy spin of your statement and just concentrate on it's irrelevance.

The legitimacy of the invasion is immaterial to the legitimacy of our current presence. Radical Islam may not have had a significant presense in Iraq at the time of the invasion, but they have been drawn there by the invasion and do have a major presence now. That is the only relevant issue now. Iraq is *now* a legitimate front on the war on terror. Radical Islam is hoping to repeat Afghanistan, drive a super power out, force a radical Islamic government on the people, continue their war on the west ... It is nearly universally agreed that the west's ignoring of Afghanistan once the Russians left was a tragic mistake. Leaving Afghanistan or Iraq today, before a sustainable representative government of some sort is established, would be a similar mistake with consequences in the future.

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[mrchaotica]

There are various definitions of "war", you are fixating on the lawyer's view. I am using the more practical and realistic view, the soldiers view, and also President Roosevelt's view (explained below).

I'm fixating on the lawyer's view on purpose. You know why? It's because the laws which give the President extra power during "Wartime" are based on the legal definition, and should only go into effect when the legal condition is satisfied!

Perhaps you missed the GP's use of the terms "Korean War", "Vietnam War", "Gulf War", etc. That would be what some people would call context.

I am the grandparent! If you re-read that post more carefully you'll see that I only quoted the "War" part of the Vietnam "War" etc. entirely on purpose, in order to illustrate that they were not, in fact, legally defined as wars!

Even President Roosevelt acknowledged that war existed at the time of the attack not at the time of our declaration of war. Note the past tense of "existed" as he asked Congress for the declaration of war: "I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

This serves to prove my point: Roosevelt understood the distinction between the legal and practical definitions, and therefore realized it was necessary to (legally) declare war despite the fact that a state of war already (practically) existed.

In contrast, all the Presidents since (and most notably Bush Jr.) apparently do not understand this distinction, which is why Bush thinks he has powers that he doesn't actually have!

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[Qzukk]

The legitimacy of the invasion is immaterial to the legitimacy of our current presence.

So if I break some law, I shouldn't be punished as long as I stop breaking the law? Or does this logic only apply to Republicans? Over and over I've seen this, whether it's Republicans scrambling to save DeLay by repealing their ethics rules, or the Republicans scrambling to save DeLay's district by challenging their election laws, or the Republicans scrambling to legalize Bush's wiretap program (which cannot be viewed as anything other than an admission that he had broken the law).

Breaking the law can be honorable, or even the right thing to do, but even King and Ghandi accepted and invited the punishement for the laws they broke. True followers of the idea of civil disobedience would accept no less, the remainder are just spoiled rich college kids who think they can do what they want without punishment. The problem is that now the spoiled kids are running the nation.

I understand the "we broke it, we bought it" situation in Iraq, but once the bull has been let loose in the china shop, the correct answer is to get it out or put it down, not to make it the cashier. Bush should be impeached, and whoever replaces him (well, Cheney, obviously, unless he gets impeached too. I hear theres a whole line of people waiting to get that spot, the majority of them Republican, even) should not just turn tail and run.

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[Yunzil]

And as one of the posters above pointed out, the enemy declared war first. You only need one side to decide that a war has begun. Radical Islam has made that decision.

How can a concept (radical Islam) declare war?

And regardless, you are incorrect. "They", whoever "they" are, may have decided they are at war against us, but untill Congress passes something that says, "A state of war exists between the United States of America and ________________", then we are not at war with "them".

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[Anonymous Coward]

There are various definitions of "war", you are fixating on the lawyer's view. I am using the more practical and realistic view

No, he's fixated on the Constitution's view, which is the only one that matters, dumbass.

Re:To War, Or Not To War

[Anonymous Coward]

The legitimacy of the invasion is immaterial to the legitimacy of our current presence.

The legitimacy of my stealing your car is immaterial to the legitimacy of my continued possession of your car.

Re:but you shouldn't worry!

[kent_eh]

As someone who has been a tourist in your country often in the past, I am worried.

And I haven't travelled to the Paranoid States of America since 2001. Nor do I have any plans to travel there in the forseeable future.

Just keep off my damn lawn.

Re:but you shouldn't worry!

[JohnDeckard]

That's cliched parroting of sound bites and a shortcut to thinking.

The problem isn't isn't the step, but where the foot eventually lands.

My thoughts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting will not help. Doing so only validates a system that pulls this kind of crap. If no one votes, then they have no power. Honestly, anarchy is far superior to democracy at this point.

Coming soon: underground wireless heavily encrypted communication networks so you can call your pot dealer to see if he's home without getting all involved arrested.

The real problem

[segfault_0]

The problem is that Americans are a bunch of pussies now who arent willing to die for real liberty anymore. To keep my freedoms I would be willing to die in a terrorist attack if chance put me in that position and I wouldnt look at it any different than a car wreck or an earthquake. It appears that we've been subdued with digital cable, SUVs and 70$ jeans to the point where we have completely lost our perspective on whats worth something in this life - like fostering a free and fair society for our children. I just hope those of us who agree or sit silent while this occurs realizes its our children that will pay the price - not us.

Re:The real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to die. It is inherent in life. All animals share the will to live.

Re:The real problem

[EveLibertine]

The entire "for the children" argument is old and tired, and just doesn't hold much water any longer. You'll need a direct and immediate threat to motivate anyone at this stage of the battle, which is why I am now going door to door with a crowbar and kneecapping anyone that doesn't vote.

I don't care how you vote, but I demand participation. Sorry Getty Lee, choosing not to decide isn't a choice this time around.

Re:The real problem

[walmartshopper67]

That is probably the most accurate reasoning i've heard on the subject so far - look at Israel (and other middle east countries), they don't give a FUCK about terrorist attacks, they know that it's a chance they have to take in order to live how they want to live. The current attitude of the country, and this administration is the complete opposite of what this country was founded on - it was "Give me liberty or give me death", not "take all my rights away to save me from the boogie men".

Re:The real problem

[benneja1]

You're an IDIOT; list all your rights that have been taken away... And Israel doesn't give a fuck??? Just ask Lebanon if Israel gives a fuck...

Re:The real problem

[SylvesterTheCat]

That's just swell. If you are willing to walk around and be a target for the enemy, then by all means, do so.
However, what if -I- am not willing to take that same risk? What if I expect the government, police (domestic locations), US military (foreign locations) to do the job for which I pay them via my taxes and protect me?

Perhaps, you should put a scarlet 'V' (Victim) on your forehead so that the rest of know that we should stay away from you.

Otherwise, allow me to carry a weapon with me at all times and places so that I can protect myself.

Re:The real problem

[mrpeebles]

Otherwise, allow me to carry a weapon with me at all times and places so that I can protect myself

Carrying your own weapon to protect yourself against terrorism- I don't know if this is misguided or foolish, but this desire for self reliance is sure inherently American. But remember that it's not you who is going to do these wiretaps- its the government. Giving the government this sort of power is not so in accordance with our best American ideals.

Re:The real problem

[Bob9113]

Wish I had mod points. A more patriotic (in the sense imagined by the men who risked or lost their lives in 1776) statement I cannot imagine.

Re:The real problem

[Darby]

There is nothing wrong with not wanting to die. It is inherent in life. All animals share the will to live.

Certainly, but giving in to your fear and pissing away your and everybody else's rights and freedoms for no benefit to safety is the most canonical example of cowardice you can find.

Being afraid is fine and natural. Letting your fears rule you is cowardice. There is no better word to describe the scum who still support the entirely treasonous Republican party than cowards.

Re:The real problem

[Darby]

Perhaps, you should put a scarlet 'V' (Victim) on your forehead so that the rest of know that we should stay away from you.

No, he is a Citizen and a patriot.

You are a coward and should have a big "C" branded into your forehead.
I defy you to come up with a more canonical example of cowardice than how you just described yourself.
Coward.

Re:The real problem

[MrWhitefolkz]

That's all well and great, but Americans are not "a bunch of pussies", as you would like to believe. The nice thing about the US is that we have checks and balances. Something like this, will eventually get taken to the Supreme Court and will be examined to find out if its in deed constitutional. It won't be the fastest process, and its not perfect (name a government that is), but it does work And people should remember their history. A lot of privacy was lost during WWII, afterwards a bunch of the laws were considered BS and things went back to normal. I don't like the Patriot Act, but I know its not forever. History always repeats its self.

Re:The real problem

[walmartshopper67]

rights that have been taken away (or they are working on): my right to privacy on the phone, my right to privacy on the internet, my right to VOTE (and have it count). do you see the Isralie government fucking incessently with it's citizens? Do you see them running around crying because the terrorists are going to get them? They go about their daily lives, terrorists be damned. (i didn't say their military didn't give a fuck)

Re:The real problem

[n00854180t]

Your sig should have "neocon" instead of "Republican". Republicans are victims of the circumstance of having their party taken over by religious fanatics. Not all of them agree with the neocon insanity (and to those neocon cunts that will undoubtedly accuse me of doing nothing but saying that neocons are insane, go ahead and tell me what is sane about trying to turn a democratic republic into a police state theocracy is sane). That said, I'm not a Republican (gah, hell no) nor a Democrat, Libertarian, Leftist or otherwise (for all the neocon scumbags that undoubtedly will try to accuse me of voicing my opinion solely because I'm a "leftist commie pinko" or some such idiocy). The real problem is that the Republican party has been taken over by a group of religious fanatics.

Re:The real problem

[PantsWearer]

I'd really like to believe that, but the Republican "victims" seem to keep voting for the neocons, which, in my eyes, makes the neocons Republicans. They seem to have been accepted whole-heartedly into the party.

Frankly, I'd love to see these "victims" form a new party. Heck, I'm generally liberal, but at least I could respect for the "old" Republican party, with their views on small government, etc., whether I agreed with it or not.

Re:The real problem

[Darby]

Your sig should have "neocon" instead of "Republican".

Oh the fuck I should have.

Republicans are victims of the circumstance of having their party taken over by religious fanatics.

This happened right around the end of WW2. It went into extreme overdrive with the election of Reagan which is pushing 30 years ago. The fascist and/or theocratic lunatics *are* the primary base of the Republican party. If there were any "Republicans" who had any decency or integrity, then they would have left the party a long fucking time ago.

Your statement is such utter cowardly nonsense.
They voted for these sick fuckers and they have not acted to make their representatives begin impeachment proceedings.

Due to this *fact* they have and continue to support these actions.

Sorry, but your statement is nothing but ignorant sycophantic babbling.
If they aren't responsible for *their own fucking actions* then who is, Einstein.

Not all of them agree with the neocon insanity (and to those neocon cunts that will undoubtedly accuse me of doing nothing but saying that neocons are insane, go ahead and tell me what is sane about trying to turn a democratic republic into a police state theocracy is sane).

Yes, they fucking do.
If they didn't then they would have taken steps to stop it. First by leaving the party. When your actions support something then claiming that you don't support it is a lie at absolute best.

That said, I'm not a Republican (gah, hell no) nor a Democrat, Libertarian, Leftist or otherwise (for all the neocon scumbags that undoubtedly will try to accuse me of voicing my opinion solely because I'm a "leftist commie pinko" or some such idiocy). The real problem is that the Republican party has been taken over by a group of religious fanatics.

I'm none of the above either.
The fact is that the party was taken over a long fucking time ago and these cowardly traitors keep voting for them still instead of acting with integrity by admitting that they were wrong. Admitting that they were ignorant fools to be taken in for so long and doing something to fix their fucking mistakes.

So, sorry, but pretending that they aren't at fault because of *what the people they fucking voted for are doing* is nothing but an idiotic lie and frankly, insane
.
Too bad if you don't like that description, but it fits to a T as I demonstrated.

Re:The real problem

[TheGratefulNet]

To keep my freedoms I would be willing to die in a terrorist attack if chance put me in that position and I wouldnt look at it any different than a car wreck or an earthquake.

I used to live in NH. their license plates said live free or die"

I wish bush grew up in NH.

Re:The real problem

[Lord_Dweomer]

Nevermind that it is no longer possible for citizens to amass sufficient force to overthrow the government. Who do you think will win? Citizens with hunting rifles or tanks, bombers, and nukes?

Re:The real problem

[segfault_0]

Said like a true non-parent. I for one with a son who will be eligible for a draft in 7 years find it a very compelling argument.

Re:The real problem

[segfault_0]

I say this with all due respect - really, but your deluded. 3 steps forward and 2 steps back is still a net loss of 1 step. Thats all they need to eventually wreck the place.

Re:The real problem

[segfault_0]

Theres no need for anything more than mass outrage by the public - but unfortunately these people may really represent our country if you look at whos really out there these days - i dont think we will get it. This is who "we" are but that doesnt mean we have to like it.

Re:The real problem

[segfault_0]

Republicans, at worst, are guilty of being lazy - not thinking ahead perhaps - and letting other people do their thinking for them. But these people are our parents and grandparents and even our peers in some cases. Sadly, people just want to get paid, get laid and send their kids to college - they dont want to worry about these things and that detachment will cost them more than they can conceive - eventually - which is why in my original post i said the children would pay. But this being said, I dont think the fact that they believe in Christianity makes them evil - although it may appear that way. The fact that they cant see the parallels between themselves and the so called islamofacists is simply ironic - all killing in the name of their gods. Its easy to look at people and judge and not think about how you do those same things yourself, no... i havent lost that much hair, no... im not that fat, no... im not being a hypocrite - its easy to do, its part of the human condition. We're doomed. lol.

Re:The real problem

[segfault_0]

Well specific to this article: Civil Rights Act of 1964(spefically protection against descrimination for religion and national origin), the right to protection against unlawful search and seizure and the right to a speedy and public trial.

Re:The real problem

[benneja1]

Are you really that self centered that you think the government is listening to your phone calls, reviewing the porn sites you visit and changing your votes?? Get over it. How can you even begin to know what the Israeli government dose and doesn't do to it own civilians?? That is just as stupid as if I said that North Koreas government doesn't fuck with their ppl. I am sure that every government in the world is concerned with self-preservation and will take any means necessary to ensure their survival, with most actions transparent to their citizens. As far as losing your right to privacy on the phone and net is such bullshit. You make it should like they are tapping everyone so and I am sure you have no idea the enormous amount of man power that would take. Who do you think is going to listen to all of phone call that EVERY AMERICAN makes?? That's right no one! I am sure that there is a small % of people who have been tapped and watched, and I would venture to say out of that small % only a few are "American Citizens". And if you are tapped and are not an American citizen you have nothing to complain about.

THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU RIGHT NOW

[1 (smarterThanYou)]

please...

A question

[TheConfusedOne]

I'm curious as to how the Fourth Ammendment protects you from having your international phone conversation tapped by agents from the other country you are talking to.

This goes towards the "expectation of privacy" issue.

Also, since the program is in fact related to the prosecution of a war then we're not talking about legal proceedings and instead are dealing with intelligence gathering. The Constitution vested broad powers to the Commander in Chief in that case.

Re:A question

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I'm curious as to how the Fourth Ammendment protects you from having your international phone conversation tapped by agents from the other country you are talking to.

We're not talking about agents of other countries, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AGENTS OF THIS COUNTRY.

...prosecution of a war...

No, we're prosecuting an INVASION. Being a knee-jerk Republican apologist, I can see how the distinction was lost on you.

The Constitution vested broad powers to the Commander in Chief in that case.

It does not give him the power to suspend the Constitution.

Re:A question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't have anything to do with the recognized, well-established, and heavily reaffirmed right to privacy expectations.

Even people who were suspected of engaging in direct, purposeful treason have always been protected by these simple rights during an investigation regardless of whether they were calling the KGB or meeting with the Kremlin. We're talking about U.S. citizens here who are not even known to be suspected of doing ANYTHING wrong (which leads back to the question: if they ARE doing something wrong, why can't you get the warrant, ESPECIALLY since you have access to a court specifically designed to allow you to circumvent even the most basic procedures?).

Furthermore, there is no war in Iraq and you can't declare war against a concept, and most of the people who believe this is acceptable also tend to argue that treating terrorism like a crime is absurd. This leads to the inevitable question:

If it's not a crime, and it can't be part of a war, on what authority is the prosecution even taking place?

There is no standing to support any of these activities. That's why they have to try and pass a law to allow it. If it were legal to begin with, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because they wouldn't have to try and circumvent civil liberties in the first place.

I suspect eventually, like most other things, sensible people will prevail and you'll wind up releasing a whole bunch of bad people because of the illegal manner in which they were detained and prosecuted to begin with. It's not like they COULDN'T prosecute these people within the bounds of the law, it's that they WON'T because they want more power and they see this as an excuse to grab it.

Expect that the sensible people who return basic civil liberties to everyone will be slandered for their part in "releasing" people that were only released because of their illegal prosecution in the first place.

Politics, decency, respect, and basic common sense rarely acquaint themselves with one another, however.

Re:A question

[EllisDees]

>I'm curious as to how the Fourth Ammendment protects you from having your international phone conversation tapped by agents from the other country you are talking to.

Ask yourself, if the framers had had telephones, would they have included them in the forth amendment or not? My thinking is that they absolutely would have, as the British would have been tapping them like crazy to get those 'Colonial Terrorists'.

Re:A question

[Scudsucker]

I'm curious as to how the Fourth Ammendment protects you from having your international phone conversation tapped by agents from the other country you are talking to.

If one end of the call is coming from the U.S., it's also a domestic call, and to tap it you need a warrant. End of story.

Its a public network ... get over it...

[unics]

There has been a long standing rule...

If your going to exchange information over a public network (e.g. phone system, internet) expect the information to be compromised at some point. Even if the information is encrypted, some individual could make the mistake of forwarding that information to another party unencrypted.

And Clinton's Carnivore program?

[Dragon Bait]

or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms

Let's not forget Clinton's Carnivore program. It's not just the neocons. It's totalitarians on both sides.

Neocon strategy ... principals of isolationism

Invading two countries is isolationism? Have they changed the definition since WWII?

Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad

Unfortunately, these individuals don't exist - at least not in either major party.

What next?

[soast]

Government has right to open citizens mail?

Re:What next?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't get your box of government-issue clear envelopes?

Stop Crying

[aronschatz]

For all you people that are bitching and posting on Slashdot, CALL YOUR SENATOR TO VOTE THIS DOWN. Don't bitch, take action. Yelling and screaming at Slashdot won't do anything.

Re:Stop Crying

[neonprimetime]

The majority of /.ers don't even take 1 day out of every 4 years to go out on election day and vote for a president, so what makes you think they'll make a phone call? They sit on their computers, complain on their blogs, and wine on slashdot, but they're too lazy to actually get up and do anything.

Re:Stop Crying

[B11]

Oh really? How about the times congress has tried to sneak in things like the broadcast flag? And you're assuming there's no value in discussing the issue,debating it, etc. Were it not for /., I wouldn't have heard of this bill (I don't read "Wired" and this will probably slip under the mainstream media's radar, probably intentionally so).

Re:Stop Crying

[webdog314]

It'll make me _feel_ better.

Re:Stop Crying

[n00854180t]

I voted until the point when they started using blatantly insecure voting machines manufactured by companies in the neocon pocket (Diebold AND ES&S). Voting in a broken system is not only pointless, but counter productive.

Re:Confused

[segfault_0]

Funny how the "states rights" party is the one pushing for more federal powers.

Dear american friend,

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. There is a whole continent looking closely what your administration is doing since ~2001.

All too soon there will be reason enough for Europe to pay back for what you've done in WW2.

By liberating you... from Diebold to Bush... if you don't do it... we'll FUCK them... because we'll have to.

Re:Dear american friend,

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, comparing Bush to Hitler without even naming the latter. Nifty trick. We'll be so grateful to you when you show up to end the concentration-camp executions of Jews, gays, Gypsies, Catholics, Communists-- What's that you say? Not happening in the U.S.? But... but ... Bush is Hitler, right? How can they not be happening?

You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Asrynachs]

Believe it or not the government knows which sort of people are terrorists. They're the bloody muslim extremists. The only way to catch these bastards and root them out is to listen in onto what they're doing. It's reasonably simple. So provided you're not from the middle east you don't have a lot to worry about at the moment.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Donniedarkness]

Was Timothy McVeigh a Muslim extremist? You'd probably be surprised to know that MOST terrorist organizations in the world are NOT Muslim extremist organizations.

Even if they were mostly muslim extremists, though, we'd be ignorant to think that those were the only ones.

Besides, if the president wants to fucking wiretap someone, he needs to get a warrant. He can have a hush order put on it if he wants, but I don't like him being able to do anything he wants without consent of a judge.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Asrynachs]

Considering the muslim extremists are on a holy war against all non-muslims right now I think they could take priority. You should look at the state of Britain. All the civil liberties in the world and they're getting suicide bombers. How in the hell does that work? We need leaders who can make desicions without having to go through the red tape of the courts. The government makes the laws not the judges.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Donniedarkness]

They've been at "holy war against non-muslims" for the last few hundred years.

And the other religious terrorist groups out there are "at holy war against non-Christians", etc.

And yeah, in a dictatorship, the leader wouldn't have to go through the courts.... but wait, aren't dictators evil? Didn't we just go to war to overthrow a dictatorship and allow the Iraqi people to experience the wonders of democracy?

Why do you think we even have the Judicial branch, anyways?

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Asrynachs]

You understand that during World War II people gave up all sorts of civil liberties right? Winston Churchill was effectivley the dictator of england. And he's considered the greatest leader the country ever had. I'm not saying I approve of Bush, or his track record, I'm saying poeople need to get off their high horses and understand that in order to deal with the threat of our supposed countrymen blowing themselves up at subway stations we have to give up certain rights. The Judicial branch exists to exact justice where it needs to be done. However, blocking the government from keeping its people safe isn't what it was meant for.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Donniedarkness]

One thing: Do you realize that the president can get a warrant for wiretapping up to three days AFTER the target has been tapped? What do you think the pros of warrantless wiretapping would be? The only warrants that the judges would deny would be the incredibly ridiculous ones.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[KingNaught]

Acctually I think the best way to stop terrorists is to stop making them in the first place. If the United States blew up my little sister with one of their "Smart Bombs" you know what I probably would try to blow up one of their convoys in retaliation. Stop hurting other people (And giving money/weapons to people who are hurting peole) and most of this terrorist activity would dry up.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Asrynachs]

There's a logical reason for that. The police are bound by the burden of evidance. They might get a tip that somebody is up to no good. But if they don't have enough evidance for a warrant they can't go after them. So effectivley they have to wait around for the person to do something that would warrant.. a warrant. So what they do now is wiretap the person so they can collect enough evidance to build a case against them. You can't go to a judge and ask for a warrant against somebody without evidance.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Asrynachs]

That's not true. The muslim terrorists have a specific agenda of creating a 7th islamic empire all over the world. They're not interested in being appeased. They're not like say, the IRA, where we could just give them Ireland and they'd stop.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Maximilio]

You're too stupid to argue with. So I won't.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Anonymous Coward]

Been on a plane lately? The two white guys behind me weren't muslim extremists, yet they had their bags searched for bottles.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[vidarh]

The "muslim terrorists" make up a tiny little fraction of muslims. Some of them might want that, but without the US and the UK giving muslims everywhere plenty of reasons to hate them they'd have a far tougher time recruiting.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Asrynachs]

That's political correctness for you. The authorities would be slammed if they only stopped and searched middle eastern people.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[vidarh]

Britain is getting hit because the fuckwit Blair keeps wanting to be Bush's lapdog. That much is obvious to anyone who actually bother to follow the news.

We need leaders who can make desicions without having to go through the red tape of the courts.

In other words you want fascism.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Asrynachs]

Britain is getting hit because they've been allowing the muslim extremists to do whatever they want without restrictions. It finally came back to bite them in the ass.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[KingNaught]

LOL! Beleive everything you hear from Pat Robertson and Glen Beck do yah. They hate us for a reason, and our blind inability to admit the wrongs we have done is why the whole world hates the United States. We blame all of our problems on someone else terrorists, illegal immigrents, homosexuals. They guy couple down the street isn't the reason your marrige is a failure, and the terrorists arn't the reason gas costs $3 a gallon (its greedy oil companies and american consumers that are unwilling to conserve natural resources) We are to blame for all of our own problems the sooner we admit that the sooner we can start fixing them.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Asrynachs]

I'm Canadian. I don't know these people you speak of. Here's the thing. Canada isn't in the Iraq war yet muslim extremists are still tyring to behead our prime-minister and blow up our stock exchange. These people who're commiting this treason were born and raised in Canada, and are from upper class homes. They've been given all the benifits our society has to offer, they have free health care and good education and the freedom to force their wives to cover their faces in public. YET THEY'RE STILL TYRING TO KILL US! One would think that lower class inner city youths would have more reason to blow up subway stations than some upper class muslim law students.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the parent poster is right. It is B.Liar's fault with his foreign policy - he is as neocon as your President.
You don't know anything about Britain. I do, I'm British.
You twat.

Re:You gotta give a little to get a little.

[bulliver]

I'm Canadian.

I'm Canadian too, and after reading your several previous posts of complete and utter bullshit I do hope you will stop representing your self as Canadian. It's fucking embarassing.

Canada isn't in the Iraq war yet muslim extremists are still tyring to behead our prime-minister

I can understand why they don't like him. He's a ultra-rightwing fucktard just like his counterpart to the south. And BTW, our troops are in Afghanistan, which I'm sure pisses off the extremists.

These people who're commiting this treason were born and raised in Canada, and are from upper class homes.

Holy argumentum in terrorem and blatant overgeneralization Batman!

and the freedom to force their wives to cover their faces in public.

And women connot become part of the Catholic clergy. What's your fucking point. Live and let live. Don't like it, don't fucking join them, but respect their right to practice their culture.

One would think that lower class inner city youths would have more reason to blow up subway stations than some upper class muslim law students.

How the hell does that stand to reason? I'm poor, can I blow up your house? Newsflash: Muslim does not mean terrorist. Arabic does not mean extremist. The terrible actions of a few people cannot mean that everybody must give up their freedoms. What about this jackass that just shot up Dawson College? Littleton CO? Shall we wage a war on 'goths'? The amount of deaths by terrorism are statistically insignificant next to death from smoking cigarettes. Still totally legal. Automobile accidents...shall we outlaw cars? Heart disease from poor diets? McDonalds is still open and advertising their wares. What exactly do you think the war on terrorism is protecting us from? It sure as hell isn't to prevent our deaths. Sure, fight the Taliban. Fight Al-Queda. But don't fucking throw all our freedoms in the toilet in the process. I suppose you're one of those dinks that thinks it's all fair and good to force us to take a colon exam just to get on a fucking plane?

You know what: I want to live in a free society. I'll take the risk of getting wasted by a terrorist.

Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fits

[Dragon Bait]

Fascists were totalitarians that tried to control how people lived there lives and devalued the individual. Islam -- as taught by Mohammad -- does/did the same. The term "Islamofascist" is rather appropriate when you look at how Mohammad governed.

See http://www.meforum.org/article/713.

And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Students of history often wondered how Hitler managed to turn a democratic republic into a dictatorship. Sadly, we no longer need to read about it. We're seeing it in action. Secret laws, departments exemptions from laws citizens are required to follow, formation of the secret police, arrests on suspicion alone and indefinite holding without charge, espionage on its own citizens without oversight. Amazing how the members in the government never think these laws can be used on them until it's too late.

Now we just have to watch out for the scapegoating of a minority population, plurality of military and police resources, arrests and assassination of government opposition officials, and then the newly formed branches of the police and military swearing allegiance only to the executive branch of government. By then it will be too late for anyone to do anything.

This administration has done what the terrorists could never do themselves- destroy the soul of what it means to be an American. They are destroying the very spirit of freedom and liberty, the very heart of who we are as a people.

Re:And so it begins

[Darby]

Now we just have to watch out for the scapegoating of a minority population,

Ummm, what do you think the gay hatred amendment is all about?!?

Re:And so it begins

[n00854180t]

You'd be surprised how many people do not even recognize the neocon agenda as the same exact tactic used in pre-WWII Germany. There are even people that would vehemently deny that this kind of thing is even going on. Hell, there are even some commenting in this very article. It's too bad that so many people are willfully ignorant of this obvious coup, and are just content to sit around and praise the religious fanatic neocons as they strip any semblance of freedom from US citizens. Can anyone say "ridiculously broad definition of 'terrorist'" in the newest legal torture/murder bill?

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Bush is busy re-writing the constitution right now. The US gov't will prove that democracy is every gov'ts worst nightmare. Therefore they will get rid of it step by step. The US gov't blew up the WTC not a cave dwelling goat herder.

Why not just use

[edmicman]

Skype?

warrAnt not E

[1u3hr]

Illiteracy rules Slashdot.

Bonus

[Misch]

Added bonus, today on senate.gov front page:

"We the People"
Celebrating the Constitution

In reality:
We the Senate
Pooping on the Constitution

Re:but you shouldn't worry!

[Peter Trepan]

Only the tourists have to worry!

Do you mean "terrorist" or are you referring to the fact that only the tourists seem to realize there's a reason to worry?

Democracy?

[hutchike]

From the article: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill." It sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that "freedom-loving Americans" are spreading their open and accountable flavour of democracy arould the world - not!

According to the US Constition's 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now is the time to start helping the ACLU and EFF to bring this unconstitutional fascism before a federal court ASAP!

Re:Democracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you'll find that was a misprint. It should have read "The right of the people to be secure in their prisons..."

Re:Democracy?

[kbielefe]

From the article: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill." It sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that "freedom-loving Americans" are spreading their open and accountable flavour of democracy arould the world - not!

You quoted an intentionally inflammatory paragraph that counts on your ignorance of Senate procedure to trick you into thinking senators are ashamed to put their support of the bill on record. Congratulations, you fell for it. Most bills are passed by voice vote, because it is a lot faster on routine bills. However, if a single senator wants to go on record as voting against (or for) the bill, he can demand a roll call vote.

What the author wrote is strictly true, but deliberately omits information that would contradict the false assumption the paragraph implies. The article not only implies that the voice vote would be the only option, but also ignores the fact that high profile bills like these almost always get a roll call vote anyway.

Don't believe everything you read, especially during election season. When you come across a paragraph like that, the loss of "warm fuzzy feeling" clues you in that something is not right. The "something" is either a lack of a senate procedure to officially record an objection on any bill, or the speaker manipulating you into thinking there isn't such a procedure. It is easy enough to independently verify which is right. Once you do, you should ask yourself why the author resorts to tricks instead of allowing the rest of his argument to stand on its merits. You then know to subject the rest of the article to closer scrutiny, read an article with an opposing viewpoint, or maybe even do something radical like read the unabridged text of the bills and make up your own mind.

Now is the time to start helping the ACLU and EFF to bring this unconstitutional fascism before a federal court ASAP!

Maybe someone will create a bill to subject the NSA surveillance program to frequent approval by the federal FISA court, like S. 2453. Maybe if some slashdotters actually read it, they might find out it is something they could actually support. After all, everyone wants the terrorists to be surveilled, they just want the courts to make sure it is done constitutionally.

Another bill I support that was reported at the same time is S. 3001, which adds personnel and takes other measures to streamline the process of requesting FISA warrants, so that needing a high volume of warrant requests is no longer an excuse. This bill is cosponsored by Democrat Senator Feinstein.

The bill that slashdotters should be up in arms about is S. 2455, which essentially authorizes the current program in statute, with a little congressional and attorney general oversight thrown in for fun.

But don't take my word for it. Please read the bills for yourself and make up your own mind.

Re:Democracy?

[hutchike]

As a USA citizen you display your knowledge of your situation, and I thank you deeply for adding clarity to my hasty reaction. I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that much of the recent legislative activity of your current administration is unconstitutional according to the USA constitution. I'm guessing that this would make it harder to sell your "flavor" of democracy to other counties - either via democracy or cluster bombs.

Re:Democracy?

[kbielefe]

I wouldn't have been so harsh had I known you weren't a U.S. citizen, but I was responding to the comments as a whole more than to you directly anyway. I'll be the first to admit I only have a cursory knowledge of UK and Mexican politics, although I believe I am better versed than most Americans.

The framers of the constitution recognized that individuals and groups have a tendency to work for their own self-interest rather than for the good of the union. The original articles of confederation made no allowance for that, and it was one of the main reasons they failed.

In other words, there was never an expectation that the constitution would ensure our leaders always made constitutional decisions, but only that our "flavor of democracy" would have a checking and balancing effect that eventually guarantees the deficiencies are corrected. I have no doubt that any unconstitutional decisions the legislature may make will get corrected one way or the other, as they always have in the past. We have to keep the Supreme Court in business, you know.

The War on Terror?

[Tairnyn]

Terror is a tactic. It's not a person, group, or nation-state. This entire debacle is akin to declaring a war on 'shock and awe'. It's a war against thought that can never end and only hurtles us faster towards an authoritarian state.

The fact that our Congress has let GWB trounce on our laws in the name of this 'war' indicates to me that having after-the-fact oversight is actually a ticket for arbitrary use with optional oversight.

You mean talking to ...

[Mateo_LeFou]

a person suspected ... of having ties to terrorists

FYP

Re:You mean talking to ...

[protohiro1]

Um, we have a process for this. Its called a warrant. I don't understand how so many people can just trust their government to do the right thing.

Re:Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered that the harassment people who believe Bush is the better choice are subjected to by people like you and lots of others on Slashdot can make them reluctant to state who they are voting for when asked?

I am sure you are able to comprehend that in other cases e.g. if a pro-legalising-homosexuality party stood for election in Iran, then people would not state their support for it if asked in polls for fear of harassment. I just don't know why you can't connect the two.

power corrupts ...

[Anonymous Coward]

& absolute power corrupts absolutely

wealth is power

the rich rob all from us

Wake up Americans please!

[slashbart]

Hi all

I am Dutch, used to like the U.S., used to admire the core values that it stood for. I've spent more than a year in the States (in the late eighties), travelled through 35 states, and generally loved it, and its people. There is (used to be?) some kind of optimism, and absence of cynism with Americans, that you don't find in the Netherlands.

I don't go to the States much anymore, so the only thing I see is the news and sites such as this, but it seems to me that the U.S. has changed terribly for the worse. It seems to be a fear based society by now.

• The terrorist attacks on 9/11 seem to have given the Bush government the excuse they needed (lets not talk about the conspiracies), but you Americans let Bush get away with it!
• You have no more job security it seems, which is why you are working way more than pretty much everyone else in the first world.
• The lawsuit mania makes people scared about taking any risk whatsoever.
• The corporations get away with breaking the law, and f**ing over their customers.

The U.S. used to be some kind of example to a lot of Europeans, but these days, not many think that way anymore. Anyway, I'm just rambling all over the place, but I really do hope that Americans change the course their society is heading, because right now the direction seems scary (Heinlein, "if this goes on?")

good luck, you'll need it

P.S. I hope Bush leaves at the next elections, but the way he's amending the Constitution, I'm not even sure about that :-(

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 is probably the best thing that could have happened to Bush.

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[praksys]

This may come as a surprise, but very few countries have laws that require their governments to get court approval for wire-tapping in national security cases. For example, the Netherlands does not require court approval in cases involving serious crimes, has the second highest number of wire-taps per population in Western Europe (after Italy), and conducts roughly 120 times more wire-taps per population than the US (from what I can tell the Police in the Netherlands use wire-tapping as a routine tactic in all serious cases).

Americans make a lot more noise about privacy issues than people in other countries, but that is part of the reason why they have some of the strictest privacy protections.

BTW, I'm not claiming that the US is moving in the right direction here, but they are moving towards the ways things are in other democractic countries already.

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[demonlapin]

You're confusing actual America with media America. They are two different things. If you were to travel here - and stay out of the hysterical political salons of the coasts - you'd find the country not much changed in essential character.

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're getting your view of the states from "sites such as this", then you're definitely not getting the full picture.

You don't notice the beauty of Cindy Crawford by zooming in on the mole on her lip.

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[Anonymous Coward]

"P.S. I hope Bush leaves at the next elections, but the way he's amending the Constitution, I'm not even sure about that :-("

Now who's paranoid?

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[Darby]

If you were to travel here - and stay out of the hysterical political salons of the coasts - you'd find the country not much changed in essential character.

You do realise that it wasn't the people on the coasts who voted for these fascists, Don't you?
It ain't the ones on the coasts still supporting the most corrupt congress in our history.
It ain't the ones on the coasts supporting the worst traitor in our history either.

Nice try, Sparky, but your statement defies sanity.

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[Bassman59]

9/11 is probably the best thing that could have happened to Bush.

He certainly thinks so, the way he repeats "9/11" like it's some kind of mantra.

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[demonlapin]

... and for those seeking a definition of res ipsa loquitur ...

Re:Wake up Americans please!

[TheGratefulNet]

you pretty much have it. I am impressed.

but I am not surprised.

it seems to take a non-american to tell americans what being an american should be about.

Works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I've nothing to hide.

It won't mean a bean's worth of difference to my privacy. Islamic terrorists? Go get 'em, boys!

Let's Roll!

Re:Works for me

[Bassman59]

I've nothing to hide.

Then why did you post as an AC?

Re:The law is dead

[Young Master Ploppy]

"The short answer is that if you want to be reasonably safe from terrorism, deport all Saudi and Egyptian nationals from the United States and bar them from getting visas. "

Fine, then that just leaves Timothy McVeigh and his ilk. Oh yes, and those London Tube bombings last year? They were carried out by fully-fledged British nationals. And pretty much all of the IRA bombings throughout the 70s and 80s. And the SOHO nailbomber. And....

You know, it's knee-jerk generalisations that blame everything on a group of society that lead to that group of society feeling marginalised, victimised, and unjustly discriminated against - in fact, the perfect breeding ground to become radicalised and extremist.

Poor Understanding

[Hootenanny]

"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."

You may recognize this text, from our Declaration of Independence. The framers of the Constitution were protecting these inalienable rights when they wrote our Constitution. You will notice that *privacy* is not among those rights listed.

The wiretapping law was passed with the intent of protecting our rights, particularly life and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, turbulent times with violent acts by religious and political radicals have made it become necessary for our government to be vigilant in protecting us. Your post smacks of an it-will-never-happen-to-me attitude towards terrorism. I suspect that you would take a different tone if you were, or someday will be, directly affected by a sensational, violent act.

I sincerely hope that never happens to you, or anyone else. Fortunately, as illustrated by the article, the government is taking steps to protect you.

Re:Poor Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess 2 out of 3 aint bad but seriously what sort of weak kneed drivel is that. Wouldn't you rather die standing proud and free then die ,even if by old age, with anything resembling a yoke around your neck.

I would willingly die or even except the death of friends and loved ones upholding the ideals of the country than live letting them slip away. My (our) fathers and forefathers laid down their lives to protect our freedom why is this generation so unwilling to do the same?

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

"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."

You may recognize this text, from our Declaration of Independence. The framers of the Constitution were protecting these inalienable rights when they wrote our Constitution. You will notice that *privacy* is not among those rights listed.

What part of "among these" do you not understand? And more to the point, what part of

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

(AKA the 9th Amendment) do you not understand?!!

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

Oh, and I forgot to mention:

Your post smacks of an it-will-never-happen-to-me attitude towards terrorism. I suspect that you would take a different tone if you were, or someday will be, directly affected by a sensational, violent act.

Let this post bear witness that I am willing to accept being a victim of terrorism, if the alternative is losing my Freedom. Maybe you're a coward, but I'm not!

Re:Poor Understanding

[workindev]

Interesting how you don't consider being a victim of terrorism as a loss of freedom.

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

That's because it's not a loss of freedom; it's a loss of safety.

Re:Poor Understanding

[workindev]

Well, no. If a terrorist sticks a knife to your throat and demands that you denounce your religion and join Islam, you have lost your freedom of religion. If a terrorst puts you in front of a video camera with a machine gun and forces you to spew their political propaganda, you have lost your freedom of speech. And if a terrorist hijacks the airplane that you are on in order to turn it into a human-filled missile, or saws your head off in front of a camera with a rusty blade, or blows up the train you are riding to work in, or sets off a bomb at the nightclub you are dancing at, or blows up the bus or subway that you are riding in, or smuggles liquid explosives onto the plane you boarded, or detonates a nuclear bomb in the city that you live in, you have lost the most basic and fundamental right retained by the people (see the 9th Amendment) -- the right to exist.

Terrorists want to take away far more of your freedoms than anybody in this Government does.

Re:Poor Understanding

[cheezedawg]

Let this post bear witness that I am willing to accept being a victim of terrorism, if the alternative is losing my Freedom. Maybe you're a coward, but I'm not!

You have set up a false dichotomy. The choice here is not between losing your "freedom" or getting killed by terrorists. There will always a trade-off between freedoms and security. For example, I have gladly given up my freedom to drive through a red light at an intersection in exchange for the security that the traffic signals provide. The key is to find the right balance between freedom and security.

Is the right to talk on the phone with known terrorist overseas without anybody listening in (which is the freedom involved with this Senate bill) an important freedom? Or is this something we can give up in exchange for the added security it will provide?

To me, the only thing controversial about this bill is how we define the known terrorists overseas. I'm a little concerned about the current wording of the bill, and that will doubtlessly be debated and refined going forward. Otherwise this is a no-brainer.

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

Oh, come on -- that's specious reasoning and you know it! First of all, being the victim of a crime is not the same as being opressed by those who purport to be upholding and enforcing the law. Second, The kind of things you're talking about are extremely unlikely to happen. Therefore, they are entirely different from the pervasive and ongoing erosion of freedoms that's affecting all of us. In other words, terrorists affect .001% of Americans, but the Government affects 100% of us.

Between the loss of privacy in phone conversations and the loss of privacy -- and, indeed, personal dignity -- at airports, the Government's reaction to terrorism has negatively affected me infinitely more than the terrorism itself!

(And, of course, there's also all the other freedoms that have been eroding recently, e.g. Fair Use and the right to vote, but that's an entirely separate issue).

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

You have set up a false dichotomy. The choice here is not between losing your "freedom" or getting killed by terrorists. There will always a trade-off between freedoms and security.

No, I haven't. The freedoms I'm talking about aren't trivial crap like your example; they're important!. They're the ones that the Constitution says "shall not be abridged." If you'll notice, that's an absolute statement -- there are no exceptions. And there shouldn't be any exceptions, either!

Is the right to talk on the phone with known terrorist overseas without anybody listening in (which is the freedom involved with this Senate bill) an important freedom? Or is this something we can give up in exchange for the added security it will provide?

Holy logical fallcy, Batman! That's a strawman, false dichotomy, and red herring all rolled into one!

First, I never said it wasn't okay to wiretap phonecalls with known terrorists. Second, there's middle ground between not tapping phone calls at all and tapping phone calls at will. Third, the "freedom involved with this bill" is not the freedom to talk with terrorists!

The actual problem with this bill has almost nothing to do with either wiretapping or terrorists; what it has everything to do with is due process.

The 4th Amendment affirms our right to be free from unreasonable searches. What that means, practically speaking, is that the police usually have to get a warrant before conducting a search, which involves convincing a judge that they've got a plausable reason for wanting to do the search.

Now, about wiretapping: are you aware that the government already has the legal ability to wiretap conversations with terrorists? Believe it or not, they do, and there's absolutely no problem with it. All they have to do is get a warrant, which takes maybe a few minutes if there's a rush. And even then, if the situation is really urgent, they can even just go ahead and do the wiretapping, and get the warrant retroactively.

But they're not satisfied with that, which is where this bill comes in. What this bill is actually about is removing that last shred of due process, so that they don't have to get a warrant at all. No judge. No reasons, not even excuses. No justification. Just carte blanche to spy on whoever the Hell they feel like spying on.

"But what about the 'terrorist' bit?", you ask. You know, the part where they say they're only going to use it when at least one of the people in the conversation is a terrorist. Well, here's a newsflash: they don't know who the terrorists are yet. If they did, they'd be sending in commandos to bag the suckers instead of just listening to the conversation! Therefore, this bill is not limited to terrorists; anyone and everyone is "fair" game.

Look, I don't have a problem with "combating terrorism," or even with wiretapping in general. What I have a problem with is the fact that what the government is asking for is huge amounts of power and control, with absolutely no oversight! This bill is just begging to be abused. The very idea of it is so ridiculous that whoever thought it up ought to be kicked out of office for doing so!

Re:Poor Understanding

[workindev]

Well, there are lots of things that affect the freedoms of 100% of the population, but are accepted because of the resulting security that they provide. I'd be interested to know where you draw the line. Your freedom to drive as fast as you want on whatever side of the street that you want is restricted in exchange for a little safety on the roads. Is that acceptable to you? Your freedom to break into houses and businesses to take whatever you want is restricted in exchange for some protection on your own possessions. Is that acceptable to you? Your freedom to practice medicine without any formal training or certification is restricted in exchange for a little security that your Doctor at least knows what he is doing when you go see him. Is that acceptable to you? Your freedom to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater is restricted in exchange for a little security against being trampled the next time you go see a flick. Is that acceptable to you? Your freedom to build a high rise building to your own standards is restricted in exchange for a little assurance that the next time you take an elevator to the 80th floor of a building you will know that it was built with at least a minimum set of standards. Is that acceptable to you?

If so, I'm interested to know why taking your shoes off at the airport isn't acceptable, or why allowing the Government to listen in on phone conversations with known terrorist isn't acceptable to you, because the protection that this provides is quite obvious.

I would argue that taking away all of these protections for more freedom would actually result in less freedom than we have today, which is why I found it curious that you claimed that you would rather die in a terrorist attack than give up your freedoms.

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

If so, I'm interested to know why taking your shoes off at the airport isn't acceptable, or why allowing the Government to listen in on phone conversations with known terrorist isn't acceptable to you, because the protection that this provides is quite obvious.

Damn, you're dense! Did you read my post at all?!

I did not object to either of these things; what I objected to was allowing the Government to listen in on phone conversations with people who may or may not be terrorists, without a warrant or any other kind of oversight or due process! Acknowledge the qualifying statements, damnit, because they're the whole point!

I don't object to taking my shoes off either (who would, unless they had really stinky feet or something?); what I was alluding to in that case was more exhaustive searches.

Re:Poor Understanding

[cheezedawg]

No, I haven't. The freedoms I'm talking about aren't trivial crap like your example; they're important!. They're the ones that the Constitution says "shall not be abridged." If you'll notice, that's an absolute statement -- there are no exceptions. And there shouldn't be any exceptions, either!

This "absolute statement" appears nowhere in the US Constitution. Why the hell did you put quotation marks around it? The closest to this phrase is in Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 -- all in relation to voting rights and irrelevant to this discussion. You're not really impressing me with your constitutional scholarship here.

Now, the 4th amendment does guarantee that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, but the presence of the word "unreasonable" means that this is far from the absolute that you claim it is. The government does have the constitutional right to searches and seizures as long as it is reasonable. Even constitutional rights as basic as Habeas Corpus are not absolute, and can be suspended in the interest of public safety (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2).

So please enlighten me as to what absolute right an electronic wiretapping program would violate, preferably without inventing quotes and attributing them to the Constitution.

First, I never said it wasn't okay to wiretap phonecalls with known terrorists. Second, there's middle ground between not tapping phone calls at all and tapping phone calls at will. Third, the "freedom involved with this bill" is not the freedom to talk with terrorists!

Hang on there- I said the freedom involved with this bill was the freedom to talk with terrorists overseas without anybody listening in. You can always talk with anybody you want to.

Now, lets examine the details of this bill. This bill would allow the FISA court to approve a warrentless wiretapping program for a duration of it's choosing as long as the Attorney General's application satisfied all of about a dozen requirements. These requirements include authorization by the President, justification of the need of the program, that the program is to fight terrorism, a legal basis of how the program is consistent with the Constitution, and details about how the program will be minimized and what steps they will take to ensure that any communications that they intercept are involved with terrorists. The information gathered by the program is only for intelligence purposes to ensure public safety, and is inadmissible in any criminal prosecution. If the FISA court approves the program, Congress has oversight over the program and the Attorney General must regularly report to them about how the program is being used. This is hardly the blank check to tap phone calls at will like you have characterized it to be. There is due process and oversight.

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

This "absolute statement" ["shall not be abridged"] appears nowhere in the US Constitution. Why the hell did you put quotation marks around it? The closest to this phrase is in Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 -- all in relation to voting rights and irrelevant to this discussion. You're not really impressing me with your constitutional scholarship here.

Sorry, after re-checking it, I realize I was conflating a couple of different things ("shall make no law... abridging," "shall not be violated," "shall not be infringed," "shall not be construed," etc.):

Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2: 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.

Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And last but not least,

Amendment 4: 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.

Now, the 4th amendment does guarantee that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, but the presence of the word "unreasonable" means that this is far from the absolute that you claim it is. The government does have the constitutional right to searches and seizures as long as it is reasonable.

Go back and read the last part I bolded. The 4th Amendment specifies exactly what is required for a search to be reasonable, and this law does not fulfill those requirements!

Hang on there- I said the freedom involved with this bill was the freedom to talk with terrorists overseas without anybody listening in. You can always talk with anybody you want to.

Fine. Let's add that to my statement (which is what I meant anyway -- I'm sorry I wasn't accurate): "Third, the "freedom involved with this bill" is not the freedom to talk with terrorists overseas without anybody listening in!" Happy now?

Of course, then you'll have to realize that the statement is still true, because that is still not the same thing as wiretapping without a warrant!

a legal basis of how the [warrantless wiretapping program] is consistent with the Constitution [which requires a warrant]

Go read what you wrote, and then read the part of the 4th Amendment I quoted a third time, and then tell me what you're still confused about!

Re:Poor Understanding

[cheezedawg]

Go back and read the last part I bolded. The 4th Amendment specifies exactly what is required for a search to be reasonable, and this law does not fulfill those requirements!

Says who? You? Forgive me for not putting much stock into your legal analysis of the 4th amendment considering your posting history.

The 4th amendment requires that searches:

• Are reasonable
• have probable cause
• Are supported by oath or affirmation
• Describe the person or place to be searched

These requirements are more than covered in the application submitted by the Attorney General to the FISA court as defined by this bill. If the FISA court believes that the application does not meet these requirements, then they won't approve the application.

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

Forgive me for not putting much stock into your legal analysis of the 4th amendment considering your posting history.

By all means, tell me what part of my posting history is so unsatisfactory to you! Or would you rather just sling around more meaningless vague accusations? Besides, even if I had been wrong before, it doesn't mean I'm wrong now. I'm not an idiot, you know, and your ad-hominem attacks aren't going to work.

Unless I'm entirely mistaken, the whole point of this law is for them to do wiretapping without having to justify themselves on a per-case basis (since if they did have to do so, it would be called "getting a warrant"). Therefore, there's no possible way for them to satisfy your "describe the person or place to be searched" requirement!

And of course, all that ought to be beside the point anyway, since the fact that "to be searched" is future tense should make any retroactive permission, whether it's called a "warrant" or not, unconstitutional to begin with. (But, of course, I'm assuming that retroactive permission has already been accepted, so it isn't part of this argument.)

These requirements are more than covered in the application submitted by the Attorney General to the FISA court as defined by this bill.

Ah, proof by assertion! You've obviously won this argument... oh wait, no you haven't! Care to try again, by, say, actually explaining how you came to this conclusion?

Besides, why do you have such a problem understanding what's wrong with this anyway? Don't you realize that the Bill of Rights is there to protect you?!

Re:Poor Understanding

[cheezedawg]

Let me put this another way. According to this bill, the application made by the Attorney General to the FISA court must justify, among other things, that the program that he is proposing is consistent with the Constitution (in section 5 of the Senate bill, Sec. 703(a)(3) of the amended FISA text). Then, before the FISA court can approve the program that the Attorney General has applied for, it must find that it actually is consistent with the Constitution (in section 6 of the Senate bill, sec. 704(a)(2)).

So, given this information straight from the proposed Senate bill, what are you basing your assertion on that this amounts to unconstitutional surveillance? The only surveillance programs that this bill would allow are programs that the court has found to be constitutional!

Re:Poor Understanding

[mrchaotica]

So, given this information straight from the proposed Senate bill, what are you basing your assertion on that this amounts to unconstitutional surveillance? The only surveillance programs that this bill would allow are programs that the court has found to be constitutional!

Then what's the point of proposing the bill at all? The only new surveillance programs it would possibly allow aren't constitutional, so it wouldn't allow them. But if it doesn't, then it doesn't do anything at all. Therefore, it's self-contradictory and meaningless!

So, again, what's the point of proposing it? Well, the way I see it, there is one possibility: it gives the executive the opportunity to try to trick FISA into approving something it shouldn't. And I don't like it. I don't like it at all, and neither should you -- the last thing the government ought to be doing is trying to trick people into giving it more power. All that indicates is that it's already corrupt!

Re:Poor Understanding

[cheezedawg]

Then what's the point of proposing the bill at all? The only new surveillance programs it would possibly allow aren't constitutional, so it wouldn't allow them. But if it doesn't, then it doesn't do anything at all. Therefore, it's self-contradictory and meaningless!

If the conclusions you are reaching are nonsense, then maybe you need to challenge some of the assumptions that you have made to reach those conclusions...

Obligatory Star Wars quote . . .

[Orange Crush]

"This is how liberty dies -- with thunderous applause."

Between People inside US and Terrorism Suspects

[StanS]

I realize that this is slashdot, and I will be modded down for saying this, but if you read the actual bill, the very first item states:

(1) After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush Authorized the National Security Agency to intercept communications between people inside the United States, including American citizens, and terrorism suspects overseas.

As far as I can remember (as a student of history) the President of the United States has ALWAYS had the ability to intercept foreign communications within the boarders of the United States (Remember Washington intercepted the communications of General Benedict Arnold and thus was able to stop him from turning over West Point to the British). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was put in place by congress to make sure the rights of US citizens are protected.

The other side of Islamofascist is...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

ChristianFascist. Is that now the appropriate term for the Republican majority? I think so.

It's very simple folks, just vote against ALL incumbents this year be they Democrat or Republican. Both sides are crooks and you need to have enough on each side to keep the other side "honest".

You should probably vote against the incumbent as a general rule anyway.

Might have been a typo...

[emil10001]

In TFA:

The committee also passed two other surveillance measures, including one from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), one of the few senators to be briefed on the National Security Agency program. Feinstein's bill, which Specter co-sponsored before submitting another bill, rebuffs the administration's legal arguments and all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal.

Still, not all that confusing. From what I gather the bill that is the topic of discussion seeks to call surveillance something else in many cases, such as wiretapping. While the other bill is saying that to perform domestic surveillance without a warrant is illegal.

No one's trying to block wiretapping

[doublem]

"I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back. "

You really aren't paying attention to what the issue is, are you?

You've fallen hook line and sinker for the Neocon talking points.

This isn't about the government's ability to get a wire tap and listen to those conversations. No one is trying to block that.

This is about the fact that the constitution requires the government to get a damn warrant.

During the Clinton administration, laws were passed allowing them to get those warrants after the fact, up to 72 hours after placing them!

Tell me, how is requiring the government to be accountable for it's actions going to give the terrorists a leg up?

How the HELL is requiring the government to follow the constitution, to actually leave a damn paper trail of who they're spying on, going to help terrorist?

Your premises are wrong.

[Colin Smith]

Mathematically infeasible. Socially infeasible. Logically tenuous.

Only while people like you continue sitting on your arse doing nothing but insisting that the status quo is the best that can be expected. Politics is a participation sport.

instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available

You're making the assumption that it matters which of the two main parties you vote for, the policies remain the same. The biggest difference seems to be the way they want to pay for things, either taxation or inflation.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[AndersOSU]

There are some serious problems with any non-two party political system.

Most notably nearly all acts require a majority (50% +1) to pass. Consider the hypothetical three party system where pary A controls 47% of the seats, party B is diametrically opposed to party B, and controlls 44% of the seats, and party C is a minority swing party and controlls only 9% of the seats.

So the question is which party has the most power? If party A and B disagree on anything, and vote along party lines it turns out that the minority party will always determine the outcome. Why is this a problem? Because now both parties will go out of their way to entice the Party C to vote their way on every piece of legislation. This most likely means that Party C gets to pass any legislation that either party A or B support, and a lot of legislation that either party A or B will only tolerate. The consequence of this is that a small portion of the population gains disproportionate legislative power.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[Abcd1234]

That's idiotic, and I would know, I live in a country with a minority government: Canada. Such a situation forces politicians to *compromise* and *work across party lines*. In other words, the system becomes *less partisan*, which is a very good thing. In addition, a minority government situation makes it more difficult for the government in power to pass *any* legislation, effectively slowing down the pace of government. This is *also* a very good thing.

Anyone who thinks the US two-party "democracy" is superior to multiparty systems in Canada, Europe, or Australia is clearly in need of education.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[DeadPrez]

The logical disconnect in your post is what is stymieing change more than anything. Not the parent.

Politics is a participation sport, yet you suggest getting off the field is the answer. No 3rd party that doesn't come out of one of the majors (or both) will have traction. You're a dreamer if you insist on anything else. A dreamer whose byproduct is status quo.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[LunaticTippy]

If party A or B are smart, they will intentionally alienate voters until they reach the coveted and powerful 3rd place position and party C will be saddled with the figurehead "most popular" party label.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[plague3106]

Wow, that a load of crap.

First, you assume that everyone always votes on party lines. A pretty bad assumption. Second, just because side A managed to get side C to agree does not mean that C is ruling everything. C didn't override A's vote, A still has to vote as well. Finally, you seem to think that the majority SHOULD always win. That basically boils down to mob rule. No thanks.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[rainman_bc]

Anyone who thinks the US two-party "democracy" is superior to multiparty systems in Canada, Europe, or Australia is clearly in need of education.

There's two problems in the US. One, not enough people care about democracy - they only care to fight wars over it, but don't actually exercise their vote. And of those who do get off their asses to vote, they seem to believe that any vote for a third party is a throw away vote. And because they perceive that they vote for one of the two major parties.

Don't think Canada is too far from that. Unless you are a Quebecer, until recently, it was either Liberal or Conservative. Then it became Liberal or Reform. The NDP vote was always a throw away vote to a party that didn't matter -> until recently. Now the NDP are signifigant and have a great deal of power in parliament and that's a positive thing.

I agree with you - the present state of parliament is great. It takes two parties to bring down the government, not just one, and it takes two parties to pass legislation, not just one. This is the way it should be. I really hope they can keep this to term - it works so very well. A tory majority scares the crap out of me, as it frightens many Canadians. Harper's doing a decent enough job - I like his Senate reform stuff... He's doing much better than Mr. Dithers-Martin :)

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[Arterion]

The majority DOES always win. If 55% votes again 45%, the 55% wins.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[plague3106]

That's not the point; the point is that party A doesn't always win simply because it is the majority. Party A is now forced to concede in other areas. In the two party system, we don't have that forced concession at all.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can almost guarantee I've led a more privileged upbringing and have more wealth than you, yet I'm constantly surprised by the number like you who think that welfare is about assisting those who don't want to work, citing anecdote as evidence.

On the contrary, the welfare state exists those who have not had the fortune, like myself, to demonstrate superior intelligence as a young child through accident of good genetics and mental stimulation from a young age, to have the best education paid for them, to have become a physically healthy young man able to enter the workplace and demonstrate a marketable set of skills, &c.

I'm lucky, and I know it; yes, I put in a lot of hard work, but most things were on my side. Even if I'd had an atrocious upbringing by uncaring parents, I still have my natural wits, a gift at birth I did nothing to earn.

And neither did you, so get over yourself.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[Arterion]

Call me crazy, but I think in a two party system, something should have to have a majority in each party in order to pass. That way they'd always have to come to some sort of comprimise.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[plague3106]

Why not make it easier for more parties to get elected, thus ensuring that each of us have a representive that more closely matches our goals?

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[Arterion]

There's really not that many places to be on the political spectrum. Give me an example of what a third, or forth, or fifth party might have as a platform that isn't more than a minor rewrite of what one current parties' platform. That aside, what you're asking for is a huge deal. It's downright revolutionary. There's nothing individuals or even small groups of individuals can do to affect the goal of replace the two party system.

Re:Your premises are wrong.

[plague3106]

There's really not that many places to be on the political spectrum.

The whole notion of saying someone is 'left or right', 'liberal or conservative' is absurd. You can't lump people into two categories like that. Go do some research on this topic.

Give me an example of what a third, or forth, or fifth party might have as a platform that isn't more than a minor rewrite of what one current parties' platform.

Go check out various political parties yourself. Also realize that neither of the two parties today does what it really says they stand for, whereas the third parties likely would (because many have been formed in disgust over the current parties). Please, tell me what difference there really is between the GOP and the Dems. Not much really. In all important matters, they are the same. They only differ on irrevelent hot button issues. There are some pretty important differences between the current two big parties and Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist and other parties.

There's nothing individuals or even small groups of individuals can do to affect the goal of replace the two party system.

Sure there is. They can get others on board with support for more parties. One major item would be more fair allocation of federal campaign funds. The GOP and Dems don't really need money from the Feds to run campaigns; they can raise enough on their own as it is. However they are the only two parties that receive funding. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Nixon/Bush Legacy

[Doc Ruby]

More precise headline: "Senate Committee Republicans Vote to Authorize Warrantless Wiretapping".

More accurate headline: "Senate Committee Republicans Vote Bush as Emperor Nixon II"

The FISA law that Bush broke, that his Republican Congress is now scrambling to drop from the laws, was written to outlaw the warrantless wiretapping that Nixon's CIA/NSA abused. Now that Bush is obviously incompetent/malevolent/dangerous, the Republican Party is handing him even more power than Nixon had.

I note that Bush's father was the chair of the Republican Party during Watergate, then the 1st ambassador to China, then head of the CIA while the Church Committee was detailing Nixon's CIA's abuses. After Bush Sr left the CIA, Congress passed the FISA to stop it from spying on Americans without due process. Now Bush Jr has admitted doing exactly that for the last 5 years.

Re:Nixon/Bush Legacy

[sgt_doom]

It is important to note a very newsworthy item which took place recently - only the PopCultureMedia chose to ignore it and report on that delusional child pornographer, John Karr, instead.

Judge Anna Diggs Taylor found Bush guilty on several counts of the FISA laws. The penalty is to go straight to jail (from 5 to 10 years), no impeachment is necessary as the law specifically and explicitly covers anyone up to, and including the highest elective office in the land. This is why they went to an immediate appeal and are quickly attempting to change all the laws.....

Re:Nixon/Bush Legacy

[Doc Ruby]

While I don't think Bush retains any claim to "benefit of the doubt", I do want to see our appeals system preserved. Especially in such as serious matter as circumvention of the Constitutional impeachment process, if that in fact is Constitutional. From the analysis I've seen, I expect Diggs-Taylor's verdict to be upheld on appeal, unless dismissed by an Alito-type judge.

Another reason the Republican Congress is quickly attempting to change the laws is that November 7 , 2006 (8 weeks from today) more than likely marks the end of at least the Republican House, if not the entire Republican Congress.

I would like to see these "post facto amnesty laws" reviewed by the Supreme Court. Best sometime in 2010, after several of the Reagan/Bush justices are gone, or at least recused for conflicted interests.

I fixed that for you

[Maximilio]

Fascist behavior like a members of Congress basically threating ABC to have their FCC license revoked for broadcasting free propaganda, and an ex-President also calling the ABC president asking for a movie to pulled because it slanderously portrayed entirely fictional episodes that shifted historical blame from a sitting president to an ex-president. . . .

Soverign nation of Congress?

[BooMonster]

"these countries have a disturbing tendency to create people who are violently opposed to the core values of America and we don't owe them shit"

Isn't this a description of our government? Just replace 'countries' with 'people'.

Welcome

[Anonymous Coward]

To the new world order.

so, they were right, UNTIL NOW?

[Ender Ryan]

So exit polls have always been pretty accurate, UNTIL NOW? Is that what you want us all to believe?

Don't get me wrong, I hate both sides of the Republicrats, but it seems to me that the Republican side has been pulling some crazy shit as of late.

Re:so, they were right, UNTIL NOW?

[fotbr]

No, I think the idea of using an exit poll as proof of fraud has a fundamental flaw, and always has, and always will:

It is based on an incomplete data set. Furthermore, how do you account for people who lie and say they voted for Y when they really voted for X, intentionally sabotaging the exit poll?

Until exit polls have some way of verifying that people aren't lying to them, AND manage to poll EVERYONE who votes (including those who vote absentee), logic says there's too much error in the numbers to use them as proof of fraud.

As I said, I'm convinced there were shennanigans from both parties in both 2000 and 2004. But you can't use exit polls as proof.

This isn't about putting a stop to wiretapping

[doublem]

This is about requiring a warrant if you want to tap a phone conversation, something the Feds can do retroactively. In other words, they can place the tap and THEN get a warrant.

Do you WANT the government to track all phone conversations without any oversight or accountability? What makes you think the government can be trusted to not abuse that power? Hell, FBI files were used by those in power to attack political opponents during the McCarthy era. Are you honestly so naive, so blinded by unreasoning Faith in the republicans to think something like that couldn't happen again?

Learn how to READ, imbecile

[Maximilio]

The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit, and guess what we are at war. Our enemy has said that they are at war with us.

Congress can declare war. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says our country's laws are dispensed of at the pleasure of the President whenever a crisis erupts.

I think this is simple

[Arwing]

It's a simple choice, do people want their food, clothes, home and in US, cars in peace or do they want abstract yet important things such as freedom and choices. You hear it all the time at places like Russia and Afghanistan, they whine and bitch about how they want freedom from opression but when they have it, they miss the old governement's ability to provide security and basic needs. I am not saying one is more important than the other, but you have to admit that it's human nature to want something physical than abstract.

Re:I think this is simple

[n00854180t]

I'd rather live in the wild, wearing animal skins and hunting for my dinner than EVER EVER live in a theocratic police state, where this country is headed. I'd rather give up every single comfort (including electricity, running water, computers, the Internet etc) than give up even the tiniest fraction of my liberty. Anyone that is willing to give up their basic human rights, and their liberty, deserves fully what they get (the theocratic police state we're headed for). And good riddance to the cowards.

obligatory Simpson quote: HAHA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is YOUR great democracy NOW?

Read the Law--It Looks Fishy

[fuzzybunny]

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but can someone give me a hint how Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (quoted on page 5 as a basis for the authority of Congress to issue wiretapping laws) has any relevance to this? As far as I can see, it's purely in regards to maintenance and operation of armed forces...

For those non-US'ers among you wondering wtf a "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court" is, here's a description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign _Intelligence_Surveillance_Court

Up until page 27, it looks OK, basically amendment to the FISA, with good oversight ensured.
The thing that really bothers me (and I hope, you) is this:

"Sec. 102. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this title to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to 1 year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--"(and then a bunch of things that oh yeah, this is necessary and we promise to follow the rules.)

Ugh. Call your senator...maybe I'm misreading it, but it sounds weirdly like the POTUS/AG can basically do what they want, as long as they provide an "oh yeah, don't worry, we promise it's fine" pat on the hand to the Senate. No mention of FISC (which is at least an independent judicially appointed body) intervention or approval anywhere.

Furthermore, "...the Attorney General may direct a provider of any electronic communication service, landlord, custodian or other person...who had access to electronic communications (in any form)...to (1) furnish all information, facilities or technical assistance...and (2) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (wtf is that?) any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished..." (page 30.)

So basically, law enforcement can force _anyone_ involved in electronic communications to help spy on others, and then to shut up about it under threat of penalty? Kewl. Sounds vaguely STASI-ish to me. Oh, and they reimburse you for your efforts, nice touch there.

I understand the need for quick response and some flexibility in fighting "terror", but I also insist respect for the ideals of the constitution, i.e. no secret laws, no culture of spying on citizens, etc. This doesn't measure up.

AHHH!

[flitty]

Help! I have a cage strapped to my face! A rat is gonna eat my face! HELP!

Re: Which threat would voting for Dem. contain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you see an end game to the Islamofascist strategy? Or really by extension, the content of Islam?

I can absolutely see criticism of the religion Islam outlawed as hate-speech under the Democrats, and people who do so kicked out of jobs and universities, and their employers losing government contracts. Can you promise that won't happen?

I support the Republicans because I -can- see an endgame to any tendency that there -might- be (in spite of the slippery slope and 'They have robbed and tortured me for centuries' argumentation often found on Slashdot). I can't however see an endgame to muslim enclaves, or really any expansive, antagonistic religion that is unPC to criticise (e.g. therefore excluding Scientology) under the Democrats.

If you are wondering, the social democratic Scandinavian countries have very much _tuned down_ the criticism of such as Scientologists and Jehova's Witnesses, because the alternative would have been to allow a _tuning up_ of criticism of Islam. There are signs of reversion over popular dissent now though, but not really there yet.

Theocracy?

[danbeck]

LividBlivet,

I'm sorry, but what part of the article mentioned anything about a theocracy? Better yet, what part of this wiretapping legislation has anything to do with building a fascist theocracy? I'll give you the fascist comment, but a fascist theocracy? That's just sycophantic demagoguing and pandering to the crowd here with fun political buzzwords.

Is this a news site, or a propaganda wing of the Democratic party?

Re:Theocracy?

[funwithBSD]

The terrorists want to establish a world wide Caliphate. I am sure that is the Theocratic Fascists he was talking about.

Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you go blaming all of the country's problems on the "neocons" (speaking of loaded phrases), I'd like to point out that the Senate Judiciary Committee is a bipartisan committee that contains such Democratic party notables as Ted "one more for the road" Kennedy and Dianne "California is like a bowl of cereal - full of flakes, fruits, and nuts" Feinstein.

checks and balances

[ChristTrekker]

Exactly correct. We need the 17th amendment repealed so that the states can rein in the FedGov. We need the 16th amendment repealed so the FedGov can't simply take as much as wants to fund stuff the people don't agree with. We need electoral reform so that "third" parties can dilute the monopoly of the donkephants and give us more options. We need to elect some statemen with balls enough to not hand over legislative authority to the president.

Principles? More like "The Prince"

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose your suggestion that the US is nothing special because there are governments that have existed for much longer by sticking to their principles could be true so long as you are consistent with your application of the concept of changing constituency. However, other longer-run governments had their principles change when their internal constituency changed. Nobody has tried to maintain a documented, voted upon, representative government quite like ours and that is special. Sure, there are larger democracies around the world and more pure ideologies exercised and no two nations are the same. But historically, it isn't a nation's principles that I'd be worried about, it is their machiavellian Prince who is the concern.

I mean, it isn't as though this administration has been subtle about its application of Machiavelli's principles, it is like they've been reading the Cliff's Notes version and modeling their policies off the summaries with no analysis. The implication is that doing the easy thing is rarely the "right thing" but if you're not honest about your motives and you tell people you're doing the "right thing", that makes you worse.

Power!

[why-is-it]

The thing that gets me is that I cannot see an endgame to the Neocon strategy as it is based on a continued fear and principals of isolationism. What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

Power.

I believe that Hermann Goering is credited with the following statement:

It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers and pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in every country.

I think the neocons are deliberately using fear to manipulate the American public. The frightened populace are demanding that the government do something to protect them, and this is the result. There is no need to worry though - as long as you are not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear.

Unfortunately, future leaders may not be as trustworthy (?!) as the current bunch. I wonder if the most die-hard Bush supporters would want someone like Hillary Clinton to have access to the same unchecked powers? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after all...

Vote Republican!

[amightywind]

Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad. Make these people responsible for what they say and do by linking their jobs to their implemented law and take back your country.

By all means lets bring back the mindless liberals who incubated and nurtured Al Qaida. Death and carnage will be everywhere. But at least we'll be "free".

Re:Vote Republican!

[LogicalError]

Err wasn't it bush senior who supported ossama bin laden in the russian-afghanistan war?
so who's really who "incubated and nurtured Al Qaida"?
me thinks you've accepted a little too much propaganda for truth

What, do you think warrants are "quaint"?

[doublem]

What part of Needing a Warrant do you NOT understand? Why is the need for a warrant something you're so eager to piss away? DO you understand that warrantless searches were one of the things the Revolutionaries were pissed off about when they started the Revolution in the first place??? Do you know ANY of the history behind WHY we require warrants?

As for the whole "It has to be renewed every year" nonsense, all it takes is one rider in one bill to remove that Sunset clause. We saw that happen with The Patriot Act.

Re:What, do you think warrants are "quaint"?

[thule]

Law enforcement does still need a warrant to get evidence against a person. But the discussion is not law enforcement, the discussion is about NSA wiretaps. The NSA is not law enforcement, it is military. The NSA is a spy organization. They are spying on our enemies. If our enemies are trying to contact people inside the US there should be no reason for them to stop spying on them. That is dumb. If anything they should spy on them *more*. So what has been done after 9/11 is that the NSA passes intelligence to the FBI. The FBI has to seek a FISA warrant to get evidence against the person. Wow! A warrant! What do you know?

Now we can have a discussion about whether the NSA should be passing intelligence to the FBI. To be shocked that the NSA is spying on our enemies should not be surprising to anyone.

All the more reason ALL communication should be...

[WhiteWolf666]

Encrypted!

Seriously. The only thing that bugs me is I cannot get a good, wireless, portable encryption platform. My GSM cell phone might as well be an open book. Other than that, my SIP communication, and my GPG e-mail should be moderately difficult for the "powers that be" to crack.

If all communication was encrypted, even if that encryption is breakble, the computational needs of large scale data mining would be impossible. If you need an NSA super computer to crack every e-mail, and it takes 1 hour of processor time per e-mail, you can't very well analyze one billion e-mails a day.

I did read the PDF

[KarmaOverDogma]

Excluding the currently proposed revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA already provides for the oversight of Wiretapping via the FISA Courts and Congress.

Consider the following Facts:

1) The FISA Court has the authority to hear and issue decicions in a completely secret manner, so that if the court chooses, neither the case or its decision will be made public. The FISA court has, on very rare (and mostly recent occasions) occasions chosen to state its decisions publicly, but this is quite unusual.

2) From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence _Surveillance_Act#FISA_court): "Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected." This means that unless the FISA Court chooses to publicly release its findings, its decisions cannot be challenged by any other court (including SCOTUS) save the FISA appeals court, which only met once in US history, in 2002.

3) FISA already has provisions which allow for the President to temporarily bypass the 11 member court, in cases that he deems of sufficient need, as long as the case is brought before it soon after. The President (via U.S. AG Alberto Gonzales) has acknowledged this provision but essentially said that it is too much trouble to have to go back to the FISA court every time he wants to start a new round of spying programs or make changes to them.

Why then, is it neccessary to make any more changes to FISA?

I did read the SB2453: like most bills it is full of very specific verbage and definitions. From what I could digest of it it has a lot of room for a President to wiggle through (IANAL, but the ACLU which has plenty of them and found it "stunning"). I also read the wired article. SB2453 makes me nervous precisely for the reasons you cite, listed below:

"1) It's for people communicating the terrorists"
Duh. And Who has the legal authority to define what terrorist is? While congress could define such security terms narrowly they usually do not, deferring to President, the DOJ or the Department of State. The DOJ and DOS heads are nominated by, guess who? the President, and rubber stamped by Congress. Judging by how many people in the US are subjeced to this domestic spying program, the current President has shown he thinks a lot of US citizens could be terrorists. That bothers me, but even more is the idea that FISA courts can be ignored completely here.

"2) It's being overseen by a court."
See my above comments.

"3) it's ALSO being overseen by Congress."
As I stated in the beginning, FISA is already under the jurisdiction of Congress but as a whole it has demontrated remarkably little oversight to the public with respect to the current domestic surveillance. Their "solution" to the President's illgal wiretapping of citizens has been to propose this bill, which purports to make it legal. So much for the concept that no one is above the law. I doubt the courts will allow it to stand. That is, if they even get the opportunity to review it; under the proposed bill normal citizens will no longer have the right to do challenge it, only the FISA court will, and it rarely lets us know what's going on.

I think our best hope is for SCOTUS to declare the current program unconstitutional, but because Judge Taylor was so left wing in her outspoken criticism of the program, I think the strength of her decision has been weakened by it; IMO there was plenty unconsitutional about the program without having to spout so much left leaning platitudes.

To sum it up: your argument is a Red Herring.

Republicans are always so good at talking about how Government is intrusive and bad, but are almost always the first in line to vote our civil liberties away, one bill at a time. Then enough meek Democrats follow along for fear of being labled "soft on terrorism." The whole thing disgusts me.

I know who I'll be voting for in November.

Re:I did read the PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

3) FISA already has provisions which allow for the President to temporarily bypass the 11 member court, in cases that he deems of sufficient need, as long as the case is brought before it soon after. The President (via U.S. AG Alberto Gonzales) has acknowledged this provision but essentially said that it is too much trouble to have to go back to the FISA court every time he wants to start a new round of spying programs or make changes to them.

Why then, is it neccessary to make any more changes to FISA?

You have missed one of the main points of the amendment. The way the law is written right now, the President can only make use of (3) when there has been a declaration of war. [ref 1] [ref 2] [ref 3].

Now, the last time that Congress formally issued a declaration of war was 1942. Everything since then has been an authorization for the President to use military powers, and not an unambiguous declaration of war. This includes the war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and the Gulf War. The provision exists, but it cannot be used right now, and in general it is probably useless against terrorism, since terrorist attacks (almost by definition) generally occur when there is no formal war going on.

So the amendment replaces the 'declaration of war' requirement with a declaration by the Attorney General that national security is at stake. But under the modified law, it is still just as mandatory to get the approval of the court in order to continue the surveillance.

The other big change is to introduce the idea of an 'electronic surveillance program' which can be approved by the court, as contrasted with the present concept of 'electronic surveillance'.

The idea here seems to be that it should be acceptable to spy on subject X with tools that also intercept communications from bystanders W, Y, and Z, as long as you establish proper procedures to make sure than you only really look at the stuff to/from X, and discard the rest.

I have mixed feelings about that one. On the one hand, if you want to do practically any kind of spying on the internet, you're going to have to do that kind of snarfing and then filtering to get the part you're legitimately interested in. I'd guess that this is also true for intercepts of radio communications as well (I'm not sure on that one).

So it seems necessary. But on the other hand, I could also imagine this being used to justify ECHELON / CARNIVORE / whatever-it's-called, without sufficient controls on individual privacy to satisfy me.

Of course, even with this change, the whole thing is all still subject to court approval. The Wired article is simply wrong about that. This is annoying, since the text is publicly available, but Wired still gets it completely wrong.

Re:I did read the PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are good points you made there. Thank you for taking the time to reply. I still hate the bill, but it's always good to understand it better, so I can be more informed when I call my Senators about it. One of those calls will be a complete waste of time, since one of the authors is a Senator for my state. But I'll call anyway, to let his aides know I'm unhappy with it.

Call Your Senator's Office!

[mikelieman]

It's the least you can do.

Don't forget that...

[Anonymous Coward]

By all means lets bring back the mindless liberals who incubated and nurtured Al Qaida. Death and carnage will be everywhere. But at least we'll be "free".

Don't forget that we'll be unarmed as well too. After all, think of the children. Even if only one child gets saved, then that is worth abolishing the 2nd amendment. /sarcasm for the clueless/

no instant runoff

[ChristTrekker]

Good grief, not another IRV supporter. Where do you all come from?

Try reading about Condorcet voting. Mathematically superior in most ways. If you take the time to really scrutinize IRV, you'll find that it just disguises the problem by giving the illusion of choice - in the end, you still almost always end up with a two-party system.

IRV isn't even monotonic, for crying out loud. The only thing IRV has going for it is "it's easy" - but heck, plurality voting is easy, and look how screwed up our political system is based on that decision.

Re:no instant runoff

[dgatwood]

Dude, 15% of Florida voted for Pat Buchanan. Do you really think that this country is generally capable of what you describe? Ranking the candidates from 1 to 5 is easy, and requires little explanation for people to get it (mostly) right (most of the time). Filling out a matrix... you're gonna end up with people thoroughly confused, and a bunch of useless half-filled matrices, circular voting (A > B > C > A), etc. I'm not saying the public is stupid, but rather that the people making the ballots will find a way to screw it up, and when faced with an unknown ballot and poor explanation, many people will get confused. That's also an easy way to guarantee that nobody knows who they voted for, making the potential for vote fraud -much- higher..

Instant runoff may not be the best scheme from a theoretical best match perspective, but it is the most practical choice for the general public, IMHO, and even if it is not the best solution mathematically, it is still orders of magnitude better than decision by plurality. That said, I'd go one step further. The #1 candidate gets five points, the #2 gets four, the #3 gets 3, etc. Then do the instant runoff thing to drop candidates to get a majority only if that fails. That way, if 40% vote for A with C as a second, 40% vote for B with C as a second, and 20% vote for C, candidate C would win because 100% of the voting public consider that candidate to be relatively good choice. IMHO, that comes closer to the will of the people than standard IRV.

Re:no instant runoff

[ChristTrekker]

All the voters have to do is rank the candidates - 1,2,3,etc. That's all - anyone too stupid to tell you who they like best, 2nd best, etc. shouldn't be voting. An individual cannot create cycles with ranks, though you can have "tie" preferences.

All the matrix stuff is done by a computer. It can be verified by hand if needed (and I agree that this is an important consideration!), but it is a time-intensive process. (Instead of varying with V, it goes by V*C*C.) If you mention "matrix" when introducing Condorcet to the electorate, you've lost. But you really don't need to. It is much simpler, and still conceptually correct, to say that you use the rankings to simulate a series of head-to-head matchups, and the correct winner must win them all - after all, a real winner ought to be able to beat everyone else, right?

If IRV isn't a good system mathematically, then it is not a good system practically! It is arguably not better than plurality, because at least with plurality, you know who the "lesser of two evils" is for tactical voting - with IRV you don't, because it becomes almost impossible to correctly guess how the runoffs getting to the final round will go.

The Anatomy of Your Enemy

[Shawn is an Asshole]

What you posted sounds very much like the lyrics to this Anti-Flag song. It was written soon after 9/11.

The Anatomy of Your Enemy
by Anti-Flag on "Mobilize"

10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see these tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY! THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR!
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY!

First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.

Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing.

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information, therefore all for-profit media is state-run.

Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY! THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR!
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY!

We are not countries. We are not nations.(enemy)
we are not religions. We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition.(enemy) We are not killers.We will NOT be tools.

Mother fuckers
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your wealth
I am not a fighter
I am a human being

Re:The Anatomy of Your Enemy

[data1]

This is probably one of the most insightful lyrics I have read in a long time.

Re:The Anatomy of Your Enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Straight to the point... :)

I am glad that not all people are asleep in this country.

Re:The Anatomy of Your Enemy

[Pantero Blanco]

About Step 8:

Suppressing religion and setting the state up as a god seems to work just as well. People are eager to accept new gods once old ones are overthrown. Case in point, China. The dominant religion at the time was so strongly anti-war that Mao decided it was better to remove it.

Re:The Anatomy of Your Enemy

[Pseudonym]

The two approaches are two aspects of the same basic idea. Indeed, after seeing a few too many Bible Belt leaders talk about how it's God's will that Bush is in power, I wonder if they really believe in the Christian deity or a state one any more.

Re:The Anatomy of Your Enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

sounds like some of the the middle east countries are very good at completing the steps to make the US their enemy.

Re:The Anatomy of Your Enemy

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting those great lyrics.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[hamburger lady]

I always found it obscene that all the NPR leftist-types went wild over the taliban blowing up those 'graven' images on the mountainside (arts, antiquities and all). Yet they didn't see a great deal of harm to the women who were treated worse then the livestock. They never even said 'BOO' over the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers


actually, there was a pretty big movement on the left pre-911 intending to pressure the administration to punish the taliban over women's rights etc.

Umm, they were

[TheConfusedOne]

Military intelligence played a major role in fighting dating to well before the Revolutionary War. Spies, intercepting communications, and secret messages aren't new developments.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Summer04 /spies.cfm

In fact, the framers DID acknowledge this when they invested the power of gathering intelligence in the Commander in Chief.

Re:Umm, they were

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Where, exactly, did the framers do that? Please quote the article of the Constittion that states that.

Re:Umm, they were

[TheConfusedOne]

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1. The President is given the role of Commander in Chief.

  The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Discussion about the clause is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/ar ticle02/07.html#3

Re:Umm, they were

[EllisDees]

And where does that mention that he can violate the other parts of the constitution in carrying out those duties? Even if only one half of the communication is from a US citizen, the president is still required to follow the constitution when spying on that person.

Not to mention that we are not at war, so the president has no wartime powers.

Ok, so explain this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not the government knows which sort of people are terrorists. They're the bloody muslim extremists.

Really? From:
http://seclists.org/politech/2001/Nov/0080.html

The flyer
instructs the reader to report as a possible terrorist anyone who asks why
they were stopped by police or anyone who dares to defend "the U.S.
Constitution against federal [sic] government.

So you were saying that the 'terrorists are known'?

We the people. Them the Power.

[twifosp]

"We the people."

They say the bill is only to be used for the war on terror. The describe the war on terror as having no boundries, and They call it "indefinite". They excercise powers that are illegal in secret and when We call them out on it, They make it legal without our consent. We won't know when they abuse the bill. They won't tell us. We call foul, and They say "If You have nothing to hide, then You have nothing to fear. But it isn't that We have something to hide. It is that They have something to hide. We don't know what it is, because while We are allowed to ask Them about it, and They are under legal obligation to tell Us, They do not. They hide under a few sentences that grant Them more power than We agreed to give Them. It doesn't matter than We say that They can not have this power. They have it already. And We can't take it back, because once it is theirs, it is no longer Ours.

And it is with that power, They become Them, and seperate from Us. The opening of the constitution should instead read:

"We the Power of the United States, in order to run a more powerful union, establish Our justice, insure domestic compliance and complacency, provide for our defense, promote our welfare, and secure the our liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do wrought and establish this Constitution for the People Who Run America."

Paranoid?

[Maximilio]

I just listened to an interview with someone on NPR, a British citizen who spent 3 years at gitmo with no trial, who was tortured, and denied contact with the outside world. Why would I be paranoid about a government that would do that? Except that it's MY government, not some two-bit third-world tinpot dictator's government.

...at least this wasn't another SECRET LAW.

[gaspar ilom]

While we're at it, can someone please
Repeal
all
SECRET
LAWS!?

Still whining about 2000?

[fuzznutz]

hijacked 2 elections

Give it a rest. If the Florida State Supreme Court hadn't arbitrarily decided to write their own election law, The US Supreme Court wouldn't have had to smack them down. I don't like what the USSC did, but I like even less what the FSSC tried to do.

And if you still think Bush "stole" Ohio, you obviously don't live in Ohio.

Re:Still whining about 2000?

[unity100]

Theres nothing like a bought-out judge can do.

Re:Still whining about 2000?

[fuzznutz]

Theres nothing like a bought-out judge can do.

Are you referring to the Florida State Supreme Court?

You do realize that Justices O'Connor, Breyer and Souter all agreed that Florida screwed up. They're not exactly bastions of Neoconism. Only Ginsburg and Souter disagreed.

Re:Still whining about 2000?

[unity100]

Lets look at the end result rather than the details - what happened in the end is that u.s. people are dying in foreign soil, for the benefit of some midwest oil people.

Furthermore

[Mateo_LeFou]

I heard on NPR that the current (soon to be former) laws restricting this stuff allow warrantless wiretapping. Feds just have to go back later and get a retro-active warrant. Sigh...

I remember senator Cornyn (R-TX) posturing about this: "It strikes me as odd to say that Congress authorized the commander in chief to capture, to detain, to kill, if necessary, al Qaeda, but we can't listen to their phone calls," http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/06/nsa.gonzale s/index.html

Well, senator, if it strikes you as odd let me explain to you:

• You can listen to Al Qaeda's phone calls
• You can listen to phone calls of persons linked to Al Qaeda
• You can listen to phone calls of persons suspected of being linked to Al Qaeda
• You can listen to phone calls of Americans citizens talking with someone suspected of being linked to Al Qaeda
• You can do this without a warrant
• Hey, but if you don't mind could you go to the bench at some point and tell 'em why you're listening and get a warrant so you can keep listening?

If this strikes you as an indefensible restriction of executive power, then you're very likely the sort of power-hungry guy we're afraid of. Which is particularly odd, since you're not in the executive branch.

Half truths on Slashdot

[(trb001)]

If you get your news from places in addition to Slashdot, you might have read something a little different:

Panel OK's 2 rival wiretapping bills

There are two bills, almost diametrically opposed, that they sent forward. Isn't the committee there just to screen out bills and send some forward to be further discussed? Sending two opposing bills forward seems like the right thing to do, so the Senate can debate the merits of each and pass one or merge the two together.

--trb

Text of the Second Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

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 was put into the Constitution by our founding fathers for a very good reason.

Re:Reason

[Darby]

Have you considered that the harassment people who believe Bush is the better choice are subjected to by people like you and lots of others on Slashdot can make them reluctant to state who they are voting for when asked?

Much more likely that they would be too cowardly and deceitfiul to admit to their hatred and contempt for freedom and their eager support of torture and murder as cowardice, blind ignorant hatred and a lust for murder are the defining characteristics of Republicans. Just look at the world today and realise that those sick animals voted for it twice.
No sanity or morality could be involved in that choice.

Oh, no, it's really their fear of harassment. What an idiotic statement.

Presumably, somewhere in the black core of their souls, Republican voters are ashamed of their purely evil, hate mongering, murderous, theiving attitudes and therefore are embarassed to admit that they despise American values, freedom and the like.

The simple fact is that they do support torture, murder, and the destruction of the great experiment. If they didn't wholeheartedly support those things over any sort of decency then we would not be in the situation that we are in.

It's no surprise that such a vile, amoral cowardly lot as them would be too afraid to admit even to themselves what deeply and wholely evil scum they have proven themselves to be at every opportunity.

It's basic simple common sense. No sane, informed person believes or has ever believed that Bush was a better choice than any of the alternatives. It's not possible to reach that conclusion as there is nothing to support it but a trail of lies and murder.

Hack the Vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we all know voting is futile. Both parties are cheerleaders for dictatorship. We also know how vulnerable the electronic voting machines are. So read up on the Diebold hacking guides, and if you're lucky enough to live in a Diebold district, hack the vote this november. Give your district to Libertarians and Socialists, or whoever is running that's not in power. It'll shake up the system a little, do America some good.

Re:Hack the Vote

[n00854180t]

The problem being that if anyone were to hack these machines with the intent of hindering the neocon agenda, they'd just use their multitude of torture/murder/no rights laws that they've been passing to deem that person a "terrorist" (here I refer to the Torture and Murder Bill recently pushed by Bush, and the Patriot Act, both of which could easily be applied to a regular citizen hacking a Diebold/ES&S machine) and either hold them indefinitely without trial whilst torturing them for a confession, or summarily sentence them to execution. Which, most assuredly, is the real reason for the PA/Torture and Murder Bill.

Defining fascism is hard

[djtack]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came?

I think it comes from the fact that most people (english speakers anyway) confuse fascism with authoritarianism. The term gets thrown around very casually, much the same way the word nazi has come to be used. It's common to hear the labels 'fascist' or 'nazi' applied to someone who is strict or fanatical about anything, no matter how trivial.

Coming up with a good historical definition for fascism is hard, the best is probably from Roger Griffin: "palingenetic ultranationalist populism". This is hard to say, and harder to understand.

Another reason, I think, that the Bush administration has not declared war on "Islamic theocrats" is that they aspire to be theocrats themselves.

cause of terrorism

[Ender Ryan]

He's just a coward who would rather live in a police state than have any freedom or rights if it meant those rights might make someone want him dead.

Your point about him is correct, however... Our "Freedom" has fuck all to do with people wanting to kill us. We are targets of terrorism not because of our freedom(fucking hell that sounds ridiculous!), but rather because of the actions of our government in foreign lands.

Re:cause of terrorism

[psykocrime]

Our "Freedom" has fuck all to do with people wanting to kill us. We are targets of terrorism not because of our freedom(fucking hell that sounds ridiculous!), but rather because of the actions of our government in foreign lands.

Exactly. If they were attacking us only because of our Freedom, then why don't they attack Canada or Sweden or any number of other countries which are approximately as free as - or more free than - the United States. Oh, it wouldn't be because those countries don't routinely meddle in the affairs of other nation-states, and don't try to play World Police, would it? Naah... what a nutty idea.

Re:cause of terrorism

[Peter La Casse]

It is true that the United States interferes too much in world affairs. Sometimes, though, foreign military intervention is desirable, and in this case, Al-Qaida declared war against the United States as a direct result of the Persian Gulf War. Should the United States have allowed Saddam Hussein to keep Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia and the world economy? (It is, after all, about oil.)

Yes, a reasonable person would not have done lots of the things that the United States has done. There are many deplorable things that we condemn and there are many more questionable things that the US would be wise to reconsider. But would avoiding those things prevent us from being a target of terrorism? When I consider this batch of terrorists, I'm not convinced.

That's the theoretical side. Theoretically, if the US had been isolationist for the last 50 years, we might or might not be in a better situation now, but that's not the case. So, complaining about the past is only useful to the extent that it leads us to what should be done now. What should be done now?

Re:cause of terrorism

[Ender Ryan]

We should never have helped Saddam come to power in the first place, never voted in a President who was his business partner, paid Saddam to invade Iran, said President should never have turned a blind eye when his business partner decided to invade Kuwait, and then changed his mind when the U.N. wouldn't STFU about it, pretending he was not business partner and friend of Saddam for 2 decades.

What should we do now? Just a minute...

We should never have invaded Iraq, removing the keystone preventing the country from sliding into a civil war based on long established rivalries between Islamic factions. We SHOULD have continued to focus on Afghanistan, and evaluating our mid-east policies.

What should we do NOW? We should impeach GWB, vote out nearly all the incumbents, and force our government to once again operate for and by the people. And then, and only then, can we make any informed decisions about the problems we are facing today. Because as it currently stands, most of our information about our supposed enemies is coming from known liars who act solely in their own interest.

Yeah, I admit it, it's a fucking pipe dream. Pretty much, we're fucked.

I am tired of hearing this.

[pavon]

First on the issue of throwing votes away. It only takes one vote over 50% to win, so any amount over that is unnecesarry - ie wasted. Therefore, unless the race is close, and you have a chance of casting the deciding vote, then voting for a major party has just as little practical effect on the result of the election as voting for a third party.

Secondly, if the democrats actually defended civil liberties, then I would start considering the lesser of two evils. But they are just as bad as the republicans when it comes to throwing out our freedoms to appear tough on crime or terrorism. Furthermore the progressives have gotten as bad as the religious right when it comes to forcing everyone to live the way they want them to. The only civil rights issue that the democrats still defend are equal rights for gays, and other minorites. While I give them credit for this, it doesn't matter much if you are systematically eliminating everyone's rights.

As an aside, you cannot blame liberals voting for third parties for the result of the last presidential election or for democrats poor showing in congress. That is due to more people voting republican, not third party.

I vote for the candidate I think is best in almost every election. The only time I vote for the lesser of two evils is when all the following are true:

1. One of the two major candidates really is significantly worse than the other.
   
2. the race is close
   
3. I am in a swing state/district
   
4. The race is close in my state/district
   

The last presidential election was the very few times that has happened in many years.

If the only "realistic option" is to vote for a major party, then we might as well admit that there is no solution to the problems that are facing the country today, because they are the ones who created them and they show no signs of changing track. I don't think that voting third party is a waste, but even if it is, I would rather waste my vote than be complicit in the destruction of our country.

Re:I am tired of hearing this.

[Shajenko42]

Only solution to the spoiler problem is to change to approval voting. That way, those who are worried about "throwing their vote away" will vote for the third party plus their main party choice.

Approval voting is the least complicated of all the voting systems that gives a fair result. IRV is far too complicated for the type of people who will accidentally vote for Buchanan.

To implement it, we have to get the local races to use it first. So go to a town hall meeting once in a while and bring up approval voting. It's the only way it will ever happen.

Re:I am tired of hearing this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the majority of the votes are never even cast, I propose a system whose only goal is to change the way people think about voting.

Take all the registered voters, and use that to determine the candidate's percentiles. Suddenly, the Democrates/Republicanss aren't in the lead by huge margins, they're still ahead by the same number of votes, and people start to realize that they if 10% had voted for candidate #3 instead of the "lesser of 'two' evils", who they had actually wanted to win, would have. You don't even need to pass this as a voting amendment, you just need to get the data, alter the percentile numbers, and present it to the masses. Everyone who might care enough to vote then realizes they can make a difference one vote at a time.

Example for 2004 election:

Republicans got ~30% of the votes of the registered voters
Democrats got ~28.9% (this is all back of the napkin stuff)
That leaves about 41.1% left over (most wasted in not voting)

Basically, if one in three people wanted to vote for any party, even third parties, they would have won (ah, word humor). None of this 2 party crap we've grown accustomed to. Triumvirates were useful for a freaking reason; the possibility exists to have a majority in any number greater than 2, so stuff gets done. And since people are grouping on ideologies, it give a better idea of what the majority of people think. Without any parties, each vote would (without politics) reflect representatives' actual thought.

Cue the voting system talk, but don't expect the people in power to give you an opportunity to vote them out easier. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I don't think that's how the system works.

Re:I am tired of hearing this.

[roystgnr]

Approval voting is the least complicated of all the voting systems that gives a fair result. IRV is far too complicated for the type of people who will accidentally vote for Buchanan.

Approval voting is less complicated than ranked voting, naturally, because it conveys less information. You only get to express a preference of one set over another set, and if your preferences are any more complicated than that, you're out of luck. I preferred Badnarik to Kerry to Nader to Bush in 2004 - clearly I should have approved of Badnarik and disapproved of Bush, but what do I do about the other two? Should I approve of Kerry to give him a better chance of beating Bush, or should I disapprove to give Badnarik a better chance of beating him? I'd have the same problem I do today: I'd have to check the preelection polls to figure out who I can "safely" vote for.

If you want to vote "yes" for half the candidates and "no" for the other half, Condorcet (another ranked voting method with fewer mathematical problems than IRV) will let you do that - but unlike Approval voting it'll let you do that without taking away other voters' right to express a more detailed preference.

Re:I am tired of hearing this.

[yndrd1984]

Approval voting is the least complicated of all the voting systems that gives a fair result.

No method of voting is completely fair, almost by definition.

Re:I am tired of hearing this.

[David Gould]

Yes, changing the first-past-the-gate voting system (whether with IRV, Condorcet, Approval, or whatever) would solve the wasted-vote problem, and yes, starting at the local level might at least partially solve the inertia problem. But, if successful, that would just raise another problem:

Okay: say your state switches to a system that lets you make your vote count the way you most want it to. So you can express your preference for $THIRD_PARTY_CANDIDATE while still helping $LESS_BAD_MAJOR_PARTY_CANDIDATE beat $WORSE_MAJOR_PARTY_CANDIDATE if it comes to that. Now, say enough voters in your state feel the same way you do that $THIRD_PARTY_CANDIDATE manages to carry the state. Then what?

I'll tell you what: then, when the Electoral College meets, your state's Electors vote for $THIRD_PARTY_CANDIDATE, instead of $LESS_BAD_MAJOR_PARTY_CANDIDATE (who, in this scenario, would presumably have carried the state otherwise), and $WORSE_MAJOR_PARTY_CANDIDATE wins.

In short, your state-level electoral reform just pushes the spoiler/wasted-vote problem up to the EC level. Or rather, the problem exists at both levels; it's just rare too see it in action above the state level.

So, really, for electoral reform to work, it would have to happen at the EC level, which, if I'm not mistaken, would require a Constitutional Amendment -- Congress couldn't do it even if they wanted to, right?

Then again, maybe there's a way after all: a state could change the way it instructs its Electors how to vote. Instead of sending its delegation to the EC with orders to "Vote for $CANDIDATE", the orders could be "Vote for $THIRD_PARTY_CANDIDATE, if and only if enough other states have publicly ordered their Electors to do the same; otherwise, vote for $LESS_BAD_MAJOR_PARTY_CANDIDATE". In short, the state's instructions to its Electors would be in the form of a Condorcet ballot, plus rules on how to conduct a private tally before the EC meets for the real election.

The conditions governing how the Electors determine what the other states have done would have to be very strict and explicit, of course, so the voters aren't just telling their Electors to "Do whatever you think is best". But that's not really so hard: currently, every state's outcome is clearly known, and any&all states that implement this system would publicize their results for the benefit of each other.

The real beauty of it is that a sufficiently-enlightened state could implement this system unilaterally, and it would work within the Electoral College system.

Re:I am tired of hearing this.

[Scudsucker]

But they are just as bad as the republicans when it comes to throwing out our freedoms to appear tough on crime or terrorism.

No, they aren't. Yes, most Democrats were spineless cowards who voted for the Patriot Act - but that doesn't mean they support torture, indefinite imprisonment w/o trial, warrantless spying, etc etc. This brings to mind Nader's claim in 2000 that the country wouldn't be any different under Bush than it would under Gore, and history has proven him to be the most wrong person on the planet.

Re:I am tired of hearing this.

[Shajenko42]

Mostly what I was going for was for local elections to use this, to give people a taste of how things could be different. Pretty much any of the various voting systems would be better than First Past the Post. Then it could be pushed higher - state legislators, governors, US legislators, etc. None of these would require an amendment to the US constitution, because they're all done in a single state.

This would have to happen in several states, and hopefully the example of one state would push other states to try it. They could use the different types of voting schemes in different states. After that happens, a critical mass would demand that Congress change things for the presidential election.

I'm not saying it's particularly likely, but it's more likely than just demanding that everything be switched over immediately.

Though your idea to work within the electoral college would be useful too.

Information gathered about non-terrorist civilians

[Gavin86]

What I am mostly curious about is what can be done with the collateral informtation, information gathered about an innocent civilian accidentally by the government while tracking a terrorist, such as instant-messages as cited by the article. Let's say someone is discussing some sort of non-terrorist criminal activity, like robbing a bank. Is the government still required to throw the data away?

I lie to polsters

[a_greer2005]

I really dont think that you can claim that polls differing from election results can be a total conspericy, maybe, but the problem is you do not take into account that polsters are bothersome, annoying and want to know something that I do not wish to shaare, I figure that since they are wasting my time, I will f*** up their polls, so I lie. Many other folks I know have taken the same approche for years...CNN/USA Today and Gallop do not pick the presedent.

Re:I lie to polsters

[MadUndergrad]

So we can assume that x% of people will lie to pollsters. Statistically speaking, they're likely to lie in even amounts (I don't think someone's party preference has much bearing on their personal willingness to lie). Therefore, the statistics are likely to be spot-on, as the liars will cancel each other out and hardly impact the polls whatsoever.

Why define "terrorist"?

[DBett]

When the bill doesn't actually use the term in its enactments?

Should it also define the term non-sequitor? ;)

I know it makes a good sound bite to bash the bill, but please get a clue.

Re:Confused

[mrchaotica]

You...need to realize that the Constitution does not grant individual rights.

You're right: the rights inherently exist, and do not require any document to do so.

...the Bill of Rights was a document that defined what the US government may not do.

Close: the Bill of Rights enumerated some particular things that the US government may not do, and also reminded us (in the 9th and 10th Amendments) that there are an infinite number of other things, that were not defined, that the government is also prohibited from doing.

Rush Limbaugh

[a_greer2005]

Was the first place I heard it, in like Dec 2001, which means that it came from a RNC script, he read it, and the rest of the machene followed as always.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[neoconspirator]

Apparently not big enough at the time for a previous administration to do anything except have feel-good diplomatic talks. My memory serves that it wasn't until after they blew up those precious antiquities that there was any impetus to do anything but warn of 'harsh repercussions". (whatever that means?)

Bullies only know force when it potentially affects their very lives. Tripping through the '90's with UN resolutions and no teeth can't make the world a better place for anyone (unless of course you have a limo in New York with diplomatic plates)!

Has anyone read the act?

[Professor_Marvel]

Read page 10, paragraph 4 and page 16, paragraph 4. They aren't after your porn habit.

devil's advocate:

[bhima]

A sizable minority of Americans who vote want elements of an authoritarian police state and are willing to accept the accompanying loss of rights.

Another sizable minority of Americans who vote want elements of a theocracy, based on their religion, in order to "fix all that's wrong with America". These people are willing to accept a stunning amount of duplicity and corruption.

Unfortunately their is another large group of Americans... those who aren't religious zealots, who don't support the erosion of civil liberties, and who generally are decent people and great to associate with... but they don't vote.

So Americans *want* this type of government... so that's what we got... I'm glad I moved.

The land of the free and the home of the brave

[internic]

First of all, if you think about it rationally, the statistical chance of you dying in a terrorist attack is quite low, by any reasonable estimate. You're far more likely to die from any number of causes, e.g. a car crash. The government and media have played up the threat and gotten people into an irrational frenzy over the matter, but really the threat is quite small for most of us. Right now what you are saying, rationally, is that you are willing to accept a larger risk for the privlage of driving a car than for having your fundamental liberties.

I live in the suburbs of Washington D.C., just a few miles from the White House. I often go into the city, ride the subway, etc. I am probably at a statistically greater risk of being the vitim of a terrorist attack than 99% of Americans. I'm also still in my twenties and in no hurry to die. However, there are a few things worth taking a risk for, and one of those is liberty. That was actually one of the few points I thought almost every American could agree on. If I have to accept these small risks to my life in exchange for my liberty, then I say it is a small price to pay, and I pay it gladly. After all, many have risked far more to protect the same.

If you don't feel the same way, that's your right, but I would say that you are not really suited to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. There are some other places where their priorities might suit you better. In China, for example, most people accept that it's more important that the government have the power to protect them from dangerous people and ideas than that the people have freedom and privacy. If you wish to remain in the US because it provides you a cushy life, again that's your right and I respect it, but I think most of us would prefer you not to interfere in our politics, because you fundamentally don't understand what it is to be American. My hope is that, rather than ever leaving, you can learn one day what being an American is truly about. I'll close with a famous quotation from Patrick Henry that expresses what I'm talking about:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Re:The land of the free and the home of the brave

[n00854180t]

As a former serviceman, I agree completely with this. Giving up your liberties so you can feel "safe" from such an intangible and fairly ridiculous threat as "terrorists" is both cowardly and pathetic. I want to live in the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the police state theocracy land of the imprisoned and tortured, home of the cowardly. When the day comes when cowards like the parent succeed in turning this country into a theocratic police state, where no one has any freedoms, I'll definitely be willing and able to fight to destroy the oppressive, cowardly regime and people that made it happen.

Iraq a legitimate front in War on Terror ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Even if I concede that we are at war, who is the enemy?

The radical Islamic movement that believes they are at war with us and are actively working to conduct attacks.

How do we decide when it's over? A war on "terrorism" is not well defined - you can always say there may be someone plotting something that falls under that term.

When that movement is so small and so marginalized that it is like other groups, often cults, that are more appropriately a local law enforcement problem. Bombings will happen, but Oklahoma City is a law enforcement problem, 9/11 is a war.

We have not had a "terrorist" atrack on the US in 5 years. Where is this war you speak of?

Radical Islam attacked the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001. That is about 8.5 years. Madrid was attacked July 7, 2004, London on July 7, 2005. Did you miss the British thwarting an attempt to blow up multiple airlines last month?

Iraq? That's "peace keeping", not war any more.

Radical Islam may not have had a significant presense in Iraq at the time of the invasion, but they have been drawn there by the invasion and do have a major presence now. That is the only relevant issue now. Iraq is *now* a legitimate front on the war on terror. Radical Islam is hoping to repeat Afghanistan, drive a super power out, force a radical Islamic government on the people, continue their war on the west ... It is nearly universally agreed that the west's ignoring of Afghanistan once the Russians left was a tragic mistake. Leaving Afghanistan or Iraq today, before a sustainable representative government of some sort is established, would be a similar mistake with consequences in the future.

so if this is unconstitutional...

[Bobzibub]

.. why not challenge it in court?
-b

mod parent up

[DeadPrez]

This is someone who "gets it". No one is insisting having real choice for 3rd parties (or 4th or 5th) would not make this a better country. However, whether you are a Libertarian or a Green or something else and you sit here and lecture us that all it takes is voting for a 3rd party to cure the structural ills to our political process you are dead wrong (and therefore perpetuating the problem).

The two-party system exists because it is implicit to our Constitution. Period. If you don't get past this fact we are lost.

If you want serious change, attack the real problems. Rampant gerrymandering. The primary system. Lack of "Ranked Voting". The electoral college. The unrepresentative Senate. The weak party system. Lack of a modern parliamentary system. Buckley v Valeo (money = free speech). The removal of only one or two of these structural problem would likely be a catalyst for much greater change.

Fact is, none of us have the balls to say the founders screwed up and/or we know something now they did not. We are the most archaic Republic in existance, its hard to believe we have it perfect and none of the ideas that came after are correct. Ultimately however, the immense difficulty of amending the Constitution is what ossifies the status quo. Not people who suggest working within the two party system to get rid of it.

Now, wake up.

Re:mod parent up

[plague3106]

The two-party system exists because it is implicit to our Constitution. Period. If you don't get past this fact we are lost.

Really? Back this up. I think you have problems with reading comprehension.

Rampant gerrymandering.

Certainly a problem.

The primary system

What do you find wrong with this?

Lack of "Ranked Voting".

Not sure how this would help..

The electoral college.

So you say the constitution supports only two parties, then turn around and bash it. Sorry, but you can't pick and choose.. The electoral college is there for a very good reason: to help undermine mob rule.

The unrepresentative Senate.

The Senates original purpose was to represent the STATE GOVERNMENTS. For that purpose, it is fine. If you look back in history, you'll see the feds started grabbing way more power than they were supposed to. The fed government was supposed to be weak.

The weak party system.

I don't think any kind of 'party system' is dicated anywhere in law.

Lack of a modern parliamentary system.

Not sure what you mean by this..

Buckley v Valeo (money = free speech).

I'm not sure you understand the purpose behind the ruling in that case..

The removal of only one or two of these structural problem would likely be a catalyst for much greater change.

I would like to think so, but I don't think that those problems alone will fix things.

Re:mod parent up

[DeadPrez]

I think your reading comprehension is actually the one in question. For example, look up the word 'implicit' because I certainly did not say the two-party system was textual to the Constitution.

As for everything else, there are a lot of fundamentals that would need to be explained in a way in which /. is not the appropriate medium. I do hope you keep the list of identified problems in your head as I am sure you will begin to understand if you look hard enough while keeping them in mind.

Re:mod parent up

[plague3106]

I think your reading comprehension is actually the one in question. For example, look up the word 'implicit' because I certainly did not say the two-party system was textual to the Constitution.

Sorry, its you with the reading compresension problems. I never found passages in the Constitution that implied a two party system. Then when I asked you to provide those areas, you come back with 'I said its implicit!'

As for everything else, there are a lot of fundamentals that would need to be explained in a way in which /. is not the appropriate medium. I do hope you keep the list of identified problems in your head as I am sure you will begin to understand if you look hard enough while keeping them in mind.

Some of those problems were decided on by people smarter than you and I, and who had the time to think about it. You don't think direct vote or IR voting exsited 200 years ago? It did, and they decided electoral was the best one.

Re:mod parent up

[DeadPrez]

The structural way we elect our representatives created the two-party system. Winner-take-all combined with single-member districts. That's what implicitly created the two-party system.

As far as your appeal to the authority of men 250 years ago... I think about half of them would laugh at you silly, you know, if they weren't as dead as the document they created.

Re:mod parent up

[cayenne8]

" No one is insisting having real choice for 3rd parties (or 4th or 5th) would not make this a better country."

I disagree. If there were a viable 3rd party candidate out there that was moderate, I think they'd seriously threaten both sides, and force the Dems to come back from SOOO far to the left, and the Reps. from SOOOOOOOOO far to the right.

I think if a moderate could get the money and TV time and on the ballots, they could clean the clocks of the 2 majors...or at the very least, scare the shit outta them enough to get them back from the fringes....

Re:mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, we've got moderates. They're called Democrats.

We've also got fascists. They're called Republicans.

What we DO NOT have is anybody AT ALL on the left. Nobody.

Re:mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats != moderates - they're conservative. Republicans are just more so. The democratic party doesn't see enough value in left-wing votes to try to grab them, so they try to leech votes from the republican party.

Re:mod parent up

[Scudsucker]

I think they'd seriously threaten both sides, and force the Dems to come back from SOOO far to the left

Please, the Democratic party is very conservative these days. Which should tell you where the GOP is...

The whole theory that multiple parties will somehow reduce partisanship or corruption or any of our other problems needs to check out Britian or Israel. It's not a matter of third party represenation, but if there are room for multiple veiwpoints within the parties.

Re:mod parent up

[plague3106]

The structural way we elect our representatives created the two-party system.

The electoral system does not lead to two party systems. The fact that we HAD more than two parties for much of our countries history is proof of that.

Winner-take-all combined with single-member districts.

Districting is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Individual states are free to divide their electoral votes any way they please, there is no reason districting is required.

Your original claim was that a two party system was implied by the Constitution. You then claim only two implementations, one of which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

As far as your appeal to the authority of men 250 years ago... I think about half of them would laugh at you silly, you know, if they weren't as dead as the document they created.

I think they'd be terrified at your lack of comprehension, lack of knowledge of history, and lack of knowledge as to why they decided the way they did, etc. Ignorance does lead to hell.

Oh, and as far as being old goes, human nature hasn't changed at all in the last 250 years, so the Constitution is as valid today as it was then. The fact that you don't care about rights only proves that you need to get exactly what you're asking for.

Re:mod parent up

[cayenne8]

"Please, the Democratic party is very conservative these days."

I don't think so...not in the eyes of many/most Americans I don't think. They have the Move-On.org crowd, and Howard Dean and the like running them....I certainly wouldn't consider them moderate. Kerry wasn't a moderate by a long shot.

I'm afraid they'll do something foolish and put Hillary as the lead on the ticket, and that probably would spell another disaster for the Dems. I really, really do hope they can put up some type of truly moderate candidate that will appeal to the masses. If they could get a "Bill" like person again, they'd have a shot....I disliked many of his policies, but, not all of them. I'd hope they'd do that, and it also might force the Reps to go more moderate....which might give someone like McCain a fighting shot at the nomination....a person who I actually DO have a lot of respect and admiration for...

Re:mod parent up

[DeadPrez]

I thought it was good intentions that paves the way to hell. But I have a feeling it is truly what ever you decide is wrong becomes your worldview of hell.

Sure we have had more than two parties, but its very rare a 3rd lasts as a major party past two presidential election cycles (most ralley around a person, not an lasting idea). Winner-take-all, single member districts certainly make this unsustainable.

As far as what is codified and what is not, single members districts is not codified in the Constitution but in 1842 Congress passed a law forcing this upon all states (modified by court ruling in 1932, followed by a 1967 law banning at-large and multi-member districts) . So you would be wrong this is up to the states anymore. Clearly these laws placed a stranglehold on third parties, intent or not.

Finally, as far as human nature goes, it surely hasn't changed, but we also have a better understanding of it. We also have better understandings of human needs, how vast the west and even the earth is, that oceans won't protect us, that there are limited resources, speedier communication and transportation, etc etc. Heck, even the concept of proportional voting had not been 'invented' in the 18th century. But somehow you truly believe all these men, which I greatly respect, wouldn't change a thing with such an expanded knowledgebase today. That's the only ignorant thought on this thread. You don't give them the credit they deserve.

And btw, your attack on my belief in rights is seriously misguided, or at least a poor excuse for rhetorical misdirection. Pathetic.

Re:mod parent up

[plague3106]

I thought it was good intentions that paves the way to hell. But I have a feeling it is truly what ever you decide is wrong becomes your worldview of hell.

Those help too. I personally think a world without individual freedoms would be hell.

Sure we have had more than two parties, but its very rare a 3rd lasts as a major party past two presidential election cycles (most ralley around a person, not an lasting idea). Winner-take-all, single member districts certainly make this unsustainable.

This is more recent.

As far as what is codified and what is not, single members districts is not codified in the Constitution but in 1842 Congress passed a law forcing this upon all states (modified by court ruling in 1932, followed by a 1967 law banning at-large and multi-member districts) . So you would be wrong this is up to the states anymore. Clearly these laws placed a stranglehold on third parties, intent or not.

While I agree that's a problem, the states can and do redistrict. Federal law may put restrictions on how its done, but its still up to them. At any rate, the orginal statement was that two party systems are implied in the Constitution, and I've yet to see a reference to any part which backs that up.

Finally, as far as human nature goes, it surely hasn't changed, but we also have a better understanding of it. We also have better understandings of human needs, how vast the west and even the earth is, that oceans won't protect us, that there are limited resources, speedier communication and transportation, etc etc.

We don't understand nearly as much as you'd like to think. We understand very little actually. As far as understanding limited resources, I think we've known that for a while.. its what drives economies of any form. Oceans never protected us; the French played an important role in the Revolution. Faster travel and communication really don't play at all into human rights, so I don't see what you're getting at.

Heck, even the concept of proportional voting had not been 'invented' in the 18th century. But somehow you truly believe all these men, which I greatly respect, wouldn't change a thing with such an expanded knowledgebase today. That's the only ignorant thought on this thread. You don't give them the credit they deserve.

I think if they could see what happen they'd certainly change things; they'd probably have put more restrictions on the powers of government. However I don't believe their ideas about personal liberty would have changed, since even then they were willing to fight a war for it. Giving them credit and respect would be to actually have read what they wrote and realize that they had a lot more time to think about things then you've likely put in. Math is one of the oldest areas of study there is; to claim that no one came up with 'proportial voting' before the 18th century is ignorant.

And btw, your attack on my belief in rights is seriously misguided, or at least a poor excuse for rhetorical misdirection. Pathetic.

Read what you wrote again. I'm sure you can see how it could be inteperated as believing the Consitution (and the idea of personal freedom which it is meant to protect) is dead.

As far as attempting to misdirect, I've asked several times now where the Constitution implies support for only two parties at a time, yet everything you've said has been almost 100 years after it was signed.

Re:mod parent up

[DeadPrez]

Alrighty then. When you are unaware of something, you say I am ignorant (classic!). When I don't sufficiently acknowledge something in your eyes, I am ignorant. When I make a valid observation, you twist it into something off-topic or instantly dismiss it.

Nice chatting with you, I'm sure back home you are the life of the... nevermind.

Re:mod parent up

[plague3106]

Alrighty then. When you are unaware of something, you say I am ignorant (classic!). When I don't sufficiently acknowledge something in your eyes, I am ignorant. When I make a valid observation, you twist it into something off-topic or instantly dismiss it.

Nice attempt at spin. Sorry, your orginal state was, and I quote "The two-party system exists because it is implicit to our Constitution. Period."

I asked you to provide me the parts of the Constitution that back this up in your mind. I've read the whole thing, and I don't see any place where it even implies that. So I asked you to point me to those. You have not.

Sorry if I hurt your feels just dismissing things; its just that the points I dismissed are wrong or irrelevent. Yes, we know the earth is round now. That hasn't changed human nature though, so its irrelevent.

The rest of the points I've addressed, and my claim is that we should defer to the people that thought about it quite a bit, and were considered renaissance men (which I don't think most can claim today).

Re:mod parent up

[Scudsucker]

I don't think so...not in the eyes of many/most Americans I don't think.

Because you're judging them in relation to the GOP, which has been on a steady march to the right for decades. They keep redefining what used to be "center" as "liberal", thus dragging the "center" to the right and hiding their own extremism, and a lazy press and public have let them get away with it. This is how senators such as Lieberman and McCain keep getting labeled as "moderates" in the press, despite the fact that they are very conservative politicians. While they would certinally see eye to eye on executive power, Nixon's policies would just about making him a communist in today's GOP in comparison.

You're probably also running under false assumption that "not ultra-conservative" or "critical of Republicans" equals "liberal", which is simply not the case. The conservative Chuck Hagel, for example, was tagged as liberal for making comments crtical of Administration policies on PBS. Note how "liberal Republican" is an oxymoron these days.

Liberals believe that society should be as fair to those on the bottom of the ladder as to those on the top. They want things like nationalized health care, much more spending on education, more taxes on the wealthy, and stong worker and union protections. Not only would today's Democrats not touch those issues with a ten foot pole, the majority have supported the Patriot Act, invading Iraq, huge income tax cuts, defining marraige as between a man and a woman, outlawing flag burning, free trade, and telecom deregulation. So, with all the above...

Move-On.org

Not liberal.

Howard Dean

Conservative. Just check his fiscal record as govenor of Vermont.

Kerry

Conservative. Hell, Al Gore's campaign in 2000 was more conservative than Nixon's in 72.

Democrats are conservative, and Republicans ultra-conservative...before 911. After 911, they've dived head and shoulders into facism. To get some real balance back, we'd have to get the friends and family of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro to move to the United States and become politicians and news pundits.

I'm afraid they'll do something foolish and put Hillary

If you've been paying attention, you'll know that Hillary has run as hard-boiled conservative while in the Senate. The problem Hillary has is that Republicans still have an irrational hatred of her, making it nearly impossible for her to become president. Which is why some people are pushing for her to stay out of that race, and instead shoot for Senate Majority Leader.

which might give someone like McCain a fighting shot at the nomination....a person who I actually DO have a lot of respect and admiration for...

Why? Since 2000 he's done nothing but hug Jerry Fallwell, Bush and others who stabbed him in the back in his presidential run. He's gone from the "straight talk express" to "say or do anything to get the support of the ultra-right wing."

Re:mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. If there were a viable 3rd party candidate out there that was moderate, I think they'd seriously threaten both sides, and force the Dems to come back from SOOO far to the right, and the Reps. from SOOOOOOOOO far to the right.

There. Fixed it for you.

Islamo-who?

[BlueStraggler]

No, the United States is perfectly happy with this sort of government in Saudi Arabia. Any Islamic state with these qualities that makes its oil and other strategic assets available to the United States would be correctly described as Islamolapdog. One that keeps its strategic assets for itself is correctly described as Islamowacko.

But, to be serious for a moment, the Baath party does have historical connections to classic European fascists, and could plausibly be given a "fascist" label. However, Baath-party states (namely Iraq and Syria) are also the most secular of the core Arab nations, so they don't really deserve the "Islamo-" prefix. It appears to be either a deliberate attempt to confuse the public, or an honest case of self-delusion, that they are conflating the Baathists with the fundamentalists. They are really two very different enemies, as proven by the fact that they are natural enemies themselves.

Way to many

[kahrytan]

  There is way to many Liberal /. users who watch Communist News Network.

This will not erode our freedoms. You can still do anything you want. But if you start talking about attacking America or it's people, then you loose all right to any freedoms including the right to live. I will shoot anyone who threatens this country - Muslim or American.

Back to my original point. You still have your freedom as long as you do not break federal, state and local laws. Criminals have limited rights.

Re:Way to many

[toddestan]

I will shoot anyone who threatens this country - Muslim or American.

All I have to say to this is, when are you going to start shooting some politicians?

Re:Way to many

[Cybrex]

I know some people who are both Muslim and American! If they "threaten this country" will they be shot twice?

Here's a more serious question. If it comes to a point where the foundations of liberty and freedom upon which this country is supposed to have been founded have ceased to exist completely, then according to the founding fathers it is the duty of the citizens to rise up and overthrow the government- by violence if necessary. If/when it comes to that, which side will he be shooting?

Re:Way to many

[Cybrex]

You can still do anything you want.
Really? Does that include having a phone conversation that includes the words "Taliban", "jihad", and "bomb" without fearing that some government goon is going to be listening in? Does that mean that I can still know- not suspect, but know that the government isn't arbitrarily tapping my phone?

When the government becomes the criminals, and when we as citizens no longer have any real procedural recourse, where do you stand on the possibility of people who are genuine patriots rising up to overthrow said government? I'm not saying that that's where we are, but I do think that we should perhaps begin asking ourselves this question.

And just to deflect accusations of liberal bias, I am not, have never voted for, nor ever been, a Democrat. I did used to be a staunch Republican, and still hold many traditional republican beliefs. Pity the Republican party no longer seems to.

Neocons are Wilsonian-Kennedy Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Also called Trotskyites and Jacobins.

As to the rest of it, it is time for the several State legislatures to recall and replace their senators.

Oh my god (page 13 lines 8-20

[extra the woos]

In any case before any court challenging the legality of a classified communications intelligence activity relating to a foreign threat, including an electronic surveillance program, or in which the legality of any such activity or program is in issue, if the Attorney Genral files an affidavit under oath that the case should be transferred to the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review because further proceedings in the originating court would harm the national security of the United States, the originating court shall transfer the case to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review for further proceedings under this subsection.

Holy shit dude! All the AG has to do is file an affidavit!!! You WILL NOT be able to question this program in court!!! HOLY SHIT. And yes, if you read on it says that upon completion of review etc etc the court shall transfer the case back, but FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH ITS OPINION. (And how long, if ever, do you think it'll take them to complete their review? hahahaha)

WTF?

[belvdabomination]

A Fascist Theocracy? I doubt it will be a theocracy, however, the taking of our rights I can fully agree is a poor decision. A socialist or communistic based system that will monitor and censor our knowledge and day to day rights I can see happening within the next 20 years or less. I think that someone has been watching a little to much "V for Vendetta" lately.

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constituition and Bill of Rights serve to enumerate the powers that the states give the federal government and no more. All other rights not specified are reserved by the states and, in turn, by the people. The Bill of Rights specifies various instances where the government has needed to act to work between two parties' claims to rights over a contested item/etc. Government thought it had a right to monitor people, and the people thought they had a right to privacy. Bill of Rights specified that the right to monitor did not fall to the Government and that the right to be secure in one's self was correct.

So long, democracy,

[Anonymous Coward]

We hardly knew ye..

Reminds me of this quote from Star Wars Episode 1

[kalislashdot]

viceroy: "Is that legal?"

palpatine: "I will make it legal!"

Most people DO sign up

[Sloppy]

I didn't sign up to be wiretapped, monitoried, surveiled, folded, spindled, or what have you.

Are you really sure about that?

Lots of people say they don't want this stuff. But on election day, 99% of them say they want government to address their concerns or solve their problems. Yes, 99%. You happen to be in the 1% that said, "The people, rather than the government, should take care of x"?

Government is all about the use of force. That's what government is, the only thing that it can do, and what it is good for. When you say you want government to do something, that means you want force. That sounds like folding and spindling to me, and doing it with a watchful eye is, of course, "necessary and proper."

Re:Most people DO sign up

[JesseMcDonald]

Lots of people say they don't want this stuff. But on election day, 99% of them say they want government to address their concerns or solve their problems. Yes, 99%.

I'm sorry, but when have 99% of the people in this country ever shown up to vote on election day? According to a government report on voting statistics in the 2004 elections, the highest percentage of voting-age citizens to turn up at the polls was 68% in 1992 (page 1) -- just over two-thirds of potential voters. At most your argument demonstrates that up to "99%" of those that vote recognize the power of government and want to influence that power for their own benefit. I say "up to" because a fair number of them might very well wish only to counter the influence of those who would try to enslave and rob them through new victimless-crime laws and higher taxes. Voting, by itself, does not and cannot demonstrate support for interventionalist policies.

People say that governments, taxation, etc. exist to correct externalities that supposedly cripple voluntary interaction, but what about the externalities inherent in voting? An individual's vote only counts for anything if a near-majority of other individuals vote the same way; the majority is represented completely and the minority not at all. All governments favor the majority, on whose aquiescence their continued existance depends, but only democracies draw such a sharp distinction between the ruling majority and the enslaved minorities. Luckily we do not live in a pure democracy -- the Constitution hasn't been completely nullified yet -- but it's only a matter of time before that last rights-equalizing barrier is overcome.

Government is all about the use of force. That's what government is, the only thing that it can do, and what it is good for. When you say you want government to do something, that means you want force.

I agree, which is why I oppose government influence in all its miriad forms, just as I would oppose any other aggressive individual or criminal organization.

Re:Most people DO sign up

[Sloppy]

I'm sorry, but when have 99% of the people in this country ever shown up to vote on election day?

I include non-voters in the 99% figure. Not going to the polls is just a perverted form of voting: deferring to the people who bother to show up. To quote Rush: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Re:Most people DO sign up

[JesseMcDonald]

Lots of people say they don't want this stuff. But on election day, 99% of them say they want government to address their concerns or solve their problems. Yes, 99%.

I'm sorry, but when have 99% of the people in this country ever shown up to vote on election day?

I include non-voters in the 99% figure. Not going to the polls is just a perverted form of voting: deferring to the people who bother to show up. To quote Rush: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Even if non-voting were somehow equivalent to voting (which is ridiculus BTW; it would make both voting and non-voting meaningless words), non-voting can hardly be considered equivalent to saying that "they want government to address their concerns or solve their problems." Choosing not to vote for a political candidate cannot imply support for the opposition, particularly where the goals of the opponent are nearly identical to those of the rejected candidate, so your objection doesn't help your argument at all; the petitioners for government involvement are still limited to no more than the two-thirds of the voting-age population that show up to vote.

There are plenty of reasons not to vote besides apathy, laziness, or support for a known majority position. Besides despair over lack of choices, the non-voter may be unable to justify the cost of voting (mainly time spent waiting, with all the attendant opportunity costs), or be in a position where their vote is relevant. All known-minority votes are wasted, since even taken together they can have no influence on the candidate chosen; most areas can be (and are) predicted with a fair degree of certainty well before the election. Excepting the rare contested region, the minority in each area might as well not vote at all. Even where the outcome is in doubt the anticipated cost to the average person of losing the election to an opponent (in new laws or tax increases) may not exceed the trouble of taking several hours out of a workday to show up to vote, particularly when similar costs would be present regardless of the party elected. Members of special-interest groups generally have much more to gain individually than the average person has to lose, as taxes are diffused over a large population whereas payouts are concentrated on a small fraction.

Alternately, the non-voter may be opposed to the entire democratic system (as I am), and thus have a moral objection to voting itself, in which case they cannot support their position except by not voting; voting against the system, even were there a candidate to represent that position, would undermine the position itself. A vote for a winning representative implies support and responsibility for whatever changes they might make while in office. As a libertarian, I will not, by voting or in any other way, force others to do as I desire, save to counter clear and immediate aggression against myself; I cannot appoint a representative to do so in my stead without abandoning my principles.

Bill Text: Reichstag Fire Decree

[scoobrs]

Here's the bill text, in case you were curious:

On the basis of Article 48 paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the German Reich, the following is ordered in defense against Communist state-endangering acts of violence: Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Empire are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [ habeas corpus ], freedom of opinion, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

Oops, was that Hitler's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933? Excuse me. I just googled for shameless abuses of power and that bill text reads the same anyway.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[n00854180t]

Good job being an unthinking drone and missing the entire point of every non-insane (by that I mean any by fascist nutjob neocons like yourself) comment in this article. Maybe you should run for President, you'd be the perfect puppet your neocon "gods" (by which I refer to turning the US into a theocracy and denying anyone that's not a religious fanatic their basic human rights).

Wrong.

[Toba82]

Wrong. They shouldn't have the ability to tap my phone without a warrant, regardless of who they think I am. As some people like to say, freedom isn't free. I'd rather there be an attack every few years than such a subversion of our freedoms and liberties - and yes, I mean that. People fought and died to gain freedom in the first place. People fought and died to protect our freedom and reintroduce it to other nations during WWII. Before you give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, put the risks in perspective.

Plus, this law not only permits what the NSA was already doing, but enables it to do more than it could before. This is more than just retroactively legalizing that inexcusable program.

And yes, I would categorize myself as a 'rabid Bush-bashing type'.

Vote Republican if you hate the USA

[mcmonkey]

By all means lets bring back the mindless liberals who incubated and nurtured Al Qaida.

I don't think it's a good sign that the current Republican party has gone so far out to the right that now Ronald Reagan looks like a "mindless liberal."

I'd like to vote Republican, but I believe in things like responsible government spending (not record deficits and debt), small government (not historic increases in public sector hiring), the checks and balances outlined in the constitution (not a congress that upon finding the president may be breaking the law decides to change the law), the protections mandated by the bill of rights (not warrantless wire taps on US citizens), honoring those who have made extreme sacrifices for my country (not painting as a coward a man who gave 3 limbs in service of this country; not using rumor and innuendo to defame another man who spent several years as a POW in service of this country; not killing, destroying evidence, and covering up in the case of a true role model who left a lucrative career as a professional athlete to serve this country).

I'd vote for a Republican if I could find one who policies I could agree with.

Re:but you shouldn't worry!

[jigjigga]

are you guys kidding me? Can you not sense the sarcasm and disdain towards it? I guess next time I will just say something insipidly obvious next time- sheesh.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[neoconspirator]

Thanks, I'll tell all the folks at synagogue this week that we'll have to be immigrating to Israel because you decreed the christians want their country back. Then I'll tell my friend Hafeez that he's won the war on America by default...

Seriously though, leftism ALWAYS tries to deem their opposition as insane, when in fact we neocons consider them to be a thinking people regardless of the dangerous ideas they espouse.

Nixon he isnt. Ivy League Powermonger, yes.

[sethstorm]

More accurate headline: "Senate Committee Republicans Vote Bush as Emperor Nixon II"

Unfortunately Nixon would have had a problem with Alito, Roberts, Bolton, Condolezza Rice (potentially due to Stanford's exclusivity), Elaine Chao (Secretary of [Offshoring] Labor, educated by Harvard), Samuel Bodman(Secretary of Energy, educated by MIT), Michael Chertoff (DHS, educated by Harvard), and potentially others. Miers would have been a candidate promoted in good faith and not as a decoy.

While that and some other things would have not changed, they would probably be ideologically near opposite from each other, political power and personal connections being their only solid links.

Re:Nixon he isnt. Ivy League Powermonger, yes.

[Doc Ruby]

Just because the "solid link" between Nixon and Bush Jr had a somewhat different agenda doesn't stop us from calling him Bush Sr. "Nixon II" is a perfectly appropriate title for the guy violating FISA from the same chair as the inspiration for FISA.

Blame the Republi... Oh, wait.

[illspirit]

The committee also passed two other surveillance measures, including one from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California)

The same Dianne Feinstein who said this about guns?

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

And people think we're crazy when we say gun-control advocates also advocate a police state. Wake up people. Neither the Republicans or Democrats care about your rights. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts, absolutely, and all that.

WATCH THIS VIDS

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch these Videos and you'll get a different view of what is happening in geopolitics today.

The Power of Nightmares Part 1-3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-100262600 6461047517&q=power+of+nightmares
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-793093356 5201168&q=power+of+nightmares
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-364909041 7189127240&q=power+of+nightmares

True Lies
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5984159564 14938996&q=true+lies

Alex Jones Terrorstorm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7860484536 86176230&q=terrorstorm

Please mod this post up for the Truth.

In other news...

[SeaFox]

Senate Committee Votes to Authorize Warrentless Wiretapping

In other news, citizen committee votes to replace Senators come next election day.

Re:In other news...

[Bassman59]

In other news, citizen committee votes to replace Senators come next election day.

One can only hope. So, all of you who voted for Bush: are you happy now?

'Waisted' votes have more per vote influence

[DerangedAlchemist]

Main parties are vote whores. If third party candidates start getting votes, they'll change policies. If you keep voting for them, why would they act any different? Throwing away votes is important. It shows a vote they could have really gotten unlike the apathetic masses.

Here in Canada, the Reform party appeared and started stealing votes from conservatives. They never won, but merged with the conservatives and pulled the party far to the right. Those 'wasted' votes have had far more influence on our policies than the 'football' team voters who aren't influenced by policy.

It's defined.

[Toba82]

The PATRIOT act defines it.

Been four years now...

[C4st13v4n14]

I moved to Europe four years ago to escape this very sort of fascism that the Bush Administration has become well-known for. I never really liked living in the States, but it still upsets me to hear about the degredation and loss of freedom my family and friends are now experiencing. I think it's time to turn my head and stop looking back, not even all the comments in the world like this one on Slashdot can do anything to stop it. All I do is get upset by thinking about it. I encourage any of you who feel the same to boycott America and start fresh somewhere else.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[n00854180t]

Because wanting a democratic republic to be turned into a police-state theocracy is perfectly rational and desirable. Riight. Also, I'm not on the "left" either, which is apparently the only tactic neocons are able to use: accusing anyone that disagrees with their ridiculous mantras to be a "leftist". Pathetic. Grow a brain, you pathetic schill.

Isn't it kinda sad this is marked as "Funny"? *nt*

[Gavin86]

nt = ninja turtles

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[neoconspirator]

Where does this 'theocracy' idea you claim come from? I don't recall that bit of legislation being passed or even suggested. As for my 'tactic' it must've worked because now I can make even a supposedly 'centrist' froth at the mouth with a simple reply.

Damn liberals and their "freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I totally agree. If you oppose the government's right to do whatever it wants without due process, then you're attacking America. That means you're a terrorist. The President has unlimited power and anyone who doesn't agree with that, or makes claims about that so-called "constitution", should be locked up forever without trial. That's what freedom means - freedom to agree with the President. Goddamn liberals and their constitution.

Sigh. Not again

[Sycraft-fu]

Eventually I'm going to either stop responding to these, or just write up and keep a standard response I can post. It saddens me to see Europeans with such strong opinions about the US and so little understanding of it. So I'll do a brief recap:

1) If you are forming your opinions of the US based off of what you read on Slashdot, please stop. Slashdot is a decent source of Linux tech news but, in case you haven't noticed, rather alarmist and given to poor reporting. If you want a real picture of what's going on you need to get your news from multiple sources and try to avoid sites that have open bias (which /. does, especially the comments).

2) Please take some time to learn about the legal system in the US. Your statement of "but the way he's amending the Constitution" shows that you don't have a very good understanding. Bush hasn't amended the constitution. The last time it was amended was 1992, the 27th amendment which states "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened." I think you are confusing the questions over the constitutionality of some of the laws that have been passed with actual constitutional changes. Also, the president doesn't amend the constitution, congress and then the states do.

3) Critically examine your own country and others you consider free to see what kind of big brother stuff goes on there. There's actually more of it than you probably think, some of it may even seem quite normal and sensible to you. None of that means you are anywhere near a dictatorship, but it's easy to lose sight of the fact that all countries grapple with freedom vs security issues. As a common example many European nations ban individual ownership of guns. Now you probably find this quite sensible, as guns can be used for criminal acts. However ask yourself: Doesn't it say something when a government trusts only it's agents with weapons, and it's citizens? The police and such are just people too, what makes them so special, other than being an arm of the government, that it's ok for them to have arms and not the public? I'm not looking for an answer here, I'm not advocating gun laws one way or another, just pointing out something that is often considered very normal and acceptable in terms of restricting liberty to increase security. They take away your right to have guns in order that less people might die from them. Perfectly reasonable, but slightly big brotherish none the less.

So look, I'm not going to say there aren't some disturbing trends going on in the US right now and I sincerely hope the 2006 and 2008 elections bring a real shakeup, but you need to get some perspective. If you read places like Slashdot that are all doom and gloom, sure it may seem like things are horrible. However that's because that's what they like to report. They report the bad news, they do a poor job of reporting, and they tend to be alarmist and exemplify it.

All I'd ask is that if you want to have any significant kinds of opinions on the US, that you take the time to research it and make sure they are informed opinions. "The sky is falling," type stuff isn't very useful. I personally have no opinion on the conditions in Holland. Why? Well I haven't researched them. I know a tiny bit from here and there, but not enough to form any kind of educated stance, so I haven't.

Re:Sigh. Not again

[Anonymous Coward]

Just two quick point before I go to bed.

-The reason it is so disappointing that the US is going in the direction it is is just because, like the GP said, the US were seen as a leading country when it comes to democracy and freedom. I have lived for four years in the US, and I came to admire and respect the wisdom of the founding fathers when they made the constitution. It is really sad when you see someone you admired fall so easily for the oldest trick in the book (we need to take away your freedom so you can be safe). And yes, there are many countries in Europe which are more free than the US (Holland is definately one of them).

-We (at least I) do not at all get my information from Slashdot. I watch national and international news (norwegian and BBC) and read International papers. I have even watched american news. Unfortunately, most newssources in the US is extremely biased and untrustworthy. CNN is what I mostly get here, and it is just too sad to even call it news. I think this is the most important problem the US faces - that the media is way too corporate, and there is not much understanding of journalistic integrity or the importance of media as the fourth estate. Democracy does not function without free and independent media.

When did the military (NSA) need warrants?

[thule]

When in the history US war did the military require a warrant to do anything? The NSA is military. It is not law enforcement. The FBI is law enforcement and therefore continues to request FISA warrants when the NSA gives them a lead. In fact is was reported (WashPost or NYT) that the FBI was complaining about all the leads they had to check out. it was slowing down the FISA process.

I really do not see anything that has changed. Remember Echelon? Did that project get FISA warrants?

Re:When did the military (NSA) need warrants?

[bhima]

I'm not sure the NSA is under pentagon oversight

Re:When did the military (NSA) need warrants?

[thule]

Wikipedia:

"The National Security Agency / Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) is believed to be the largest United States government intelligence gathering agency. It is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and for the security of U.S. government communications against similar agencies elsewhere. Officially established on November 4, 1952, the NSA is a component of the Department of Defense and has always been directed by a three-star flag or general officer. NSA is a key component of the United States Intelligence Community headed by the Director of National Intelligence."

So the NSA is military. Can you point to me when the military needs to go to domestic courts to do anything related to the operation of war?

The whole question is wrong. It's not whether the NSA can spy. That is what is what created to do. The question is can they pass intelligence to the FBI. To me, that answer should be a resounding YES!

Because maybe it isn't?

[thule]

Again, I ask, when did the military (NSA) require warrants? If some one can point out when the NSA operated this way, I would like to know. Echelon certainly didn't get warrants for what the project. This whole thing is a red herring. The real discussion should be whether the NSA should pass leads to the FBI. This traditionally has been restricted, but after 9/11 that wall was removed.

Remeber NSA is military. FBI is justice department. Different branches of government.

NSA is military (Re:Confused)

[thule]

NSA is military, not law enforcement. When did they ever get warrants? The FBI is law enforcement and requires warrants to collect certain types of evidence.

Are you still confused?

Facts

[amightywind]

Err wasn't it bush senior who supported ossama bin laden in the russian-afghanistan war? so who's really who "incubated and nurtured Al Qaida"?

Facts: Clinton, Warren, Albright, Cohen presided over:

• Kobhar Towers attack
• USS Cole attack
• Kenya/Tanzania embassy attacks
• Trade Center I
• Numerous world wide Al Qaida attacks on commercial aircraft
• Albright clinking glasses with Kim Jong Il
• Chickened out on numerous opportunities to assassinate Bin Laden

I don't see how this is propaganda.

Re:Reason

[Tongo]

Be a patriot: Murder a Republican.

Yea, you are the epitome of reasoned, logical though. Shut the fuck up and use your brain for once.

I choose the more inept of too evils.

[rsilvergun]

The way I see it, Democrates aren't any less evil, they're just not as good at it, and I really think that's the best we can hope for.

I seem to have missed something...

[MaerD]

Looking over the FA and even the post, I kinda noticed that this is a senate commitee that decided "Sure, we can vote on this bill, and while we're at it, we'll approve a bill taking the exact opposite position". The general reaction here (and elsewhere) seems to be "OMG! They passed the bill! Wiretaps without a warrant are now legal!". Nothing of the sort has happened (yet), instead of decrying our decaying rights or which party is worse, now is the time to actually *DO* something and write your congress-critter to vote for the "Warrantless Wiretaps are illegal" bill, and vote down the one that says it's ok.

Enough letters and they'll get the idea that voting for this is political suicide.. The commitee is just letting the controversy get to the floor.

Heck, even if a bill like this did get passed, how far do you think it would get in the courts? I bet it would get smacked down pretty quickly.

What, do you think revolutions are "quaint"?

[natoochtoniket]

Do you understand that warrantless searches were one of the things the Revolutionaries were pissed off about when they started the Revolution in the first place??? Do you know ANY of the history behind WHY we require warrants?

The American Revolution was not the first revolution in history, nor was it the last. The people of various nations have revolted against tyranical government many times. I expect there will eventually be another revolution in the United States. The "Republican" party that presently holds power in the USA seems to want that to happen sooner rather than later.

We should also have learned another lesson from history. A tyranical government cannot successfully control the entire population. If an person becomes mad enough, he or she may do some act of violence against the government. If a sufficient number of people do so, the government cannot stand. That's what revolutions are made of -- just a number of people who decide that they can no longer tolerate the tyrannical government.

The beauty of democratic elections is that a goverment can be thrown out of power without bloodshed. As long as the elections are honest and fair, and each government yeilds power to the next elected government, then a bloody revolution is not necessary.

But, if the election is not honest and fair, then a bloody revolution becomes necessary.

This, more than anything else, is what worries me about our paperless "voting" systems. I believe that our recent elections have not been honest or fair. There is no prospect that the people in power will voluntarily make the elections honest and fair, because they would lose power by doing so. If a large number of people realize that their votes are not really being counted, they may actually start the next revolution.

The only way to avoid bloody revolution is to make the election process completely transparant, so everyone can watch the counting, and everyone can see that the process really is honest and fair.

The Fourth Ammendment

[TheConfusedOne]

does not mean what you think it does.

It's not "thou shalt not search without a warrant", period, full stop.

No, it has caveats including "reasonable search", "expectation of privacy", and a host of others that keep Constitutional lawyers quite busy arguing over the nuances.

I think you'll find that the President is Commander in Chief 24x7x365 and part of that job is keeping the country safe which means gathering intelligence.

Re:The Fourth Ammendment

[AddictedToBeef]

IANAL, but I don't believe I agree with your interpretation of the amendment. Specifically, I'm referring to this part: "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". This seems to imply that all searches should require warrants - if they wanted to allow warrantless searches, why bother with requirements for a warrant in the first place? Allowances for warrantless searches are a product of court decisions (which I agree with for the most part), not the Constitution itself.

Intelligence gathering is fine, but I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that gives the president the power to violate other portions of the Constitution while doing it.

Re:The Fourth Ammendment

[Scudsucker]

It's not "thou shalt not search without a warrant", period, full stop.

With very few exceptions (customs, life or death situations), yes, it does.

I think you'll find that the President is Commander in Chief 24x7x365 and part of that job is keeping the country safe which means gathering intelligence.

And saying he needs warrantless wiretaps in order to do so is a bald-faced lie. In the decades that the FISA court has been around, they've aproved thousands of warrants...and denied four.

does not mean what you think it does.

Speak for yourself, buddy.

Re:The Fourth Ammendment

[EllisDees]

>does not mean what you think it does.
>
>It's not "thou shalt not search without a warrant", period, full stop.

Actually, that is exactly what it means. Exceptions to the rule have been created by the Judicial branch, and yes, most of them are reasonable exceptions, but there is nothing to allow wholesale spying on American citizens by the president whether 'at war' or not.

Arrest them now!

[Deadplant]

Dear Americans, your leaders are deliberately violating your highest laws over and over again. I have to ask, Has the rule of law been suspended in the U.S.A.? Seriously. I don't understand why arrests are not being made. If your law enforcement and judicial systems are unable to make the necessary arrests what will happen? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, your congressmen and senators are violating your constitution with impunity. Is it the will of the people that your laws not apply to them?

What changes can be made to your institutions to ensure the even and consistent application of the law?
Is it even possible at this point?

Your government has silently suspended your constition. What are you going to do about it?
Do enough of you have the courage to stand up and fight for The Constitution of the United States of America?

Re:Arrest them now!

[hcob$]

Your government has silently suspended your constition. What are you going to do about it?

Go read the Constitituion. Go read the pdf posted. This has nothing to do with spying on internal matters. This is only about spying on international traffic. If this was used to spy on two american citizens who were in the USA, THEN it would be suspending the Constitution.

Personally, I don't mind the USA eavesdropping on ALL international calls. Just as they don't start tapping domestic ones.

Re:Reason

[Darby]

Yea, you are the epitome of reasoned, logical though. Shut the fuck up and use your brain for once.

When a group of people have actively chosen to dedicate themselves to destroying my freedom and to promoting the torture and murder of innocent (prove they aren't, Sparky) people in my name and with my money.
When they do this based solely upon lies and deceit, and they actively support and justify their treasonous murderous actions based on the same lies and deceit, then choosing to defend myself from the predations of these diseases sociopathic monsters is using my brain, Sparky.

What's your proposal? Appease these treasonous cowardly terrorists?
Right, you're reallly bright there, Sparky. A true paragon of rational thought you are.

Perhaps it's you that should STFU you cowardly ignorant dipshit.

Re:You seem to be confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you mispoke but the way you worded that it sounds like you are accusing Congress and the FCC of being fascist. Boadcasting false propoganda and rewriting history while attacking those you disagree with in the name of national security is the heart of fascism. Demanding that ABC NOT engage in this fasist behavior must therefore NOT be fascist.

And the FCC licenses the use of the public airways for the purpose of disceminating the TRUTH for the public good. It is therefore only right that it revoke that license from those who would abuse the public trust and attempt to grossly distort the truth.

FUD - I think

[thorkyl]

the way i read the "Discussion"

This is reauthorizing somthing that has been in place from 1978

They are just "formalizing" what they have been doing for 28 years

SPECTOR

[Anonymous Coward]

It figures Sen. Arlen Spect[o]r would be involved. Where's James Bond when we need him?

WHAT?!?

[crhylove]

Ok, just because some secret sub committee may or may not review something does not mean that it is OK for ANYONE in the government to completely suspend the fourth amendment.

I mean, when the Nazis burned down the Reichstag, I don't think the people on the sidelines saying "It's just a stupid building" were in any way validated by history.

Please mod the parent down!!

rhY

YAY VOTE!

[crhylove]

There's one small problem with your idea:

THEY DON'T COUNT OUR VOTES.

I shouldn't have to remind anybody here about Ohio, Florida, or the fact that our exit polls haven't matched for a WHILE now. So, if the hollow act of voting in a society that doesn't count votes does something for you, by all means.

The time to vote is over. It's now time to get your gun and pray.

I for one will stay home and play tetris this election. At least I KNOW the controls on that computer game aren't rigged.

rhY

Oh really? Then where did I get this card?

[anondescriptname]

My card

Hmmm?

Can someone at least READ the PDF then comment...

[peterpressure]

I mean please, all of you are talking abotu elections and polling etc.... Not even reading the PDF...
first off, if you read it, which i just finished, It clearly states that there is OVERSIGHT, it also clearly states a WARRANT IS needed unless it is in communications with FOREIGN power, then clearly points to the part of the FISA law from 78 which outlines what a FOREIGN power is. I know it doesnt explain what a terrorist is, well frankly, it doesnt need to since it is talkign about FOREIGN powers, not terrorists... Can we start talkign about the BILL please, and not polling politics or elections.... STICK TO THE TOPIC... also the original wording of this post is extremely biased and not tellign the truth when it states no oversight....

Do you get ALL your news form FOX?

[doublem]

You continue to miss the point and argue against a straw man.

This isn't about if the wiretaps should be taking place. No one disagrees with wiretaps to listen to the conversations of potential terrorists.

This is about oversight. This is about accountability. This is about the simple process of getting a damn warrant, something they can do AFTER the wiretap is in place.

The "But, but we need to spy on the terrorists!" line is old, tired and pathetic. Of COURSE we need to spy on th terrorists. No one is trying to block that. We just want the government to get a damn warrant.

As of the "This is only overseas calls anyway" argument, that too is bunk. There are US citizens involved in a lot of the calls we know have been monitored, and we only have the administration's word that They're only spying on "terrorists." Even if you set aside suspicions about the administration's honesty, it's clear the NSA and similar organizations just aren't good enough at processing all that data to have clue one about who is and is not a terrorist.

Do you REALLY trust the government so much, that you're willing to cede all accountability, to let them do whatever they want without a paper trail? I'm sorry, but history has shown that human beings abuse that kind of power once they get it, and they never let it go.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[Dragon Bait]

Good job being an unthinking drone

Have you ever studied the life of Mohammad? Have you ever studied the butchery, slavery, rape that he did and condoned? Perhaps "unthinking drone" applies more to those who are ignorant of history.

In case it matters, I voted against W both times. I've never bought into "the enemy of my enemy" concept. The Islamofacists may be redundant, but it is appropriate nomenclature.

Re:Reason

[Zarquon42]

What you have said in this post is disgusting. I have seen some pretty bad things said on /. but this is by far the worst (and to see that you have been modded up for it hurts my faith in humanity). I feel sorry for you that you have this increadible burden of hatred for approximately half of the country, that you would generalize all of them to fit this description. The worst part is that there is no good way to respond to it, it is like trying to convince a racist of their error. When the hatred runs this deeply it is rare for any logic to make any difference.

I'm sorry, you missed the point

[thule]

Since when did the NSA ever need a warrant? Please answer that question first. Now think about it a second. The NSA is an arm of the DoD, the military. When did the military go get a warrant to raid a village? They don't, because it is war. It is against an enemy.

Now think about this. The FBI has mentioned how busy they have been following leads to supposed terror cohorts (search NYT and WaPost articles). They mentioned having to get FISA warrants. Wow! Oversight! Gee! The FBI has to get a warrant to follow up on a NSA lead. Are you following me on this? The NSA does not need a warrant, but the FBI does. The FBI has to follow the rules of due process.

See the differences? Now lets have a discussion about how this should or shouldn't work. If you are saying the rules should now change and the NSA should now be required to get warrants, ok, fine. But this is not traditionally how it worked. The only change is that before the NSA should get intelligence on a US Person cohorting with a enemy and keep it secret! How stupid is that?

Re:I'm sorry, you missed the point

[StikyPad]

The 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure applies to all US Citizens (and legal residents, visitors, etc). The State is required to obtain a warrant. Not "law enforcement," not "the military," not "branch X that didn't exist when the Constitution was written," but THE STATE AS A WHOLE. There are exceptions for clear and present dangers and such, but the Constitution does not specify "law enforcement" as the only department subject to the burden of obtaining a warrant. The NSA is, the last time I checked, part of the US Government, so unless you have some enlightening piece of information that the rest of us don't, they're still subject to the US Constitution, which means they need a warrant.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Bush admitted as much when "he insisted that any government wiretap required a court order."

By that definition they're not the only fascists

[Mydron]

Actually, a good portion of the christian fundamentalists should be considered fascists. Their stated goal is often times to have a christian government (see abortion), like the United States of America. I would argue that this is definately a fascist government. Fascists typically are authoritarian (warrentless wiretaps? torture? signing statements? ), highly nationalistic (us vs. them, with us or against us, axis of evil, immigration), and anti-communist (duh)

Re:Reason

[pi_rules]

There, there, Skippy.

The bad man will go away on Janurary 20, 2009.

But a definition for "terrorism" is ...

[climbing]

The US Dept of Defense has a very clear definiton of "terrorism." Unfortunately they seem to be really good at the practice itself, by their own defintion. Notice the policy part protects the DoD not the citizens.

DoD DEFINITION: The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or try to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.(DoD O-2000.12-H)

DoD POLICY: "To protect DoD personnel and their families, facilities, and other material resources from terrorist acts."(DoD O-2000.12-H)\

When you need a FISA warrant

[doublem]

You might want to look up FISA. The moment the wiretap involves citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, or corporations incorporated in the US, a warrant requirement is invoked.

The Bush Administration is in trouble for two reasons.

First, there are wiretaps that were placed, that meet the criteria for a FISA warrant. These warrants were never procured.

Second, in the AT&T information gathering, data about American Citizens was sent to the NSA without a warrant.

If the law had been followed and warrants procured, none of this would have been an issue. People would have been pissed about the AT&T debacle, but at least it would have been legal if ominous.

The key piece of information here, is that US Citizens were among the parties being spied upon, yet no warrant was procured.

So yes, there are times when even the NSA needs to get a warrant, and they've been ignoring that requirement.

Re:When you need a FISA warrant

[vanyel]

I'm puzzled about the comment in the bill that just before 9/11 they tried to get a warrant and couldn't. I have a hard time believing that.

Also, I want to see a time limit on the secrecy --- having a secret court issue warrants is no help if it has no oversight. Even a few congresspeople is not much. Their activities need to be made public in a reasonable amount of time in order to prevent eventual abuse.

Re:When you need a FISA warrant

[thule]

I'm puzzled about the comment in the bill that just before 9/11 they tried to get a warrant and couldn't. I have a hard time believing that.

They may be referring to the famous notebook incident where law enforcement didn't meet the bar to inspect the data contained on the future 9/11 participant's notebook. The NSA had more information that would have been able to meet the bar, but couldn't share this information with the FBI. The NSA is not a law enforcement organization, so they couldn't prosecute the guy. I think this is all covered in the 9/11 report.

Simple Explanation

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

In 2000, Rove had a bright idea, and the Republican get-out-the-vote campaign focused on getting people to vote absentee early, so they'd be "locked in". Both parties had get-out-the-vote campaigns, but the results of the Republican one didn't show up in exit polls because those people didn't GO to the polls.

I don't know whether this strategy change explains all the discrepancies, but it could. No illegal vote manipulation was NECESSARY to cause the results... just Neo-Cons. So why do people insist tampering must have occurred anyway, when there's a simpler explanation that doesn't involve a Widely Kept Secret?

Wow.

[crhylove]

That is such a shitty and calloused way to look at the charred remains of phosphorous burned women and children in third world countries that were probably starving already.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism was invented by the ITALIAN Mussolini.
Was he Muslim???

"The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power"
--Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Fascist Dictator of Italy
(14,000 hits on Google for this quotation)

This sounds more like the neocons (oil company connections, wars to secure Middle Eastern oil supplies, defence industry connections, multi-billion dollar reconstruction contracts after the wars etc...) than Islam.

"Islamofascist" is just a newspeak term cooked up for propaganda purposes. Only the ignorant accept this term.

Cogent point, but...

[crhylove]

"Islamofascist" is just the negative form of "Christofascist", which apparently is a good thing since we keep voting them in. Oh yeah, never mind, they don't count our votes. Silly rabbit! Democracy's for kids!

Re:You seem to be confused

[bobbuck]

"And the FCC licenses the use of the public airways for the purpose of disceminating (sic) the TRUTH for the public good. It is therefore only right that it revoke that license from those who would abuse the public trust and attempt to grossly distort the truth."

Yes, as long as the government decides what the TRUTH is everything will be fine.

Sincerely,

The Government

Too vague.

[crhylove]

I'm going with "Christofascist". Just like "Islamofascist" but with an even more dated religious world view.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[hamburger lady]

Apparently not big enough at the time for a previous administration to do anything except have feel-good diplomatic talks

well, the previous administration gave us 'don't ask, don't tell' and DoMA.

Hey, you forgot somebody!

[crhylove]

You forgot Paul Wellstone. What ever happened to that guy anyway?

Read the proposed bill. Little mention of the NSA

[thule]

Do you think it was legal during WWII to have people's mail they were receiving from a foreign country to be opened? This did happen. I would like to know what legal repercussion the president faced for doing this during WWII. It would seem that the NSA monitoring phone calls would fall under the same authority that mail was opened during WWII.

See the discussion at http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2006/01/bus hs_spy_progr.html

Remember the NSA is operating under the military. They are not trying to build a case against you. That is up to the FBI. It seems to me that is how they got away with the Echelon project during the 90's.

Further evidence of this is in the bill referenced in the story we are discussing. The bill makes little mention of the NSA. It mainly mentions the Attorney General (Justice Department) working with the President. I don't think it mentions the DoD at all. I am no lawyer, but the bill seems to be written in the context of the justice system and not the military. I do not think this is an accident.

The war on kiddie porn.

[crhylove]

The war on kiddie porn is NOT a war to protect children. It is a war to end civil liberty, make no mistake about it. Granted there are a salient number of nut jobs out there that like fondling undeveloped humans, but they are still a vast minority, and in my opinion, no sphincter (mine OR a kids) is as important as all of our civil liberties.

I'm going to make T-shirts:

PUT ME IN JAIL

CIVIL LIBERTY > MY SPHINCTER

There is another choice

[WindBourne]

Joel Hefly (and a number of senators) pushed the idea that lobbyists should be done away with by making all of a politicians and candidates money come from the feds (or states for state level). The general idea is to not allow corporate lobbying and in return, for an election, a candidate must obtain some 5% of the voters to sign up for them. Once that occurs, the politician will be given X amount of dollars for the election to spend how they see fit . In addition, the candidates must agree to so many debates of all the candidates. That would help to break the 2 party issue as well as the high corruption that we observe.

Sadly, even the dems seemed to shoot this idea down. I personally think that this must be a grassroot effort starting at a state level to make this happen.

Re:There is another choice

[Shajenko42]

The First Amendment would likely shoot this down. There's too much intermingling of speech and money.

Parties and the Constitution

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>The two-party system exists because it is implicit to our Constitution. Period. If you don't get past this fact we are lost.

That's not a fact, that's not even mistaken, it is diametrically opposite to the truth.

The people who wrote our Constitution had watched party politics in England and hated it. They thought political parties were dangerous. They wanted people to vote for candidates, not parties. George Washington warned against "party spirit" in his farewell address.

Re:Parties and the Constitution

[DeadPrez]

Guess what? I don't disagree at all. _Certain_ founders certainly wanted to avoid politicians becoming "men of faction". They certainly didn't ban parties textually despite this rhetoric.

I think we can safely assume they failed in this desire despite their good intentions. Can we adjust to that reality now? Parties are here to stay. Besides, historical commentary from 18th century don't really help our current situation.

There is how it ought to be and how it is. I don't blame you and I certainly don't blame Mr. Washington but parties...exist. Again, I fear you may not understand the meaning of the word 'implict'.

Re:Parties and the Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, so? OK, parties are here to stay, that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to get a true democracy going rather than our current one-party system.

          Having parties does not mean having our current, crappy two-party system. I'm with these guys that essentially view this as a one-party system. Some religious nutters have really done a number on the Republicans, but main-line non-religious Republicans and Democrats have nearly identical political views, if you compare them to a true full political spectrum. I'm a libertarian; in a functional democracy, partys will form strategic coalitions at times, but there's like 5+ "main" political partys. If things were working properly these religious radicals would have put Bush etc. up under there own party.

Re:Parties and the Constitution

[DeadPrez]

I'll also add the first amendment is a little more than "implict" in this area because in explicitly guarantees freedom of [political] association.

And your vote will be counted by Diebold...

[HiThere]

Surely you can trust Diebold. It takes a non-tech 60 year old woman $15 and 5 minutes to alter the counts...without breaking the seals.

Don't blame 3rd parties!

[OzPhIsH]

Screw you pal! If both the Republicans along with Democrats opened up the political process to 3rd parties more and allowed them in on the big debates, instead of artificially walling off their views from the populace, 3rd parties wouldn't be in such a pickle. People won't vote 3rd party on a local level because, in this day and age, local party politics and politicians are viewed in the context of the overall national image set forth by the parties. The Libertarians and Greens are PREVENTED from having such a national image by the "Bipartison Commision on Presidential Debates," whose sole purpose is to KEEP 3rd parties out of the system and consolidate and keep power within the current status quo, i.e. Dems and Repubs. Blame yourself for continueing to support a system that resulted in such shitty candidates as Bush in the first place. Blame your OWN shitty party for not garnering enough political talent nor enough votes to beat the OTHER shitty guy. But Christ, blaming the 3rd parties, which essentially have NO influence on national politics, rules, regulations, and presentation of elections is completly asinine, and we will continues to have these problems until people STOP voting for the large parties, not by continuing to do so!

Re:Don't blame 3rd parties!

[pixelpusher220]

My point is that if you don't like the rules (and I don't like the 2 party lock-in, gerrymandering crap that goes on either) THEN VOTE IN HOUSE MEMBERS TO CHANGE THE RULES!

I'm simply saying that voting for a 3rd party *presidential* candidate has no hope of getting anything accomplished short of your own 'feel good about myself' morals. Start with the grass roots and you'll get the chance to make the changes you want.

I've voted independant/3rd party when that person had a legitamite chance of winning, but if they are polling in the 1-2% range, face facts, they can't win.

Re:By that definition they're not the only fascist

[AndersOSU]

Hey, I'm not arguing that the US isn't doesn't have fascist elements.

I think it would be hard to maintain that the US is fascist however - mostly by pointing at the right to vote (and the two-party system), social security, public education etc. Also warrentless wiretaps, horrible as they may be, do not indicate an authoritarian regime. Neither do signing statements - even if they are a bastardization of the process.

While christian fundamentalists may have fascist agendas, I don't think you could honestly call the US a christian government. (see abortions - which are legal in case you were confused BTW) Examine your (poor) analogy for a second. I said islam is to Iran, you retort christian is to US. If you don't think that is a strech I fear your knee jerk reactionism may be terminal...

Personally I try not to get too hung up on the connotation of the word. I'm just saying that Islamofascist isn't necessarily inacurate.

Re:Reason

[BalanceOfJudgement]

The bad man will go away on Janurary 20, 2009.

I would love to remember that as consolation.

However, I have the sinking feeling we're going to see Cheney in the White House.

Accountability is the ONLY issue

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

President Bush said in one speech that the amended FISA gave him the eavesdropping power he needed. "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists".

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court granted warrants freely, so much so that one intern there was shocked.

The only thing this administration has changed is that now there's no judge who knows what's happening. There is now nothing except the administration's ethics to stop them from bugging Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel. Or a journalist who publishes evidence of wrongdoing.

Why are they so afraid to have a judge know what they're doing?

You must live in my district!

[gettingbraver]

And what do we do when "individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad" are not on the ballot?

Am faced w/exactly that situation--do I vote for who claims to be the lesser of 2 evils, even though the candidate has every intention of screwing people over? (Heard 2 speeches and I know bullshit when I hear it.) Do I vote 3rd party? Do I not vote out of sheer disgust? Or do I write in my own name and get a few friends to do the same? (To see how the tabulating software really totals the vote.)

And please don't say "Run for office." This district is so fucked up (even at the local level) that is completely impractical.

General Michael Hayden has forgotten

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Former NSA director and current CIA executive Michael Hayden doesn't know about probable cause. And he took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

OT note for HamLad

[RevAaron]

Hey HAMLAD! I've a tip for you.

You can do a really realistic rendition of Hamburger Lady by TG (that is your namesake, yes?) by singing hamburger lady... and doing some stuff with your hands in front of your mouth. It is hard to describe, but the pay off is to the MAX when you figure it out.

OK, i'm out. peace!

Not exactly a Republican/Democrat thing

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

It was Ronald Reagan's deputy attorney general Bruce Fein who said "Congress should insist the President cease the spying unless or until a proper statute is enacted or face impeachment".

Lyndon Johnson did plenty of domestic spying. Senator Ervin was already investigating that when Nixon came into office (and he expected Nixon, being of a different party, to help with the investigation). More history of wiretapping in my journal.

There's a tight-knit political machine running the Republican Party now (do you think Bush got through the primaries on a groundswell of popular support, or maybe because of his spellbinding public speaking? The RNC chose him and forced everyone taking their money to endorse him). In my state there's a "Representative" who follows RNC orders on 93% of his votes.

Still, until the Republican Party reforms itself it needs to be put out of power.

Re:Not exactly a Republican/Democrat thing

[Doc Ruby]

Reagan and Johnson are dead and gone.

Today's vote that we're discussing was the Republican majority of the committee voting to send a new law written by Republican Senator Specter for perpetuated amnesty for Republican president Bush to a Republican majority Senate, which will be joined by a Republican majority House, unless Democrats and the people can rein them in.

The Democrats were ignored at every step. The Democratic majority passed the FISA in 1978, though they were joined by Republicans in writing, committee ratifying and passing it, but to restrict a Democratic president, Carter. Clinton was responsible for tightening the FISA to also restrict physical searches, and the Republican Congress complied. The Democratic minority today tried to stop Specter from throwing out what we learned about imperial presidency, but was stopped. Next up Democrats will try to stop this criminal Act, and likely be ignored.

Our system shares power quite a bit, so it's hard to place blame on any one person/group. But with today's Republican control, nearly totally exclusive of any bipartisan cooperation or concessions, it's perfectly clear that the Republican Party is to blame. That doesn't mean Reagan or Lincoln are to blame, or that FDR didn't send Japanese people to interment camps, or any other ways to broaden the scope to ignore the reality. The reality that Republicans are turning the presidency into a "unitary executive", because they believe they'll keep it in their Republican Party indefinitely, or that they can change the law again when someone out of their club is the president.

Re:Read the proposed bill. Little mention of the N

[doublem]

You can bring up all the pre FISA examples you want. None of it changes the fact that, under current law, the NSA wiretaps and the AT&T data collection were both illegal. WWII isn't really relevant, because it was long before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

I'm puzzled at your insistence that the NSA doesn't need wiretaps, as FISA specifically outlines when they do and do not need wiretaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_ Surveillance_Act

The article above doesn't discuss the NSA specifically, but one of the points of the debate is that the warrant restrictions in FISA apply to the NSA.

You can read more about the controversy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surve illance_controversy

"Under the program, the NSA conducts surveillance on phone calls placed between a party in the United States and a party in a foreign country, without FISA court authorization, which critics assert (and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged[5]) is outlawed by the text of FISA"

I recommend doing some research. If you want to defend the Bush administration, you really should be using accurate information. The White House itself admits that what they did is outlawed by FISA. Bush's contention is that as President, he should have more power than FISA grants.

The really amusing thing is, most of the Republicans in office now were there during the Clinton administration, and they most of them cried bloody murder when Clinton wanted to amend FISA so the warrants could be procured up to 72 hours after the wiretap was placed.

To be blunt, I was pretty pissed at that move myself, as it was a nasty power grab that should not have been permitted to stand.

All About God Ministries, Inc.

[Bimo_Dude]

allaboutpopularissues.org, huh? Do you really think that people should take their opinions as fact? That the owners of this domain are not biased? Looks like a religious outfit, to me (see WHOIS, below).

Domain ID:D104020501-LROR
Domain Name:ALLABOUTPOPULARISSUES.ORG
Created On:24-Feb-2004 16:41:17 UTC
Last Updated On:27-Aug-2006 20:09:17 UTC
Expiration Date:24-Feb-2007 16:41:17 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Go Daddy Software, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-05567663
Registrant Name:Greg Outlaw
Registrant Organization:All About God Ministries, Inc.
Registrant Street1:7150 Campus Drive
Registrant Street2:Ste. 320
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Colorado Springs
Registrant State/Province:Colorado
Registrant Postal Code:80920
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7198842246
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.7198842247
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:greg@allaboutgod.com
Admin ID:GODA-25567663
Admin Name:Jim Montgomery
Admin Street1:7150 Campus Drive
Admin Street2:Suite 320
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Colorado Spsrings
Admin State/Province:Colorado
Admin Postal Code:80919
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.7198842246
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.7198842247
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:jim@allaboutgod.com
Tech ID:GODA-15567663
Tech Name:Jim Montgomery
Tech Street1:7150 Campus Drive
Tech Street2:suite 320
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Colorado Springs
Tech State/Province:Colorado
Tech Postal Code:80919
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.7198842246
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.7198842247
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:jim@allaboutgod.com
Name Server:NS2.RACKSPACE.COM
Name Server:NS.RACKSPACE.COM

From Michael Savage, is where...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I agree, that by strict definition, "-fascist" does not apply here.

BWilde

Me? I have nothing to hide...

[Bimo_Dude]

...says Mr(s). AC

head asplodes!

Re:Reason

[Darby]

What you have said in this post is disgusting.

So let me see if I understand your wildly spinning moral compass:

Torturing and murdering innocent people is fine. Supporting those who torture and murder innocent people is fine.
Viciously attacking those who object to it is A OK.

Pointing out those who allow and defend torturing and murdering innocent people and expecting them to take responsibility for their actions is disgusting.

Well, I have to say that I am damn proud to have a person such as yourself consider me disgusting. It shows that I'm on the right track.

I feel sorry for you that you have this increadible burden of hatred for approximately half of the country, that you would generalize all of them to fit this description.

I generally feel dislike for those who are *actively* trying to destroy my rights. I'm saddened that you feel that I should bend over and take it up the ass (and I suppose I should say "thank you" as well).
I didn't generalise at all.

Their elected representatives are doing this. They put them in power. They still support them knowing their crimes.

They are responsible. Their refusal to take responsibility for their own actions is the cause of our current situation.

No generalization needed. It's a simple definition. Republicans are those who support the Republican party.
By supporting the party you support the party's actions.

The worst part is that there is no good way to respond to it, it is like trying to convince a racist of their error.

No, your position would be like trying to convince a black man that the KKK is good. "Sure, they'll lynch you given a chance and have many times recently lynched others who have done nothing wrong, but they're really good people"

Sorry, but that's complete crap and it is your argument.

When the hatred runs this deeply it is rare for any logic to make any difference.

Hardly. I arrived at my position purely through logic.
When somebody *is* actively trying to destroy your rights and freedoms, then if you like those you had damn well better step up to them. Sorry, but pacifying terrorists isn't a logical alternative.
Try again Sparky.
This time how about you actually try using logic or facts or...well anything other than sickeningly twisted Orwellian moralizing.

Re:Reason

[Darby]

The bad man will go away on Janurary 20, 2009.

Oh yeah? Will the Bill of Rights magically regenerate before or after the magic unicorns come down to make everything happy?

more info on bill

[JRSiebz]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN024 53:

Re:more info on bill

[JRSiebz]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN024 53:
oops, for some reason the parser defaultly took the last colon out of the link
Arlen Specter [R, PA] and Chuck Hagel [R, NE] are responsible... is it November yet?

Re:Read the proposed bill. Little mention of the N

[thule]

This is good. Now we are getting to the meat of the matter. This has been a good exchange, better than some of the discussions I have seen.

I am not a total defender of the administration, I just want a good discussion of the principles.

You point out the meat of the issue. Did congress try to take away executive branch powers with FISA? Did the president at the time have the right to give them up?

When this issue first came up I was against what the administration was doing. Now I am in the middle. It seems to me that there is historical precedent for warrant-less searches. For example, the customs agents do this every day when people enter the country. WWII we had letters opened and even censored.

I am still a little unsure of how much power the president should have with regards to this issue. FISA came out of people worrying about an abuse of power. At the same time, should there be a law that tries to prevent an abuse of power, but violates the constitution or should the president have the powers, but be impeached if the powers are abused? It seems to me that this is what the discussion should really be about. If the powers should be limited, then the constitution should be amended.

oh fuck off

[Ender Ryan]

So, up until now, exit polls have proven accurate. But now, they aren't. THAT's the bit that doesn't add up. Stop with your bullshit excuse for it, it's fundamentally flawed. Simply because exit polls HAVE been accurate, up until this point. SOMETHING has changed.

Re:oh fuck off

[fotbr]

I never claimed nothing changed. They were closer elections than others in the last two decades. There were more absentee votes than previous elections. There were more people voting than had previously. ALL of these affect exit polling, and the exit poll takers were unable to account for that change.

Just because exit polls "were accurate" in elections that weren't close doesn't mean that using them as incontrivertable proof of fraud isn't fundamentally flawed.

But hey, curse away if it makes you feel better.

Re:Reason

[Savantissimo]

So we should be tolerant of other people's support for torture, wars of aggression and the gutting of the Constitution? Bush fascists are entitled to their opinions and their votes, but democracy can in no way make them right, legitimate, or diminish their personal ethical responsibilities for the crimes they have abetted. One need not hate Bush's unwitting dupes, but certainly one cannot respect them; as an American one must hate what they believe and what they are doing to this country. The real, knowing participants in Bush's crimes on the other hand, must not be shown mercy on account of their large numbers, prominent positions or the fact that they subverted the whole US Gaovernment rather than some smaller crime. Insofar as one loves this country or peace or freedom, such knowing participants in Bush's crimes must be hated or despised.

Anyone supporting Bush after the revelations about his war crimes, election fraud and attacks on constitutional and human rights is an enemy of America and the freedoms of Americans. Tangible support of Bush's crimes by an American meets the constitutional definition of treason.

Why do you hate our freedoms?

You confuse State/Declaration of War

[AHumbleOpinion]

And regardless, you are incorrect. "They", whoever "they" are, may have decided they are at war against us, but untill Congress passes something that says, "A state of war exists between the United States of America and ________________", then we are not at war with "them".

You are confusing a state of war with a declaration of war. The declaration is for the lawyers, the state is more relevant to everyone else. Even President Roosevelt acknowledged that war existed at the time of the attack not at the time of our declaration of war. Note the past tense of "existed" as he asked Congress for the declaration of war: "I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire."

Re:You confuse State/Declaration of War

[Scudsucker]

You are confusing a state of war with a declaration of war.

No, he's not. A war isn't a War until Congress declares it, especially for Constitution-supsending purposes.

Re:By that definition they're not the only fascist

[Mydron]

I said islam is to Iran, you retort christian is to US.

Your generalizations in support of your claims are just as erroneous as my generalizations in support of my claims. The difference of course is that you seem to really believe in your generalizations.

If you care to consider facts, you'll note that Iran is a democracy, has elections, and has a public education system (where women constitute a majority of post-secondary students, btw). On the other hand you'll note the US's social security system is pretty pathetic by most western standards and public education is only marginally better. Also bear in mind we're comparing a developing nation (that, in the last 25 years, been devistated by war) with a fully industrialized first world nation.

Admittedly Iran is more Islamic than the US is Christian because ultimately Iran has a more homogeneous citizenry who do not oppose a completely non-secular political system. Unfortunately for you, that is not a feature of fascism.

Is Iran perfect? Not by a long shot. Would I rather live in the US or Iran? Of course I would rather live in the US. But suggesting that Iran is fascist is hardly accurate at all.

Re:Read the proposed bill. Little mention of the N

[StikyPad]

Do you think it was legal during WWII to have people's mail they were receiving from a foreign country to be opened?

Yes, but for reasons that don't apply at all to NSA wiretaps.

1) It's subject to Customs inspection.

2) If it was written by a member of the US military, it's government property. Also anything in/on military installations is subject to arbitrary search and seizure. Everyone in the military is aware of this, or at least informed; whether they remember it or not is another matter. There are also nice signs at the entrance to bases stating the same.

3) The USPS has the authority to inspect suspicious packages/communications.

Article contains inaccuracies

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because I'm a Senate staffer. I do not work on the various NSA bills, but am familiar with the legislation and the manner in which it is expected to move forward over the next few weeks.

The Wired article repeatedly quotes Lisa Graves, the ACLU's senior legislative counsel. While people are free to have their own opinions, they're generally not free to have their own facts. There is no plan to advance this bill by UC as she alleges: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill."

This is apparently a reference to "hotline" passage. Most bills that move through the Senate are passed by unanimous consent at the end of a daily session. This is called the "wrap up." The majority leader, or his designee, will rattle through a list of bills and resolutions, discharging them from committee, calling them from the calendar, passing them, and so on. Last night, the Senate passed two bills in the wrap up, H.R. 1442, to complete the codification of title 46 and the Children and Media Research Advancement Act. Links go to the Congressional Record and show exactly how this process works. It's quick and seemingly painless. Reading the H.R. 1442 consideration, it would be easy for someone unfamiliar with the Senate to think "Sheesh, 2 sentences are all it takes to get a bill passed?" Ms. Graves quote probably even looks credible.

What the article doesn't say is that before any bill gets passed like this it is given to the sponsor's party's cloakroom. The cloackroom staffers attempt to "clear" the bill. The phrase "hotline" is a reference to the days of yore, before the Senate had an intranet, when there were phones that rang in every office and played an automated message announcing the unanimous consent request. Some offices still have these phones, but most staffers rely on internal party web pages to keep track of the current requests.

Unlike an actual vote, clearing doesn't require a simple majority of Senators. It requires the tacit accent of EVERY member of the body. Any Senator can place a "hold" on any item on the calendar, be it a bill or nomination. Until that hold is lifted, that matter will not be considered in the wrap up, and can't be passed by unanimous consent. Holds are essentially anonymous, although some are publicly announced (e.g. - Senator Levin's holds of various Homeland Security and Justice Department nominees). Most remain shrouded. Bills are often held for weeks without anyone in the sponsor's office knowing who is blocking a bill, or why.

The only way to overcome a hold is for the majority leader to actually call a bill up and force a vote on the motion to proceed. Senators will sometimes release their holds if the majority leader threatens to call up immensely popular legislation because they don't want to actually stand up and object to its consideration, but a hold on something like the Specter Terrorism/NSA bill is not going to be released quietly. It's not going to be released at all.

Anyone who thinks that a bill that has received negative public comment from both sides of the aisle is going to pass by unanimous consent isn't familiar with how the Senate works. What's really going to happen, then?

The Senate will have a slew of NSA-related votes. It's likely that the Specter bill will be called up and that there will be a plethora of amendments filed and voted on, including complete substitutes (e.g. - the text of the Feinstein bill that also passed out of the Judiciary Committee). It has been publicly reported that the Republican majority is pushing a pre-election "security agenda" and that wiretapping, detainees, port security, and other terrorism and defense related issues are going to be brought up, one after

Re:but you shouldn't worry!

[lightspawn]

are you guys kidding me? Can you not sense the sarcasm and disdain towards it?

We did - at least most of us did - but we all know there are those who actually mean it when they say it.

Re:Read the proposed bill. Little mention of the N

[Cybrex]

Did congress try to take away executive branch powers with FISA?
In a sense, yes. FISA grew largely out of the illegal wiretaps that Nixon did shortly before Watergate. His argument was exactly the same as Bush's- that as President and Commander in Chief he had the authority to authorize wiretaps with no judicial review "for the purposes of national security."

The reality, as it turned out, was that he was using wiretaps to spy on political opponents and journalists critical of him. FISA was created to clarify exactly when and how wiretaps could be used, and more importantly to eliminate any possibility of such "creative interpretation" being used to justify warrantless wiretaps in the future.

Interestingly, the President asked for and got numerous changes to FISA after 9/11 which made it even easier for wiretaps to be done legally. Yet still he chooses to disregard FISA.

Interesting factoid you may already know: since its inception, the FISA court has reviewed over 10,000 requests for wiretaps. Only 4 have been refused or sent back to be modified and resubmitted. FISA is a rubber stamp which even the NSA needs to abide by. The only reason to circumvent it is to conceal wrongdoing.

Re:You seem to be confused

[yndrd1984]

Boadcasting false propoganda and rewriting history while attacking those you disagree with in the name of national security is the heart of fascism.

True.

Demanding that ABC NOT engage in this fasist behavior must therefore NOT be fascist.

False. Fascists can fight each other, just like everybody else.

Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi

[mr100percent]

Fascists are nationalist, Al Qaeda has no nation. Fascists are corrupt, they control media, they steal elections. All fascist governments have had common characteristics, what does Al Qaeda have in common?

MEForum is garbage, run by that controversial Muslim-hater Daniel Pipes, who honestly believes the only good Muslim is a former Muslim. He plasters his homepage link on every page on the site.

More to the point, prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, didn't rule in any fascist way at all. Heck, he even had Jews in his early governments and many helped fight on his side. The article is completely wrong, any Muslim scholar will tell you it's the opposite of 1400 years of scholarship; beheading isn't islamic, POWs were ordered to be treated fairly and not executed like the author claims, etc.

Freedom should not be exported.

[woolio]

We exported freedom during Bush Seniors term, and continued it through Clinton's term.

Interesting choice of words...

If I export my kidney in return for cash, basic economic theory says both parties will profit.

But if I export my other kidney, well.....

The US exported its first kidney quite a long time ago..... And the other is up for sale.

Re:Read the proposed bill. Little mention of the N

[thule]

Letters fall under Customs? Why does Customs have the right for search without a warrant? Does looking strange qualify for probable cause?

Did Lincoln get warrants to intercept telegraph communications?

It seems to me that there is more precedent for the President to intercept communications in a time of war than there is for Congress to take away those powers. This is where the meat of the issue is. Did a foolish president allow Congress to take away constitutional powers?

Facts, eh?

[loqi]

Then I forget, which administration's CIA trained and equipped Al Qaida in the first place?

Re:Facts, eh?

[amightywind]

Please, learn some history. Your ignorance is on full display.

Ronald Reagan's administration trained and equiped some Afghani Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets in the 1980's. With American short range missles they were able to reek havoc Soviet aircraft and armored vehicles, eventually driving them out. Although loosely organised these forces mostly became the northern alliance that help oust the Taliban in 2002. They form Harmid Karsai's power base today, such as it is. The Taliban were a different group centered in Kandahar with Pakistani origins. They are not the same as the Mujahadeen, although Bin Laden would like to identify himself with them.

Re:Facts, eh?

[loqi]

Your unfounded arrogance aside, you act as though these groups are cohesive wholes. Some of the CIA-trained mujahideen were swayed to an anti-western philosophy by bin Laden. Some of them were already foreign jihadists. I'm sorry I spoke of training and equipping al Qaida, since the term is near-meaningless to begin with; the point that the Reagan and Bush administrations' foreign policy decisions worked wonders for "those guys" stands.

Re:Reason

[pi_rules]

Oh yeah? Will the Bill of Rights magically regenerate before or after the magic unicorns come down to make everything happy?

Likely.. at least it will restore itself to some degree. The magic unicorns came down and magically got rid of internment camps which were put in place under FDR, a Democrat, so why wouldn't things restore themselves back to normal after the current Asshat In Charge evacuates the office?

Let's not get on the "my party is better than your party with regards to civil liberties" high horse here.

Both major parties really suck at them. They pander to them when they're in the minority. It's a freaking GAME to them. They play for votes.

You dont like Bush. That's fine. I dont either and I actually voted for the guy the last time around. I admit my mistakes. However, the yahoo will, thank God, be gone come Jan. 20th 2009.

I beleive we will recover from this.

If not, well, to be honest we've got about 280 million guns in this nation. I've got a good chunk myself. I'll toss them out to Republicans, Democrats, whatever, if we feel the need to go and fix it ourselves.

Wow

[loqi]

You're right, that pesky fourth amendment sure does cripple the police.

But...but...we need to fight those evil beasts!

[Rob Simpson]

Like that "evil beast", Martin Luther King:

The Bureau distributed reports regarding such affairs to the executive branch, friendly reporters, potential coalition partners and funding sources of the SCLC, and King's family. The Bureau also sent anonymous letters to King threatening to reveal information if he didn't cease his civil rights work. One anonymous letter sent to King just before he received the Nobel Peace Prize read, in part, "...The American public, the church organizations that have been helping -- Protestants, Catholics and Jews will know you for what you are -- an evil beast. So will others who have backed you. You are done. King, there, is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significance). You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy fraudulent self is bared to the nation."[18] This is often interpreted as inviting King's suicide,[19] though William Sullivan argued that it may have only been intended to "convince Dr. King to resign from the SCLC."
Finally, the Bureau's investigation shifted away from King's personal life to intelligence and counterintelligence work on the direction of the SCLC and the Black Power movement.

In January 31, 1977, in the cases of Bernard S. Lee v. Clarence M. Kelley, et al. and Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Clarence M. Kelley, et al. United States District Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr., ordered all known copies of the recorded audiotapes and written transcripts resulting from the FBI's electronic surveillance of King between 1963 and 1968, be held in the National Archives and sealed from public access until 2027.

Across from the Lorraine Motel, next to the rooming house in which James Earl Ray was staying, was a vacant fire station. The FBI was assigned to observe King during the appearance he was planning to make on the Lorraine Motel second-floor balcony later that day, and utilized the fire station as a makeshift base. Using papered-over windows with peepholes cut into them, the agents watched over the scene until Martin Luther King was shot. Immediately following the shooting, all six agents rushed out of the station and were the first people to administer first-aid to King. Their presence nearby has led to speculation that the FBI was involved in the assassination.[20]

OK!

[crhylove]

Ok, good, as long as we are all seeing the same channel. I thought for a minute your directv package was bigger than mine.

3rd parties don't do jack

[Scudsucker]

You'll have just as many problems with corruption, gridlock, partisanship, and special interests if you have 2 parties or 50. Multiple parties, like term limits, are snake oil. That and the government wastes a great deal more time building "coalitions" between different groups. This can be a good thing when the government should keep its nose out of peoples business (violent video game bans, Patriot Act) but bad when prompt action is needed (Katrina).

red herring

[Scudsucker]

Congress did give the President all wartime powers on September 18th 2001 when they authorized him to use "all necessary force ... in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States" The 2001 AUMF specifically grants the President war powers dictated by section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution.

Irrelevant. Congress can pass a law saying Bush is dictator for life, but it doens't mean a thing until the Constitution is amended. And for Constitution-supsending purposes, a war isn't a War until Congress delcares one, which they haven't. Even SCOTUS, which has been rubber-stamping law enforcement tactics for decades, ruled that the AUMF was *not* a blank check for the president to do as he pleased in their Hamdan decision.

That is some twisted logic.

No, it's not. This "war on terror" will be every bit as successful as the "war on drugs" - i.e. not at all. In fact, so far they've only managed to destabalize countries and produce *more* terrorists and terrorism. What would be far more practical and make far more sense would be to go back to what many people were talking about in the immediate aftermath of 911 - that the U.S. would make no distinction between terrorists and the governments that sheltered them. It's a clear, well defined approach so we wont "always be at war with Oceana".

The war in Iraq is a critical part on the war of terror because you can't fight terrorism while ignoring one of the largest state sponsors of terror.

NO, THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR. NOTHING How many hijackers were from Iraq? Zero. How much did Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda or their attacks? Zero. How much of a threat was Saddam to the United States? Zero. Calling Iraq "part of the war on terror" is a lie.

What protections are being thrown out? The judicial branch is reviewing these programs, and the legislative branch is voting on new legal provisions for or against them. This is exactly how the founding fathers designed our Government to work.

If our government worked the way they intended, Bush would have been forced to resign when it turned out that no, Iraq did not have any WMD's, and was not an imminent threat to the United States so grave that we had no choice but to take him out immediatly. If our government worked the way the founders intended, Bush would have been impeached for his indefinete detentions of American citizens and his blatantly un-Constitutional domestic spying.

Re:red herring

[workindev]

Irrelevant. Congress can pass a law saying Bush is dictator for life, but it doens't mean a thing until the Constitution is amended. And for Constitution-supsending purposes, a war isn't a War until Congress delcares one, which they haven't. Even SCOTUS, which has been rubber-stamping law enforcement tactics for decades, ruled that the AUMF was *not* a blank check for the president to do as he pleased in their Hamdan decision.

The issue isn't whether or not a war has formally been declared by Congress, it is whether or not the President has been granted wartime powers from Congress. There hasn't been a formal declaration of war from Congress since World War II, but Congress has given the President wartime powers several times since then. The 1973 War Powers resolution specifically gives the President special wartime powers if Congress approves, and the 2001 AUMF was clearly such an approval.

And the SCOTUS ruled in Hamdi that intelligence gathering is a valid use of Presidential wartime powers.

No, it's not. This "war on terror" will be every bit as successful as the "war on drugs" - i.e. not at all. In fact, so far they've only managed to destabalize countries and produce *more* terrorists and terrorism. What would be far more practical and make far more sense would be to go back to what many people were talking about in the immediate aftermath of 911 - that the U.S. would make no distinction between terrorists and the governments that sheltered them. It's a clear, well defined approach so we wont "always be at war with Oceana".

No, the war on terrorism has already eliminated the two largest state sponsors of terror, and over 70% of the senior leadership of the worlds largest terror organization. Any comparison to the so-called "war on drugs" is a red herring.

NO, THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR. NOTHING How many hijackers were from Iraq? Zero. How much did Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda or their attacks? Zero. How much of a threat was Saddam to the United States? Zero. Calling Iraq "part of the war on terror" is a lie.

Do you think that writing in bold caps makes it true? There is no question that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists, and any argument to the contrary flies in the face of 25 years of prior history in Iraq. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism - period. Any "war on terror" that did not include the largest and most defiant state sponsor of terror would have been incomplete - period. Any argument to the contrary is made in complete ignorance.

Your argument displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what the war on terror is actually about. It isn't a fight against "those guys how attacked us on 9/11", and it isn't the "war on Al Qaeda". It is the war on terror, and is designed to eliminate the threat of global terrorism, regardless of their relationship with the 9/11 attacks.

If our government worked the way they intended, Bush would have been forced to resign when it turned out that no, Iraq did not have any WMD's, and was not an imminent threat to the United States so grave that we had no choice but to take him out immediatly. If our government worked the way the founders intended, Bush would have been impeached for his indefinete detentions of American citizens and his blatantly un-Constitutional domestic spying.

Every justification that has been used to support the war in Iraq has since been validated by independant reviews. You may not agree with those justifications, but that hardly invalidates them.

And I would say that your argument for impeachment is far more unconstitutional than any of the alleged "violations" of the current administration. Impeachment is not provided for in the case of political disagreements or revenge -- that is what elections are for. It is provided for in the case of high crimes and misdemeanors, which so far is only a wet dream fantasy of some of the President's most rabid opposition.

Re:red herring

[cheezedawg]

NO, THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR. NOTHING How many hijackers were from Iraq? Zero. How much did Saddam have to do with Al Qaeda or their attacks? Zero. How much of a threat was Saddam to the United States? Zero. Calling Iraq "part of the war on terror" is a lie.

This is a very intellectually dishonest argument. Iraq supported dozens of terrorist organizations for over 20 years. This is a documented fact that you haven't even attempted to refute. Iraq had also tried on multiple occasions to direct terrorist attacks against the United States. Again, documented fact that you have not contradicted. To me, these facts combine to prove that Iraq did pose a threat to the United States, and the war in Iraq is an essential part of the war against terrorism.

Claiming that Iraq posed no terrorist threat because they weren't involved with the September 11th attacks is analogous to refusing to call a career criminal a thief because he didn't participate in a specific bank robbery. It's an absurd argument, and the fact that you are making it tells me that you have lost the ability to look at the facts objectively.

If you want to argue that the threat that Saddam's regime posed was not sufficient to justify our 2003 invasion, that's fine. I disagree with that position, but at least that is an honest argument.

Re:red herring

[Scudsucker]

This is a very intellectually dishonest argument.

Hardly.

Iraq supported dozens of terrorist organizations for over 20 years. This is a documented fact that you haven't even attempted to refute.

Because it's bullshit, that's why. Those "dozens" of connections are either hearsay (like the right wing's "documented fact" that Iraqi intelligence meeting with Mohamed Atta) or supporting groups opposing Israel, which is just as much a terrorist organization as Hamas or Hezbollah (see their recent cluster bombing of Lebanon). Supporting terrorism means backing hijacking/bombing of airlines like Libya did in the 80's, not cutting a check for twenty bucks to the family of a suicide bomber.

It's an absurd argument, and the fact that you are making it tells me that you have lost the ability to look at the facts objectively.

No, I just ignore "facts" from right-wing websites with as much credibility as Baghdad Bob. Which is about all that turns up if you Google for "saddam hussein terrorism".

Re:red herring

[cheezedawg]

No, I just ignore "facts" from right-wing websites with as much credibility as Baghdad Bob. Which is about all that turns up if you Google for "saddam hussein terrorism".

Interesting. Which of the following would you consider to be "right-wing" sources:

• The UN Security Council ("Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq" and "Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory")
  
• President Clinton ("In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists")
  
• President Clinton's State Department ("Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999").
  
• The Council on Foreign Relations ("Saddam Hussein's dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups...")
  
• President Jimmy Carter, who placed Iraq on the State Department list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in 1979
  
• Vladimir Putin, who warned us in 2002 that Iraq was plotting terrorist attacks against the United States

Closing your eyes and declaring these to be right-wing lies does not make you look very rational.

Different Issue

[fuzznutz]

Lets look at the end result rather than the details - what happened in the end is that u.s. people are dying in foreign soil, for the benefit of some midwest oil people.

That's a different complaint then, isn't it? You may have a justified argument if you want to discuss policy errors, executive edicts and the like, but to complain about "stolen elections" just because you like the way one court rules (which was IMHO in error) but you don't like the way another rules (which was IMHO in error) makes your position look weak.

I personally intend to vote against any and every incumbent at the Federal and State levels this November. I am infuriated at the lack of Congressional oversight at the many things being done by the administration. These people are not Republicans. They are trying to build a police state. Republicans are against "big" government. Republicans are against micromanagement regulations on every aspect of your life. Republicans are against spending beyond your means.

Re:Reason

[Darby]

The magic unicorns came down and magically got rid of internment camps which were put in place under FDR, a Democrat, so why wouldn't things restore themselves back to normal after the current Asshat In Charge evacuates the office?

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because that was during a war that had an end. The current "war" has no possibility of an end in sight by design. Therefore, there is no reason for the government to give up any of the power they have stolen using this pathetic joke of a war.

Let's not get on the "my party is better than your party with regards to civil liberties" high horse here.

I don't have a party, so mine *is* better.

The fact is that the Republicans are far worse than the Democrats if only for the simple reason that they have more power.

You dont like Bush. That's fine. I dont either and I actually voted for the guy the last time around. I admit my mistakes. However, the yahoo will, thank God, be gone come Jan. 20th 2009.

If you were admitting your mistakes, then you would be working your ass off to get oyur representatives to impeach, try and convict him for his mass of crimes. You wouldn't be saying, "well, I fucked up, but let him keep going on his insane crusade against liberty.".
If you let him get away with it, then you are excusing it and *approving* of it. Don't pretend that it could be any other way.
By your continued support of him and *all* of his actions, you are also saying that it is ok for the next guy to do the same and worse.


I beleive we will recover from this.

Yet you are unable to come up with any mechanism by which it would be possible.
Hell, you're saying that we should just wait and let him continue on.


If not, well, to be honest we've got about 280 million guns in this nation. I've got a good chunk myself. I'll toss them out to Republicans, Democrats, whatever, if we feel the need to go and fix it ourselves.

Sure you would, Sparky.
It's way past time for that and I haven't seen you or your Republican ilk do one god damn thing except cheer him on and screech hatred of the evil faggots and liberals.
You might not be on that particular bandwagon, but you are actively supporting those goons regardless as they are exactly who you chose to vote for and who you are continuing to support through your apathy.

Vote the Rascals Out

[jerunamuck]

November is getting close. As it is, none of the incumbents are on my list of candidates. Those running unchallenged will find write in candidates voted for on my ballot.

It's past time to make politicians legally liable for the legislation they pass. Pass a law that's later deemed unconstitutional and be charged with Treason.

Mucker Doo!
----------------------
Where have all the hippies gone?
Gone to prison every one.
When will we ever learn?

warrantless wiretaps

[Anonymous Coward]

like we are supposed to be able to do anything about it......USA is a product of the same bullshit that the British had mastered..complete and utter control...oppression of the masses..that's why they all left and formed the union of the united states of america...must have been beautiful in the early days.....now the rich control the govt. and the govt. control the poor......which make up a vast majoroty of the population....why bother with such trivial matters....you are out of control....George Orwell is our modern day mystique.....you have no power...just a mouth to speak which can be silenced......they take your money and your liberties....they will take your life if you are duped into going to war to fight innocent people....welcome to the free world....now go to bed and dream about the block of govt. cheese you'll get at the welfare office when there are no jobs to be had in about 8 more years...or sooner!!!

Oh god, please

[unity100]

policy errors, executive edicts and the like, "stolen elections", the way one court ruled (which was IMHO in error) - these are ALL for meeting the one end planned by the oil group. To meet the needs of the oil & co entourage behind bush.

They were knee deep in enron, they needed money. The oil situation was getting out of hand, they needed control. And tons of other shit that would tire us if we listed them one by one.

It does not take a decade long research to deduct that a group that is in the money had staged an elaborate plan in order to enforce their own agenda.

Say What?

[fuzznutz]

They were knee deep in enron, they needed money. The oil situation was getting out of hand, they needed control. And tons of other shit that would tire us if we listed them one by one.

It does not take a decade long research to deduct that a group that is in the money had staged an elaborate plan in order to enforce their own agenda.

I'm not sure I even understand what you are trying to say. Are you accusing the bulk of the US Supreme Court of "enforcing" Bush's "oil" agenda? I'm don't know what "oil situation" was supposedly getting out of hand. As far as I can recall, there was no "oil situation" in 2000. There was a spike in electric prices due to speculative trading and the onset of deregulation. Enron's collapse didn't begin until October of 2001, long after Bush was in office and had much more to do with electric and natural gas prices than with oil. It looks like oil prices were around $27 per barrel in 2000, which is hardly a crisis.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to offer more than a cryptic, rambling, leftist rant with no offers of proof, reasoning, or even credibility.

Re:Say What?

[unity100]

You take things for a very near future.

Oil situation is out of control incrementally since the late 70s. Opec is a power that can start worldwide crises, they are more leaning on europe with passing time, and europe is more at odds with u.s. big money.

theres conflict going on with european union about trade for a long time now. This is the tip of the iceberg, in fact the problems are widespread on all levels.

Also theres the issue of depleting oil supplies in near future. They have 'liberated' iraq. now guess what ? iraq is under occupation practically. And who are getting all the deals of "reconstruction" there ? The neocons behind bush crowd.

It doesnt take much thought to perceive that this "assured dealing" trend is wanted to be continued there in iraq. and they are not letting go of iraq, despite much public discontent. love of democracy ? that much ? guess not.

and all these not counting the fact that they have emptied the coffers of several mega corporations and needed to fill them as soon as possible with 'deals' sure to be got.

Oil situation was a problem in future, but with iraq they have planned to solve a few of their problems at once.

Re:Say What?

[fuzznutz]

First, allow me to apologize for my comments on your reply being cryptic and rambling. I only just realized that English is not your native tongue.

Oil situation is out of control incrementally since the late 70s. Opec is a power that can start worldwide crises, they are more leaning on europe with passing time, and europe is more at odds with u.s. big money.

OPEC has been losing political clout since their peak of power in the 70s. Oil exports from countries like Venezuela, Russia, and Nigeria have eroded its power dramatically. Saudi Arabia is the biggest player in OPEC and they are scared shitless of their own people. They expect the USA to keep them safe and are working diligently to make sure they stay on our good side.

The current "oil crisis" which is really only a spike in prices is due mostly to China's dramatic economic boom. You can blame expensive oil on China's good fortune.

Also theres the issue of depleting oil supplies in near future. They have 'liberated' iraq. now guess what ? iraq is under occupation practically. And who are getting all the deals of "reconstruction" there ? The neocons behind bush crowd.

This is all post election. The original thread was about the old, tired complaint of "stolen elections."

Re:Say What?

[unity100]

OPEC has been losing political clout since their peak of power in the 70s. Oil exports from countries like Venezuela, Russia, and Nigeria have eroded its power dramatically. Saudi Arabia is the biggest player in OPEC and they are scared shitless of their own people. They expect the USA to keep them safe and are working diligently to make sure they stay on our good side.

Lets have a look on the countries you have named. Nigeria - a godforsaken hellhole that god knows what will happen tomorrow. The current status is probably being maintained only by much u.s. funding and secret service activity. Still troubled. An african country with many tribes, sects and like the others very prone to civil war.

Russia. Doesnt need explaining. Not an ally of us. And wont never come to u.s.'s aid, should anything happen between u.s. and opec. Generally backs europe silently.

Venezuella. Does need explaining ? Continually electing statesmen that are openly opposed to u.s. Is itself a south american country that is always prone to rebellion, partisan guerilla groups like the others.

And one other you forgot to mention - norway. Rich mineral and oil reserves. However an european nation, and with a very long history too. No form of u.s. influence will be accepted by either them or the eu.

Now. Lets check out this situation, the countries which can be alternatives to arab countries. Russia - political opponent. Occupation is even unthinkable. Norway, because of eu, the same. Nigeria - can easily pronge into civil war, which would turn it into a vietnam like hell with some external funding and activity. Venezuella, same as nigeria, however worse, already opposed to u.s. politically and in public.

What do we have left ? Arab nations. Saudi arabia's ruling cast is indeed american allies. But who knows what will happen if trouble really stirs via internal or external influences, in a country that osama bin laden is from ?

In all these cases, STILL the arab nations, middle east, is the most easy oil source to occupy and control by military means, due to the fact that desert provides a very usable landscape to modern technology devices, and air power. Whereas in nigeria, and venezuella landscape is much more like vietnam, and u.s. secret services are well experienced that these places can be hellholes for either gorillas or a regular army.

Stealing of elections do not happen by accident. They have to be long planned, well executed and correctly veiled.

Looking to last 15 years of world politics, we can see the signs that the neocons in u.s. have felt the need to take such measures. Those, i have corresponded in the earlier comment.

Re:Read the proposed bill. Little mention of the N

[thule]

The difference in this case is that the NSA is tapping known terrorists. A question.... if the police requests a wiretap on some suspected crimal's phone line, do they also have to get warrants for each person that person talks to? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. The warrant for the tap is for the primary suspect. Anyone that person calls can get listened in on. This appears to be the case in the NSA wiretap program. If the NSA feels that the secondary contact is involved, they can pass this information on to the FBI. The FBI then gets warrants to continue to tap this person.

Re:Read the proposed bill. Little mention of the N

[StikyPad]

Customs is responsible for everything that comes across the border. There is no probable cause required -- random inspections, or even 100% inspections, are perfectly legal. The USPS need only meet the burden of "suspicious." Again, there is no probable cause because you have voluntarily surrendered your documents (or whatever) to their possession.

The Civil War was a unique situation, and its precedents should no more apply to an undeclared war with an ill defined objective than should "seperate but equal" apply to modern society. Further, Lincoln had a clear understanding that he was violating the Constitution, and he was concerned about the future ramifications, but deemed it necessary to preserve the state of the union. Note that this goal is only considered "clearly moral" in hindsight, and the issue of slavery is often used to confuse the fact that half the nation's freedom of dissent was violently suppressed. Make no mistake -- slavery is wrong -- but the Civil War completely contradicted the idea that the states were formed of a voluntary union, and it set the stage for big centralized government; the antithesis of the Constitution.

At any rate, all of that was well before FISA was established to address this very loophole which incensed enough of the population that the government itself felt the need to close it. The investigations of the Church Committee showed clearly the dangers of unchecked surveillance power (as if they were not obvious).

All of this comes down to the fact that we wish to preserve our society, our nation, and our way of life. But what are we if not a nation of laws? Either the rule of law is important, or it is not. If, in "preserving" our nation, we see fit to ignore the law, then we have already lost our way, and are, in fact, preserving little.