Slashdot Mirror
House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping
inKubus writes to mention an AP article about the approval of a warrantless wiretapping bill by the house. The legislation's goal would be to legitimize the wiretapping program President Bush previously authorized, with a few new restrictions. Despite this victory for the President, "Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections. The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.'"
Bullshit. This isn't about terrorists, it's about my privacy and my rights as an American. The true test is whether or not our leaders are competent enough to defeat terrorism without destroying the laws and rights that made this country great.
Offering other means to fight terrorists is not 'coddling' them. And voting 'yes' just for the sake of being able to vote 'yes' would be an even larger problem. My message to congress: engage brain before voting. I would rather have everything scrutinized than making progress for the sake of making progress. When you gather 100 people from different parts of the country together, there's bound to be more than a few that have reasons not to vote 'yes' or 'no.' That's called Democracy and that's how it's supposed to work.
What is it with Republicans and their extreme views? The world isn't black and white. You can't tell me that by fearing for my civil rights I'm less able to combat terrorism. And what the hell is up with this tunnel vision of one and only one option on nearly every issue? Stop being selective about revealing consequences! This might help you fight terrorism but it's also going to give you powers that the wrong government officials could abuse! You cannot deny this so stop sidestepping it.
My work here is dung.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin
does the smaller Government, individual liberty-touting Republican Congress NOT understand?
Calls between foreigners and Americans include Americans and are thus totally covered by the 4th Amendment.
What's so hard about that?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
.. Ehhhmm. Nope, it's not 1984. I'm confused.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Woohoo! Now there will never be another terrorist attack ever again! And to think, all we had to do was give up our rights and essential freedoms! I'll bet our forefathers are smiling down on us from the heavens.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
While I agree with the idea of free speech I would love to be able to ban that quote.
I've quoted it before and I'll quote it again... "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -Benjamin Franklin
I read the article...and I still effing posted "Senators" instead of "Representatives"...
(Some mornings it just doesn't pay to get up...hopefully the trip to TRF will be uneventful...)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You have correctly identified the problem: both the Democrats and the Republicans. That's the first step, and I'm glad you have made it. But now what are you going to do? Just rant here on Slashdot? That won't accomplish very much.
I am very glad that many Americans today are seeing the core problems. But what's needed is Americans who will protest. Americans who will take a real stand against the wrongs they see committed in their names. Are you one of those Americans?
Here is the House record on who voted for and against HR 5825.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Funny how an administration who prides itself in defending freedom is the greatest threat to freedom. Illegal wiretaps, torture, suspension of habeous corpus, secret prisons, and kangeroo courts are the markings of tyranny --- not freedom.
When all else fails, run.
...adding that the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.
This is code for "the administration 'looks forward to weakening the Constiution through the legislative process."
Our subconscious desire to be like Slashdot. Dupe.
We can finally go fter criminals without all the red tape and beaurocracy.
As the old saying goes, "Those who are willing to give up a little security to purchase a little privacy deserve neither".
I guess we can look forward to a new amendment (after the one banning gay marriage) that repeals the 4th. Yay for democracy.
Electric Monkey Pants
1. Detain anyone they want - on suspician to being a 'terrorist'... they can lock you away forever with no proof.
2. They can wiretap you for no reason
3. Label anyone who opposes them as being 'with the terrorists'
Can't people see where this is leading??
the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.'"
Never mind that the President is merely the enforcer of laws and not a legislator.
Hopefully this will get tested in court in the next few years if it does become law. I don't see how a judge can not find it unconstitutional.
Developers: We can use your help.
For those who saw my post yesterday about the Senate torture/habeas corpus bill... An amendment toning the bill down was rejected early in the day, and then the bill in its full-strength, scary form was passed and will be signed into law by the President shortly:
i -0609290178sep29,1,1387725.story?coll=chi-newsnati onworld-hed0 60928.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ch
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/26947prs20
So, a bill legalizing wiretapping would just be par for the course for this government.
Oh, and welcome to the police state . You may not notice any difference at first... but sooner or later it's probably safe to say that you will.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Of course, the reason for this legislation is one last chance to keep Bush and his co-conspirators out of jail, once they lose control of Congress in November. They could be brought up for both impeachment and a variety of crimes.
On a bright note, Congress does not have jurisdiction over the World Court at The Hague. This may be where justice is finally served.
This is fucking insane. More so that most people just can't be bothered with news like this anymore. Too busy. Too distracted. Too apathetic to care even if their nose is rubbed in it.
And 13 Democrats voted for the other peice of shit rammed through yesterday (the Torture bill). No wonder people are turned off to politics.. Washington is too far removed from the needs and wishes of the average American... or is that the other way around. Hell it works either way.
The Senate struck a deal and passed a near-identical bill yesterday, which is the horrifying piece. It appeared as though the two bills were going to be irreconcilable and we'd still have that Constitution thingie protecting us, but in the interest of politics they passed this.
They really have broken their oaths.
This is how I expect it went down:
Pollsters are showing that terrorism is an issue the Repubs "win" on - polls improve in their favor when they continuously harp on it. (as opposed to the War in Iraq, which DROPS their poll numbers)
Therefore, in the interests of the party, they pass this bill raping the concepts of checks and balances so they can . . .
Begin an attack-dog campaign demonizing Democrats as "cut and runners" and "soft on security" which is the only way they have any sort of a shot of maintaining control of Congress.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
You gotta admit, there's something hysterically funny about a president who's known for his "hard stance on terrorism" while the ONLY time the majority of his country actually rallied behind him was when he was scaring them into invading Iraq before 'they invade the US with a large active arsenal of WMD that can be made fire ready in 45 minutes'.
And now that hasn't worked out at all, you got guys at foxnews trying to heckle clinton for the whole "not capturing OBL" thing.
Someone needs to tell these guys that "scaring" and "intimidating" people is the very essence of terrorism.
>
> [Amendment IV]
>
> does the smaller Government, individual liberty-touting Republican Congress NOT understand?
Don't worry. They'll start understanding it as soon as President Clinton II is elected in 2008, along with gaining the House and Senate. Her inaugural address will consist largely of thanking President Bush II for giving the her everything it ever wanted.
The really interesting question is how long her constituency remembers the Fourth after she's elected.
I'm betting on somewhere between 24-48 hours (about the length of one news cycle) before her constituents completely forget the quaint little piece of paper, and the Republicans start quoting Franklin. It takes a village to raise a living document, or some such.
Call your representative in the House (or check their web site) and find out how he/she voted. If s/he voted for the bill make sure to vote for another candidate if the seat is up for election in Nov.
Normally I wouldn't say to vote for or against a candidate based on only one issue. But this bill is unconstitutional and anyone who voted for it is disregarding our rights and the constitution itself and is therefore unfit as a representative. Please vote accordingly.
Developers: We can use your help.
No, the government isn't really spying on all your phone calls...
just flew out the door, eh?
People are going to be more interested in each other's dirty laundry than in the 1 a billion calls that turns out to be terrorist related. What are you *thinking*? Statistically, this wiretapping is going to be astronomically ineffective at doing its perported 'job'.
It is sad to see such a beautiful idea die so slow and with none of those blessed by its comforts willing to defend it whatever the cost.
Your constitution is a brilliant idea made by brilliant people. Surely there must be some of you left with the will to do what needs to be done. To unshackle it from the tyranny that is slowly pushing that idea into oblivion.
Coincidentally the word in the image happens to be unrest.
Good advice.
If it can't be delivered to Bush by Nov 7th, the midterm elections could make a significant diffeence in whether this is approved.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
begin to complain? You seem to be saying that until they arrive in jackboots to carry you off, it's too early to complain. Well I have news for you: once they arrive in jackboots to carry you off, it's too late to complain.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Once again HP shows its technological leadership by being ahead of the curve in warrantless surveillance.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Ummmmm where does it say I pledge to Protect the President from crimes committed while in Office?
Where the rights we all have mean people can do bad things. The right to bear arms mean people can kill other people easily, yet it's a right that also helps guarantee freedom. The right to free speech means that people can incite hatred, or ruin your life, but it's also a right which helps guarantee your freedom.
That's the whole neat thing about freedom, it won't guarantee your safety, but that isn't something anyone can guarantee in any case..
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
I cannot begin to understand the necessity of this bill. The system that has been in place for several years whereby the Executive branch can use the FISA courts to retroactively give warrants for wiretapping seems more than adequate for our security. Furthermore, if this bill does not serve the purpose of strengthening our national security, what purpose does it serve? I may get categorized as a "conspiracy theorist" for saying this, but the only purpose I can see for this law is to strengthen the power of the establishment. It will allow for secret wiretaps that the FISA courts would not approve: political opponents, opposition parties and interest groups such as environmentalists or unions. If a wiretap would serve to protect the national security, the FISA courts would most certainly not deny the warrant retroactively. Additionally, this bill serves the purpose of retroactively giving legal standing to what are currently criminal actions that have been comitted by the executive office. Where is the press and the outrage? Where are the American people?
I did that because it's what I'm supposed to do. This is how it's supposed to work. I feel a bit more satisfied but I still fear for my country. I urge each and everyone of you who are American citizens to do the same, whether you're for or against this bill.
Which one do I have the most faith in? My fellow citizens.
The rest could be hit by a bus and I wouldn't really care.
My work here is dung.
For you will surely receive it. If there's one thing slashdotters love, it's a simple bumper-sticker slogan that makes everyone feel better.
Yet we all cede various amounts of "essential liberty" for safety - temporary and permanent.
We do not drive as we wish to ensure proper order on the roads (we hold to the proper lane... well... most of us).
We cede liberty to do as we wish when we want to constantly. Building codes, taxes, standards, all interfere with us doing precisely what we wish to do.
Certainly there is a question here between "liberty" and "essential liberty" - is it essential to drive precisely as we wish? - but the fact remains that giving up liberty allows for order.
Quoting Ben Franklin is wonderful and all, but can one quote another founding father in response?
"There is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate a designing enemy, & nothing requires greater pains to obtain." - George Washington
We can play dueling quotes all we want - do the "pains" Washington mentions include potential conflicts of interest with civil liberties? - but until a mature discussion that doesn't depend on what men said well over 200 years ago out of the present context comes up, I don't think it will be very productive.
At present, I have no opinion on the bill as I have yet to read it and do not trust the media's ability to interpret anything correctly. When I have a chance, I'll read it and some more insightful (non-blog, non-mass media) commentary and then form an opoinion.
Yesterday Congress passed a law legalizing torture. Remember how Abu Ghraib was "just a few bad apples"? This law, almost as bad as the one Bush demanded to retroactively cover his ass, proves that the bad guys are running the country.
In a month, on TUE November 4, your House Representative will be up for firing at the voting booth. And odds are that one of your Senators is up for firing, too. Take some time to google how they're "representing" you when the Congress asks them whether your government should be able to spy on you or torture you, along with all the other things they do in your name.
Then go to the polls and do some justice to them.
--
make install -not war
Not that I can think of. The Duopoly has no desire for reform - the current system works just fine for their interests. Alternate systems such as Condorcet voting offer honest chances to all candidates, forcing them to compete on the strength of their platforms and ideals. To get someone in who wants reform, you have to work within the current system to elect someone outside the Duopoly. But the current system is unlikely to get that person without reform. It's catch-22 - but you'll never get anything if you don't try! Vote for any party that promises to shrink the size and scope of government and remove power from the gov't to restore it to the people. You may not agree with them 100%, but if the goal is to shrink gov't, they'll have less ability to do those things that you disagree with.
And isn't that the whole point?
Constitutionally Correct
The torture one is. The sad thing is it may be too late as it is about to be passed into law (Only Bush has to sign it).
Basically it will do the following.
- Free Bush from any warcrimes (backdated)
- Remove Habeus Corpus. This means you can be detained for your life and never be charged of any crime or even see a courtroom.
- Allows the use of torture (as long as it is the US doing it)
- Allows extraordinary rendition to continue.
The fun part is that these only apply to non-Americans. But wait theres more! All the US government has to do is declare you a non-combatant and according to this bill you automatically loose your citizenship.
Of course they would only ever use this on terrorists and at least this way we will never need to worry about them ever doing this to an innocent person.
Welcome to the American Taleban. They are essentially calling people terrorists who oppose them. Replace "terrorist" with "the devil" and you start to see how ridiculous the charge is. Consider the unAmerican things they are pushing and it's no longer funny. Their program is so out of line it makes you wonder what they are really fighting for. Look at what they are pushing with their new found powers:
They have come a long, long way from the party of smaller, less intrusive government and meaningful morals. Instead of competition, they have given us "duopoly". Yes, only government intervention can stifle competition like that. Instead of education, they are buying religion and bombs. Instead of enjoying freedom, people have to worry about Big Brother. There's a whole new agency in charge of strip searches at airports and schools are being given similar abilities. Black lists are derived from phone and email snooping. Our abuse of foreign citizens is starkly immoral. The result is domestic fear and international hatred.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They are foresworn.
They gave an Oath of Office to be allowed to be in the position they are currently in. It included
a piece stating that they would uphold the US Constitution, which includes all pieces of it including
the Ammendments. Voting for this, submitting this, and signing it into law is a breach of this oath
for ANY of the officials that are involved with this or the torture/habeas corpus law.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I wanted to run for Congress. But filing fees are so high that I couldn't even seriously consider it this year. I can't sacrifice nearly a month's salary on a gamble that, given the current system, I'd very highly unlikely to win.
Of course, if I were willing to put a "D" or "R" after my name, that wouldn't be a problem, but I have higher standards.
Still, I'd encourage people to run for office if you can. Find a party and get involved supporting others if you can't run yourself.
Constitutionally Correct
So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause.
You've got a friend in Japan: http://www.jlist.com
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
So now we just counter this illegal wiretapping (yes, its still illegal, even though they've passed a law that makes it "legal") with extra strong encryption and Civil Disobedience.
Use TrueCrypt with the AES-Twofish-Serpent algorithm on your PC (Linux, Mac or Windows). If you want to use something simliar on BSD, look into GELI encryption for those partitions.
For phones, you could look into encryption handsets or telephone scramblers. There's this one too, or the Cryptophone GSM Phone Encryption solution. Google around, there's quite a few hundred solutions in this space... stack them together for even more security.
Disclaimer: I don't personally know how strong these algorithms are on these handsets, so use at your own risk.
With VoIP, you could easily layer whatever encryption you want on top of it. Bounce your call through a few foreign routers, run it through Privoxy, Tor and i2p and you should be good to go. Yes, it will incur some latency.. but I'd rather sacrifice speed for security or privacy, wouldn't you? Here is an article on securing VoIP. Worthwhile reading if you're using it or considering it.
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
Now its OUR turn.
You take from us, we take back.
Ok, I might be of the wrong thinking here, but please, correct me if I am mistaken. The bill as it is, gives the government the ability to violate the constitution, but, will the constitution be violated by the bill itself, or simply by the actions that it enables? The government could still choose to abide by the rules of the constitution even with this bill in place, right? Perhaps they only want the ability to avoid the restrictions of law, where the constitution wouldn't be applied anyway, say to two known terrorists having a conversation about something important that might save thousands of lives if it's overheard. I'm of the mind that our consitutional rights aren't being violated until one of us is actually the subject of one of these warrantless taps, no? It would seem, judging by the mindset of the average american that we wouldn't have much trouble in court having the case thrown out based on the constitutional violations, except we had to go to court in, say, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
earth to moon bats - the bill passed the Senate 65 - 34.
Using the nonsensical word "Islamo-fascist" should disqualify you from any discussion. There's no relation between fascists and terrorists, that's just a made up word to create more irrational fear.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The common held philosophy by those in power believes civil rights are a State given privilege. Compare it to the founding fathers who believed that civil rights are "inalienable". However it should be noted that they only thought this was true for white males who owned property. This is more along the lines with the common view held today; privilege denotes which rights a person has.
Those is power are not too concerned with the rights of those who are not in power. If you are in a privileged position your rights are guaranteed. However if you are poor or a minority or just an average person your rights are a gift by those in power. And of course this gift of certain rights in only applicable when those in power say so.
Not to get off-topic but it's very similar to the position Linus holds on developer vs. users' rights. A developer is more important because they are privileged and therefore developer rights are more important. The user comes second and whatever rights entitled to the user should only be denoted by the developers.
The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
I'm okay with all of this wiretapping on one condition -- every politician is subject to wiretapping 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If they expect us to give up our privacy rights, I expect our politicians to give up the same -- and slightly more, since by accepting the role of a public figure they accept a certain responsibility for both their public and private actions.
On top of this, when obtaining a valid warrant, a private citizen has the right to obtain, inspect, and dissemenate all of these conversations. And on top of this, government entities (FBI, CIA, auditing firms) have the right to these conversations at any time without a warrant, and may, at their discretion release any of this information to the public.
It goes both way. Have a nice day.
Titus Barik
Adams and Franklin were refering to resisting an occupation force
Our politicians are a powerful domestic force.
the US is combating an externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency.
There's no such thing as an islamo-fascist. Good job hinting a worldwide religion is similar to an eastern European form of government from the mid 20th century. Look up fascism and you'll find these terrorists are not similar at all.
They are not the same.
So a quote can't apply to more than one context? How obtuse. These terrorists are a political force. US politicians are a political force. The quotes can apply to any entities which act to curtail our rights or liberties. Therefore they apply to both.
Indeed it is a love of liberty that inspires citizens to give the federal government the powerful tools they need to wipe it out completely.
It's the love of liberty that inspires people to take away that liberty? It's laughable to think that these laws will be the tools which wipe out all terrorism. As long as there is strong hatred there will be terrorism. You can kill everyone who hates us, but that won't prevent more from hating us tomorrow.
Developers: We can use your help.
Giving the government tools is not the same as letting the government take our rights by force. I'd be perfectly willing to help foot the bill to give our intelligence agencies better equipment to help fight terrorism, but I'm not willing to give up my rights in the process. The 4th Amendment is still a part of the Constitution, the "Law of the Land". Not even the President can overstep this.
How many of our liberties must the government take in order to make us safe? Wait, no, I see how it is, this is a democracy export program. We invade other countries and give them freedom by taking it from our own citizens. Brilliant.
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
One difference between an "occupation force" and an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" is that you can generally tell who the members of the occupation force are and you can tell when they go away and the threat is gone.
Wouldn't it be easier to give up certain liberties to the government to fight an occupation force because you know :
a) who the exceptional powers the government now has is to be used against and
b) when the threat has passed so those powers can be taken away from the government again (assuming they are willing to give them back up).
With an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" how do you know who to use the powers against? There will be obvious targets but due to the nature of the threat there will be very non-obvious targets who look for all the world like ordinary citizens. Are you willing to face the force of those powers yourself so the government can fight the good fight? or are you just happy for other citizens to do so as long is it isn't you (because after all, you have nothing to hide).
And who says when the threat has passed? There is no invading army at the border to tell the threat is still there so when does the government give up its special powers granted to it to fight the bad guys? What if the powers that be decide the threat has never passed?
I think it would be much easier to give up some rights to fight an invading force than terrorist type threat. So if you wouldn't give them up for an invading force you definately shouldn't in this case.
Voting the rascals out only gives you a new set of rascals any more. And they are setting things up so that you can no longer take to the streets. This is an example of "death by 1000 cuts", only it's our civil liberties that they are cutting.
Go ahead, mark me as a troll or ignore me. But if you don't stand up now, tomorrow will be too late.
There is the chance that by the time enough people realize what is happening, it will be illegal to do anything about it...or you'll be deamed a terrorist. I'm not an American, but its sad to see how quickly they have lost MOST of their moral authority.
"This isn't about terrorists, it's about my privacy and my rights as an American."
This is pure FUD, and and best a half truth.
If you're making phone calls to terrorists, or they're making phone calls to you, your lines will get tapped.
If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up. And you'll win.
Your civil rights are NOT being violated. In fact, they probably don't give two craps about you, other than trying to prevent your butt from getting blown up. Nothing you're doing is of the slightest interest to them.
Seriously.
Those are the two reforms you'll need.
Campaign finance, because the money dependency in politics means those with money get to dictate/influence policy. After all, the politicians feel more accountable to the donors than they do to the public. With enough money, the politicians can just buy the necessary amount of advertising - and they will get that money if donors know the representative delivers the votes & influence in Congress the donors' agenda requires.
Voting reform, because there is pretty much no way for a third party to establish itself - it needs to win several seats rather than get a substantial amount of votes. Though it seems Joe Liebermann is about to prove me wrong on this one..
Stop the brainwash
Funny how they won't be able to come to a final decision until AFTER the elections are over...
islamo-fascist terror insurgency
That's what they say, but it doesn't seem like that many people are dieing from terrorist attacks. Hell, the whole liquid ban is a fantastic example of doing something useless in the name of 'fighting terrorism', so let's not pretend it is simply because they are effectively fighting it. Remember, the period of no attacks since 9/11 has been about as long as the period of no attacks was before 9/11(on American soil anyway).
Besides, while crashing planes into civilian buildings is evil and can not be tolerated, it isn't inherently more or less fascist than invading a country because you happen to think the people of that country are oppressed.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Don't you think it would be nicer if you didn't have to engage in an arms race with your own government that you (i.e. the electorate of the USA) appointed?
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
I'd day the only way to fix the government is to abandon statewise first-past-the-pole voting and have one of the Houses of Congress be elected via a national proportional representation method that, like the Condorcet method for single-winner elections, makes it possible to vote for 3rd parties w/o throwing one's vote away. It's the only away to avoid the extremism that plagues our country. 2 parties simply cannot encompass the entire spectrum of political views.
My $.02
It's from the Ministry of Love, so it can't be THAT bad! Do the girls there like chocolate and flowers?
Well, one last hope against the wiretap bill is the Supreme Court. No matter what they say about em, the people on that bench are usually pretty good about striking down unconstitutional laws. Someone needs to bring this up before the Supreme Court. If THAT fails, then it's time to worry.
TANSTAAFL
In another 2 to 4 years SCOTUS will *probably* overturn this version of the bill, should it become law, just like they did in the Hamdi case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Hamdi
I only say "probably" because now we have Alito and Roberts instead of O'Connor and Rehnquist, with Alito being decidedly more conservative than the swing vote that was O'Connor.
Then, if this happens, we'll be right back where we started, with two changes:
1) Bush will no longer be in office.
2) Likely, the House or Senate will be in Democrat majority.
The fact that the House, Senate and Presidency have been in fairly consistent GOP control since 2000 has made for some pretty lopsided legislation and judicial appointments, with this bill being just one more sorry example.
Hopefully this will change on Nov 7th, but I'm not holding my breath; it is said that in life we should *Hope* for the best and *Prepare* for the worst. It's just too bad we've been doing so much preparing for 6 years straight: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianlloyd/42959310/
http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
I know this is obvious and that it's occurred to most of you, but this morning, I finally came to understand. This morning it just struck me that I know where most of Al Qaeda is hiding. Yeah, sure, some of them are in Pakistan, I suppose, but the bulk of them, the real threat to us, the important actors of the "Caliphate" -- we know right where they are. Rounding them up would be trivial.
They're in congress.
The aim of the terrorist is not to kill people, though he does as a means to an end, and not even to create terror, though that's the job description, just as the job of a firefighter is not to fight fires, but to cause the safety of all FROM fires by any means including fighting it. No, the job of the terrorist is to cause change. And in this case, it's to cause us to turn into a repressive, militaristic regiem, and create open warfare between Islam and the West. Al Qaeda pushes these terrorists to do this so that the heads of Al Qaeda can acquire power.
Our leaders want more power in the same way the Caliphate does, and act in active (I assume non-conversational) collaboration with them. They have an arrangement. I assume they never spoke about it, but the partnership has been established and is followed, and it works and they love each other. The Islamic arm of Al Qaeda would disappear if our government pursued it quietly, and asked American news media to downplay it. Al Qaeda without its American wing is puny.
Both wings are willing to destroy anything which keeps them from power. In the end, they'll destroy each other, after all this escalates, but that'll be a long time coming, and right now we, our freedoms, our traditions as a country, our principals, our friendships -- all these are but bugs on their windshield.
They're part of the same thing. They're Al Qaeda.
>Adams and Franklin were refering to resisting an occupation force, the US is combating an
>externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency. They are not the same. Indeed it is a
>love of liberty that inspires citizens to give the federal government the powerful tools they
>need to wipe it out completely.
Adams and Franklin were referring to resisting TYRANNY!
Your eagerness to give the federal government powerful tools at the expense of our own freedoms is walking down the path of turning that government into just that - a tyranny!
Destroying the enemies of the state must not be at the expense of the freedoms of its people!
The Republicans have done a damn fine job of painting the Democrats as being enemies of the state because they defend the freedoms of its people. The Democrats need to grow some balls and put a stop to this misrepresentation.
I've voted Republican or Libertarian all my life. I'm almost 100% certain to vote Democratic the next time around. The pendulumn has swung too far to the right.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
You might want to look up "rebellion" in the dictionary too
Just thought I'd point that out.
See above.
So I guess you love liberty, but not the oversight required to keep it intact?
Looking at his post history, I think we've caught ourselves a troll.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
No, they aren't the same.
If you think that Franklin or Adams would have approved of any sacrifice of freedom, you're sadly mistaken though.
To again quote franklin:
Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
You see, class, even after the evidence of abuse of executive power, people were still too short-sighted to believe their rights had already been traded away, or to believe the shrill dissent was perhaps correct, a siren attempting to call an apathetic citizenry to action.
Instead, many apologists said, in effect, "There's nothing new here, you've lost no rights, your country is just as proud and honorable as she's always been. The President and his well-heeled cronies are not digging up the founding fathers one by one, fucking them in the ass, pissing on their face, and re-burying them in a sewage field, and screaming, `This is *my* country now, fucker.'"
When, in fact, it was all true, every last bit of it.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
We don't actually "elect" the government, as you know. Our votes go towards influencing our state representatives to select the candidates they want to put into office. It has rarely ever been used, but in the past, the were a case or two where the representative of the state specifically voted for the candidate who received LESS votes from the citizens of that state.
But no, I don't believe we shouldn't have to engage with our own government. That is precisely what makes a democracy work. Democracy by definition, means removing and constantly checking those in power. Our current administration will fight to the death to make sure that we don't remove the power they think they've gained through their illegal efforts.
Democracy by definition is a representative government and the majority of the citizens support laws that are in agreement with their beleifs and lifestyles. Since these laws aren't being passed in accordance with those beliefs, we are not in a democracy any longer, and so we should continue to fight to get our government back.
Don't you agree? Without checks and balances, we can't ensure that the government continues to support our beliefs and our lifestyle.
And let's not forget that fewer than 3,000 Americans died from the 9/11 attacks. The flu kills about 36,000 Americans a year, according to the CDC. The flu. So we're giving these "powerful tools" to government, exempting the Executive branch from judicial oversight, enabling that branch to define anyone as an enemy combatant and forever preclude that person from seeking any judicial review or redress of their detention (the detention which shall require no charges or trial), all to fight an "islamo-fascist" movement that is so dire, so dreadful in nature that 5 years ago it killed less than 1/10 as many as are killed by the flu every year? That's the plan? Wow, that isn't stupid at all.
I immediately see how a problem that, over a 5 year span of time, was less than 1/50 (that's less than 2%, mind you) as deadly as the damned flu virus warrants a watering-down of habeus corpus, a precedent of selective exemption from judicial review, and the steady erosion not just of old-fashioned civil rights, but of the very idea of checks and balances that was intended to keep us free. Who needs any of that outdated crap? Oh, wait, I forget, our forefathers were thinking with a pre 9-11 mentality! Now it all makes sense! To follow what the forefathers wanted would be to give in to the terrorists! Am I doing okay here?
It's not going to make the terrorists that want to kill Americans go away. The US not doing anything during the 1990s didn't stop them from bombing the Cole or the first unsuccessful World Trade Center bombing. We didn't do anything then, and they just kept coming.
Hello, Mr. Goddamn Liar, nice to meet you.
The criminals who bombed the WTC in 1993 -- 6 months after Clinton took office -- are currently sitting in jail. They were captured, tried, and imprisoned.
At this point, a vote for a Democrat is just to stop everything is the "solution". That's the hope of a lot of those on the left
The solution of the left is to get the fuck out of Iraq. Seeing as how the longer we stay there, the worse things get, the more terrorists attacks there are, and the more this war costs, that seems like a good fucking idea to me. "STAY THE COURSE! CUT AND RUN!" I have an idea! Know what would fight terrorism! You hitting yourself in the hammer! Just once, mind you. Oh wait, that didn't stop terrorism? Try it again! In fact, KEEP trying it! It'll work! GEORGE BUSH said so!So you sorry pieces of shit keep pushing your memes. Maybe they'll stick. Maybe people will forget what a fascist sack of shit George Bush is. Then again maybe it'll turn around and bite you in the fucking ass because while you're all gung-ho over the GOP and parroting whatever it is that Fox tells you to, the values and treasure of your country are being willfully destroyed by those same people you so worshipfully defend.
Have a nice day, see you October 5th.
Isn't that exactly what Caesar requested his senate do for him in order to make him Dictator?
Whither democracy?
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I know that Democrats are getting a lot of flack for not coming up with solutions. But, as for terrorism, the 9/11 comission has put out a lot of recommendations that aren't being acted on. Port security, for example. As for Iraq, the problem there is so big that there is no easy solution. It's like Barrack Obama said, it's like a bus that was driven into a ditch. You have to get the bus back out of the ditch somehow, but you also need to fire the bus driver. A partial solution to being in a hole: "STOP DIGGING!!!" After you do that, *then* you can worry about how you're going to get back out.
This is just what the terrorists want. They don't want us to have freedom!
You are being ironic, I hope. Otherwise, I hope congress passes a law real soon now that makes talking while ignorant illegal.
FISA, my friend. FISA. This is the part that tripped Bush up, though, as he wasn't bothering to get warrants, hoping nobody would find him out. It requires getting a warrant within 3 days of the beginning of the wiretap. So, on a very technical level, your first whole sentence is true.
It's the third sentence that is completely wrong, and why I really, really hope you are being all kinds of ironical.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I'm just amazed that apparently none of their focus groups, studies, surveys, anything, seem to indicate that they can get a good percentage of the vote by actually protecting our rights.
Instead of worrying about being "strong on terror", which is how the republicans have been framing these events, why can't they be "strong on our rights" or something. Why are they blasting the republicans for getting us into war and committing all these rights violations when THE DEMOCRATS ARE VOTING FOR THEM, TOO, because they're scared to death of appearing soft on terror.
It's complete BS. Show me the party who actually cares about my rights as a citizen, about upholding our constitution, and they'll have my vote in every election from here to when this mess is finally sorted out.
I'm disappointed in the republicans for ignoring their past values (small government, conservative interpretations of constitutional rights) but at this point I'm even more disappointed in the democrats for letting them do it. If they'd come up with a candidate who actually seemed to stand for something instead of just shouting "I'm not Bush, and we all hate Bush" we not be in this whole mess.
The problem with America is that most of our voters don't know how to vote. My friend voted for Bush, now he regrets it, but instead of not voting for people that are like Bush, he's not going to ever vote republican again.
I'm not saying he should vote 'pub, I'm saying he should vote for who can do the best job regardless of their party. Mccain would have been a better president than Bush. People need to stop voting for their team because in the end we are all on the same team.
Can I bum a sig?
How is it FUD? FUD is calling every fucking thing that you don't agree with "Terrorism". FUD is labeling everyone that doesn't agree with you a "Terrorist". FUD is calling every country that has Extremists as HARBORING "Terrorists". FUD is creating a bill and labeling it "Anti-Terrorist" just to get the fucking thing passed.
So in the above list, what makes you think that a statement made against the current government wouldn't be "labeled" as a Terrorist, "just to make sure". Where would your law suite be? Think you would still win? YOU were just labeled a "Potential" terrorist, who is going to back YOU, now.
This is what SCARES the piss out of me. What country do we live in again? The terrorists ARE WINNING. They have the perfect patsy in GW, he reacted EXACTLY the way they expected. He is promoting Terror more than the Terrorists EVER could.
Until he realizes this, they ARE WINNING.
How many freedoms do we have to "Give up" in the name of feeling safe?
Scott Carr
When has the military required a warrant to do anything in the battle field? The NSA is part of the military.
If the police get a warrant to monitor some known bad guy and *you* call that tapped number, do the police need to get a warrant to record your call? No! This is similar to the NSA program. They are monitoring enemy communication. This has always been their job. They do not need to get a warrant for the secondary party. How is this different from the police monitoring a number? Is it their fault that the enemy is calling a US Person/Citizen? They should be allowed to pass on this intelligence to the FBI. Then FBI can then get a FISA warrant to monitor *you*. This is apparently how the program currently works since the FBI has complained about how much extra work the NSA has given them since 9/11. If this is somehow a violation of the law, then the law should be changed or clarified. It is stupid to blind ourselves to enemy communications.
Why is this so complicated?
I hate it when people continue to complain about the Democrats and Republicans yet continue to vote for them (or not vote at all).
Individually there is very little that we can do but, collectively, people can make a huge difference. For proof just look to the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority and other organized groups of the Religious Right. You do not have to agree with them to see that they have made significant changes to the United States. Only the foolish and/or ignorant would deny the power of well organized groups with cohesive messages and clear goals. (Google these groups and see what I'm talking about).
Feel powerless? You are not alone. Feel like your voice doen't matter? By itself one vote rarely does. But collectively, people can move mountains (politically speaking).
Try joining these groups so they can speak for you in matters you care about and know about (and those you don't know about but would care if you did):
1) ACLU
2) EFF
3) Judicial Watch
4) MoveOn.org
5) Amnesty International
6) Union of Concerned Scientists
The list goes on and on and on.
I'm a member of one, two and four and I can't say I *always* agree with everything they do, but I do most of the time for most of the things they do.
Stand up, speak out, ally yourself with groups that share your values and be heard for a change (literally and figuratively speaking).
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
The US has ex-post-facto laws (after the fact) which states that crimes should be judged under the laws in effect at the time they were committed.
Legalizing this now is an admission that it was illegal when Bush did it.
I wouldn't be too sure of this "If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up" argument of yours.
Global warming is a cube.
The only way things could ever change back to the way they were, the only way we would have to be cautious about how much power we give government, is if a Democrat is elected. Then, yes, it follows that power corrupts, and is inimical to freedom. But until that day, don't get stuck in a pre 9/11 mentality. If you need me to repeat it a few more times for effect, I can. Sorry about not being good enough at HTML to have a flag waving in the background as you read this.
I'll suffer a politician, i won't suffer a fascist politician.
Have the guts to vote for stand up against the Demublicans and start voting for independents/minority parties whenever possible (i.e. they are mentally competent to stand trial). Only vote for a Demublican when it becomes obvious that a schmuck will win unless more people rally to his counterpart.
Living in a state which consistently votes for or against your favorite Demublican flavor makes voting for "the little guy" much easier.
Sounds like you're putting a mighty lot of faith in a government that has been unfaithful.
Are you co-dependent?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Secondly, for the purpose of the discussion of trading freedom for security it is the same thing.
Whether you fail to remove an occupying government that doesn't grant you freedoms, or whether you grant the sitting government powers to trample your freedoms, you still have no freedom. And if you do so for promised 'security' then ...well, I think the quote applies.
Sadly, I doubt it is "a love of liberty" that allows this, it is a horrible mix of apathy and fear and ignorance.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
The greatest generation of WWII (led by the democrat Roosevelt) would rightfully disagree.
In becoming the majority party in America the Republicans have entrained centrists like you who have contaminated the party platform. Excessive federal spending, weakness on illegal immigration, and other distructive trends are the result. The Republicans are better off without you.
an ill wind that blows no good
I absolutely can't believe that such a term has come into common use. It boggles the mind. For everyone, here is a definition of fascism from Wikipedia:
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Sound like any government we know?
Now, for the historical parallels to Germany, that everyone who doesn't know their history ridicules. Please feel free to read about:
The Weimar Republic (compare to today's polical and esp. economic situation)
The Reichstag Fire (compare to 9/11)
The Enabling Act (compare to current legislation on torture, wiretapping, habeas, etc.)
Does any of this sound familiar? Hello? Perhaps people need to realize that those comparing Nazi Germany and the United States are not pulling the comparison out of thin air... unlike those trying to compare Al Qaeda and the Nazis, which have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
an eastern European form of government from the mid 20th century. Look up fascism
It looks like *you* need to look fascism up, since when has Italy been in Eastern Europe? Perhaps you were thinking of communism? I realize they are very easy to get mixed up but please get some basic facts straight.
Global warming is a cube.
which were to be the other "compare" that goes with the Enabling Act.
If you're not aware of Bush's signing statements, see this.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Well worn quotes not a substitute for thought
Apparently, you have found a substitute for thought: spouting White House talking points.
1) What's a "terror insurgency?" Please define.
2) How are the terrorists fascists? Define fascism, and illustrate how the terrorists fit the definition. For extra points, illustrate how our current government is not increasingly fitting the definition.
3) Explain how giving the executive branch the ability to monitor its citizens without oversight protects liberty.
4) Defend the government's rejection of the Geneva Convention.
5) (bonus question) Explain how the terrorists threaten liberty.
Good luck. You have fifty minutes. Begin now.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Being relatively conservative compared to many on this forum I often express a minority opinion. But serious opinions are not trolls. Funny how liberals are confused by the two.
an ill wind that blows no good
the citizens of the USA *should* be resisting an occupation force called its government behind which lie the Almighty Dollar of Big Corporates which have taken control of the country.
I want to know where I can move. Seriously. I love what America is supposed to stand for, but it doesn't stand for that any more. This wiretapping thing is a small thing in the big picture, but eventually I really think I'd rather move on and try my luck somewhere else. I've travelled a bit and France and Scotland both seemed kinda nice at a glance. I'm sure they have their problems.
Basically I'm wondering if anyone really likes their country. What are some good options for someone who wants to move on? Taking into account my obvious bias for technology and liberty?
Cheers.
What the fuck is this "Stay the course" bullshit?
A PLAN has things like:
#1. Milestones
#2. Budget
#3. Criteria for success
#4. Timeline
If we aren't hitting the milestones on time and on budget, then the plan needs to be re-evaluated and possibly dumped.
So far, all I've seen out of Bush and Co is:
#1. When we kill/capture Mr. X, things will improve.
#2. When the Iraqis do Y, things will improve.
So, an un-limited amount of money, to follow an un-known plan, to achieve un-stated objectives in the un-defined future.
How much money is too much to spend?
How many lives are too many to lose?
How long is too long to wait?
If you cannot answer those questions, then all you have is a fantasy.
Yeah, see, this is what's called "horseshit," because terrorists are not ultra-powerful supervillains. They don't require any "tools" or laws we didn't already have before September 11th.
And yet somehow, fighting them requires taking away some of my Constitutional rights? Nope, actually, it doesn't help. Not one bit. Suspending habeas corpus? How does that help? We already have them in custody; they're not going anywhere! And besides, they're only suspects, just like anyone else accused of a crime. Innocent until proven guilty, that's our standard of law, and it's not like there's some need to prosecute these guys extra-fast. Once they're in custody, what justifiable reason is there to not give them the same due process anyone else would get? Justice is justice whether it's being applied to a citizen or a foreign national. Let's not forget the guys we've had in custody for three or four years but have never charged with a crime. What the hell? It may be legal, but it's sure as hell unjust and immoral.
(The usual argument given against letting them have habeas corpus is that they'll "flood the courts with habeas corpus appeals," which is also horseshit -- the same could be said of any accused criminal, and we don't have a problem with that. How does giving them the same rights as any other accused criminal suddenly make things so much worse?)
Oh, yeah, and if we hadn't spent decades interfering in their internal politics, invading their countries for no goddamn reason, and supporting tin pot dictators who oppress their people (do you have any idea how many billions of dollars we happily gave to Saddam in the 80s? Some of it he used to fight Iran, which was why we gave him the money, and some he used to bomb his own people -- which we knew about, and did nothing about), then there wouldn't be any fucking terrorists in the first place.
But no! No, no, you're one of those people who believes that everything was just dandy, we were minding our own business, until one day, "islamo-fascists" appeared out of nowhere and decided to start attacking us for no reason. Right.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I think you don't understand the discussion. It's not about reality. It's a big paranoid echo chamber, and Karl Rove is out to get you and listen in to your thoughts at night.
Then he's going to lock you up at Gitmo and waterboard you because he heard (from listening in to your private thoughts) that you briefly considered naming your cat Osama.
Don't believe it? Read all about the conspiracy here.
The fascists are the ones fighting the Islamics.
"Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away."
Voting for anyone you don't believe is the best candidate is throwing your vote away.
Voting as if it's a sporting event in which you "win" if you bet on the right candidate, is throwing your vote away. You don't win - you lose because you supported someone you don't approve of, and now they're going to govern you in ways you don't like. Loser!
Your one vote has very little statistical significance - but when you vote for a 3rd party that gets 1/10th as many votes as the major parties, your vote has 10 times the impact.
Voting for a 3rd party sends a message to both major parties that you are fed up with both of them, and that you aren't going to fall for the "throwing your vote away" lie any more. That's the only message they truly fear. If 20% voted for a 3rd party, one or both other parties would try to change to win back those votes.
Millions of people believing the lie that voting 3rd party is throwing away their vote, is how we got where we are today. So tell me - aren't you glad you didn't "throw your vote away"? Aren't you happy that you supported the current situation, either by voting Republican, or be contributing to the idea that others who voted Republican would have been throwing their votes away by voting 3rd party?
Sure it's horrible to have one party dominate both houses and the executive branch. But hoping that Gridlock will save you is a loser's game - gridlock just slows down the rate at which you lose. Your only chance to improve things is to vote your conscience, and encourage others to follow your example.
>Adams and Franklin were refering to resisting an occupation force,
Really?
Seems to me what happened is that certain brits and their descendants wanted to do their own thing.
It WASNT a foreign country invading even though we like to believe that americans came from a immaculate conception.
If California separates from the US after a civil war will their books claim that the US was an invading force and how Californians have nothing to do with Americans?
This WAS a british colony and I have yet have someone pinpoint to me the moment we all went from being Brits living abroad to americans.
What nationality were Adams and Franklin at birth?
Theoretically, the public does own the airwaves, and the airwaves are all ready censored. It would encourage those interested to actually read.
If you're making phone calls to terrorists, or they're making phone calls to you, your lines will get tapped.
Let me fix this for you:
If you're making phone calls to [another country], or [people in another country are] making phone calls to you, your lines will get tapped.
That's more in line with what is really going on.
If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up. And you'll win.
I'm sorry, how would you even find out if you were tapped? And you honestly think that even if you did find out and sue, you'd win?
Your civil rights are NOT being violated. In fact, they probably don't give two craps about you, other than trying to prevent your butt from getting blown up. Nothing you're doing is of the slightest interest to them.
Really? So the legalization of free speech zones, watch lists which you can't see and can't contest, and more and more warrantless searches are not violations of rights?
I really think you should talk to someone that lived their life in the former East Germany, and ask them if "they didn't really care about [him]."
Particularly because they can now read my email, tap my phone, bug my house, all without cause, and without due process, and without oversight. Next we can expect secret trials in absentia, death squads, etc. - the US has become the newest banana republic. Long live El Presidente por Vida. Yeah, this will end well :(
Funny, I seem to remember a first Gulf war, as well as many, many other intrusions into other nations with the U.S. acting as a "world police force". I understand that Gulf War I was a direct response to the invasion of Kuwait, but if that is all it was, why didn't we stop after we got Iraq out of there? Because we wanted to topple Hussein after realizing that maybe our support of him against Iran wasn't such a hot idea. This middle east stuff goes way back (even farther than my starting point, cold ware being what is was and all) and boils down to this: we need thier oil. We won't leave the area alone until they run out or we find another means of energy. So, yes, in a way, we did provoke them prior to the first WTC bombing and the attack on the Cole. If you are going to cite history, please don't be selective about what you cite.
Wow, and is my sig fitting for the times now, or what?
I got nuthin
- They seem to think that FISA is an unconstitutional infrigement on the constitution's explict and implicit grants of authority to the President as Command-and-Chief to protect the nation from foreign infiltrators and attacks.
- They think there is a difference between wholly domestic communications (e.g. NY->Boston), wholly foreign communications (e.g. UK->Pakistan), and partially foreign communications (e.g. NY->Pakistan). They don't think the courts has proper constitutional authority to limit their actions outside of the domestic sphere.
- They don't think the courts should be involved in all, because the Administration has no intent of prosecuting anybody involved before a court. They consider them a military matter, not a criminal matter and therefore normal criminal procedure legal protections would not apply. If they catch up with the enemy, they have absolutely no intent to reading them their miranda rights.
They have submitted to FISA on other matters, but those seem to be complete domestic and when they intend to bring a criminal case in court.Here are some question for the lawyers: If the american civil war was today, would Lincoln need a warrant for Grant to listen into communications betweent the Confederate Goverment in Richmond and Lee in Chancellorsville? What about communications between the Confederate Goverment and the British Government? Would confederate prisoners (who the US maintained were US citizens in rebellion) have a right to "habeas corpus" before civil courts and a speedy trial or release?
You are a truly sadistic, clueless bastard and you get the government you deserve. Dogs barking? You mean attack dogs snarling and chomping at the bit an inch from your body parts, being allowed to "accidentally" inflict injury repeatedly, while you increasingly wonder if they'll stop and try to get you medical attention before you bleed to death? Loud voices? You mean voices and music so loud that it leads to physical pain and permanent loss of hearing?
Oh, and waterboarding, or "water dripping on head" as you call it, was a favorite of the Khmer Rouge. Your friends, I'm sure.
I wonder how you'd feel if we did some of these things to you that left you unable to function as a normal human being for the rest of your life. Fucker.
Wait, so he's not just a guy that founded a beer company?
(I'm kidding!)
As it SHOULD be!
It's called "Freedom". It's what our people fought and died for back in the 1700's.
If Bush and Co cannot figure out a way to defeat terrorists WITHOUT violating the Freedoms that this country was founded upon, then they need to give up their offices so more qualified people can handle this situation.
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
At the risk of burning Karma.....
There is really nothing inherently evil with the definition you have provided. The citizens of Nazi Germany were quite happy living under Hitler, and most Germans in the 30's and 40's were good people. It was the attempted conquest of Europe, the rape and pillage attitude of the military, and the killing of all those jews that Nazi Germany evil. It wasn't fascims that made Nazis evil, but the other way around.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
How are you going to "sue the crap out of them" now, when there's no warrant, no paper trail, no oversight--potentially no record of the wiretap even having taken place?
It's redundant, maybe, to mention this, but since so many people seem clueless, let's go over it again: FISA allowed for retroactive warrants, to be bestowed up to 72 hours after the fact, just in case some need for a wiretap was so exigent that waiting for a judge's approval was infeasible. There is no excuse for not having at least that level of oversight--except if you want to excuse those wiretaps whose justifications would not have met a judge's standard, even after the fact.
"If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" is a fallacy of the first order--the definition of what's wrong is subject to change without notice. History has shown us time and again: give the government the tools and they will abuse them.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson.
America, home of the fre... Oh, wait.
F**K F**K F**K F**K F**K
Will you people please do something about your government?!?!?
We are right next door and we're going to get rolled right over by your impending autocracy and I don't even get to f**king vote against it.
AAAAIIIGGGHHHHH!!!
(posting as AC...because what do you think will happen to people on watch lists ten years from now? First against the wall...)
There is really nothing inherently evil with the definition you have provided.
I guess if you don't think denying people their rights is evil, than sure.
The citizens of Nazi Germany were quite happy living under Hitler, and most Germans in the 30's and 40's were good people.
Really? The brown shirts were good people? The Jews were happy living in Germany during this time?
It wasn't fascims that made Nazis evil, but the other way around.
Ya, sure, because this was the only instance in which authoritarian power was abused.
But the only way for the government to know if I'm calling a terrorist, or someone they suspect of being a terrorist, is to tap my line.
Thus, my rights ARE being violated because they're not getting a warrant to find out if I'm calling someone they should know about.
If you're not and they try something like that, you can sue the living crap out of the people that are doing it, and you'll have lawyers out the door to back you up. And you'll win.
No you won't because the government will say that they were doing so in the interest of national security. Once those magical words come out it is extremely unlikely that any judge will penalize the government for vacuuming your calls.
Yes, a judge recently ruled that the wiretapping, as a whole, is illegal but in this case you're talking about one person. Witness the Canadian citizen who was arrested on U.S. soil because the RCMP claimed he had met with terrorists and was sent to Syria to be tortured.
The Justice Department is trying to claim "state secrets privilege" in his case against them.
So, how far do you think you'd get if you found out your phone was being tapped?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections."
translated:
"There's just no damn way we're going to go on record on either side of this one just before an election where both sides will attack anything they can spin as bad."
This is ridiculous. We need to start an anti-incumbent movement. Congressional control needs to shift sides every two years. There should be no "re" election. Been in Congress once? Thanks for playing, hope you had fun, make room for the new guy.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
I thought Patrick Henry's well-known speech might be relevant here, so I've copied it from "http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty. html":
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
One could rightfully argue, that the biggest threat to the American values are not "islamo-fascists", but the current adminsitration, which has all marks of a rather paranoid cult, and is extremely busy to render your rights null and void.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
First let me begin with "fascism." Rather than cover old ground again, everyone can just read my other post in this story about fascism and decide for themselves whether facist is an appropriate term for the Bush administration.
Now, on to the show.
"Appealing to fear isn't OK, ever."
Wrong. Appealing to an appropriate level of fear is a moral imperative if the fear is of a real threat. To watch someone face a real threat unbeknownst to them and not suggest to them that they should be afraid and do something about it would be morally unforgivable. What's at issue here is the "appropriate level of fear" that we should appeal to. The government suggests ZERO fear of them, and INFINITE fear of Al Qaeda, which runs not only counter to logic in the face of the size and reach of each, but also counter to actual history of abuse (the government having exercised more of it). The appropriate level of fear to which to appeal is likely a little bit in the case of Al Qaeda (about enough that you can call it "conscious awareness" but not much more) and a healthy portion in the case of the government (enough that you can call it "vigilance and a tendency toward activism" I should think).
"that's the same logic that the President is using to scare people into giving him power"
"logically fallacious bullshit"
It's not logically fallacious at all. You haven't pointed out the fallacy. It is not true that simply because the logic is incorrect in the case of the fear of terrorists, it must therefore also be incorrect in the case of the fear of government abuse. This is because the terrorists are not the government, ergo, an argument about the relative power of the government does not become fallacious simply because a similarly structured argument about the relative power of the terrorists is found to be fallacious.
And the terrorists are not the government. How about a thought experiment:
You post two things on the Yahoo! News discussion board that are not explicit threats. One would make Osama Bin Laden want to kill you if he found out about it, and the other would make Bush want to kill you if he found out about it.
In the case of OBL:
- Osama would likely never find out about it, as he'd have to stumble across it on the 'net during one of his marathon Yahoo! News-reading sessions
- If he did by some obscene cosmic conicidence find out about it, he'd gnash his teeth a lot at the fact that he had no idea where you lived or who you are
- Even if he somehow managed (and this boggles the mind) to find out who you are and where you lived, he'd still have a logistical exercise in trying to set up a hit on you here from all the way over there
- In truth, no matter how angry at you he was, he'd never bother, because it isn't worth the expense, complexity, or small potential reward of carrying out the exercise when compared to the risk of its failure
In the case of Bush:
- Given what we know now, it's likely in the national system the moment you post it, filed under "possible subversive, open up a file on him"
- Given corporate willingness to bow to government requests for data, they'd likely have your real name and address if they wanted it within a day or two, if not sooner
- Given the torture bill that just passed yesterday, they could decide that you are now an enemy combatant and can be picked up and tortured; the moment they decide this, you are legally outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts
- Now all that remains is for them to pick you up; a simple matter, just phone the local police and have them deliver you to the feds
- You are gone forever
That is the difference that makes one source of fear minor (terrorists) and the other source of fear major (government). You have made the mistake of assuming that the structure of an argument was invalid on its face
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
There is another good one about how evil triumphs when good men do nothing I dont remember who said that one though.
I think everyone isnt so much afraid of warrantless surveylence and illegal torchure and taking away the right to be lawfully tried for your crimes.
I think that the thing everyone is afraid of is that we know with zero doubt in our minds that these new policing options will be abused with zero repercusions.
I think that if there was any kind of penalty for instances of abuse that there wouldnt be quite so much outcry. Our system of government is based on checks and balances. These new illegal laws are to my opinion illegal because lack any check or balances and are specifically designed to create imbalance and remove american citizens rights.
I guess if you don't think denying people their rights is evil, than sure.
I didn't see that listed in the definition. Let's look at it again:
Nope, no there. Is it in a white font or something?
>>The citizens of Nazi Germany were quite happy living under Hitler, and most Germans in the 30's and 40's were good people.
Really? The brown shirts were good people? The Jews were happy living in Germany during this time?
I didn't say that. Brownshirts were shitheads because they were Nazi's, not because they were Fascists. I said most Germans were good people. Are you saying that all Germans are bad people? And no, the Jews were not happy during this time, but that was not my point. My point was that killing Jews is not a foundation of Fascism. It was the Nazi's that did that, not Fascism.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Fascist, but I'm tired of people throwing the word around to describe whoever they don't like. I think the definition fits Japan better than the US, but that does not make Japan evil.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Indeed it is a love of liberty that inspires citizens to give the federal government the powerful tools they need to wipe it out completely.
If I'm reading you correctly, you just said that people love their freedom so much that they are willing to be slaves.
blog
Wow, what an eloquent message! You are quite the gifted writer and persuader. This is exactly the kind of message that persuades Americans to agree with you and vote for your guys. I wonder why you guys keep losing these elections?
see you October 5th.
Oh. Now I understand.
BTW: Ever wonder what the people with ideas think? Believe it or not, some people are actually for things. They look forward to a better future instead or dreading the inevitable end of the world. Try to imagine what that's like some time. You could actually be for something instead of against everything.
The other thing is, I have heard a bunch of rhetoric about it, but I have never heard a coherent argument as to why - if you have enough information to start a tap, you can't file paperwork within 72 hours of starting. Are they seriously expecting me to believe that 3 Days isn't enough time to have some intern print off a boilerplate & fill in the lines? Or is it that I am supposed to believe that there are so many calls to suspected terrorists that no increase in the number of interns/clerks can keep up with the flood of paperwork?
Either way they are treating us all like a bunch of morons. The latest estimate I saw was that the WoT was costing us $2B a week, I guess actually paying people in the US that money to do real security work just wasn't as politically expediant as paying it to corperations for military hardware and support.
The longer we stayed on the beach in Normandy, the worse it got. According to leftist logic, by invading Germany we were causing more Nazis to try to kill us. Uh, that was the point! Any hunter can tell you that you have to flush out the quail before you shoot them. The truth is that we lost more people in one day on the beaches of Normandy than in the entire war in Iraq. Back then a Democrat was in office and the strategy was to throw people at the problem. How is that for an impeachable offense?
The reason why Al Qaeda was emboldened enough to attack us on 9/11 was because they saw us CUT and RUN whenever we had a challenge. In Vietnam, in 1982 beirut, in Somalia, in Kenya, etc. Our mindset was to go after terrorists in the legal system. We would arrest a few masterminds, then go about our merry way. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda would just recruit more people in their place and attack us again.
While it is true that Iraq at the time had little to do with Al Qaeda (except that Zarqawi was there and the guy leading Al Qaeda in Iraq right now was there before the invasion), we could not let this dictator remain in power after 9/11. He was a thorn in our side.
Fascism is a left wing ideology. Most fascists were socialists like yourself. Most skinhead groups, including the KKK are socialist, and therefore are leftists like you. The patriot act was voted for by most Democrats. F.D.R. had ALL mail read that was going in and out of the country during WWII. He had Japanese Americans put in camps. The Democrats got us into more wars than any Republican: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. Wiretaps of conversations that are with people outside the country should have been legal in the first place. The executive branch has every right to regulate what goes across our federal borders. You don't seem to mind the fact that the government examines your luggage before you get on an airplane, do you? Your luggage might have your freedom of expressions in it. Letters to your wife, artwork, etc.
Coward.
Freedom isn't free. The liberty that your forefathers died to give you is being chipped away peice by peice because right wingers like you are cowards in the face of terrorism.
When communications (papers) cross an international border, the same rules apply.
For instance, Germany forbids import of Holocaust Denial literature, by foot or by phone.
Dan Simmons completely nails little whiny shits like you in his Time Traveller essay.
Personally, I hope President Bush avoids the future predicted by Simmons by jailing the traitors. Yeah, like that's gonna happen.
Let me see if I can follow this.
- The citizens love liberty
- Love of liberty inspires citizens to give powerful tools to the government
- Government uses tools to completely wipeout liberty
Seems about right.Oh wait you fogot a couple steps
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
I'll let other people make their own value judgments about Nazi Germany. My only goal in the above post is to show that:
1) Comparisons between fascism and Bushism are not merely coincidental and
2) Comparisons between Al Qaeda and fascism are bewilderingly baseless
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Move to a state that's barely red. One way to defeat the Republicans is to leave a handful of states as ~100% Republican, and then redistribute the Democrats so that an overwhelming majority of states have a ~60% Democrat majority.
Of course, then you have to deal with the Democrats.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
High points of "How Would a Patriot Act"
... The administration claimed that they could hold him indefinitely without charging him with a crime and while denying him access to counsel". He still didn't lose faith until many more abuses piled up.
... I was convinced that the judge would have signed anything that we put in front of him".
A constitutional lawyer named Glenn Greenwald wrote a book which explains the legal and constitutional issues behind some Bush Administration policies.
He used to be apolitical, I mean really apolitical, to the point of not even voting. Then, over the last five years, he's been jolted into action by "theories of unlimited Presidential power which are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding" (from the preface).
He was living and working in Manhattan on September 11 and eagerly backed the first initiatives against the terrorists. But then, "What first began to shake my faith in the administration was its conduct in the case of Jose Padilla
HISTORY
Congress has cooperated with open requests for surveillance powers. The Combatting Terrorism Act passed without hearings or debate, allowing the FBI to tap Internet communications for 48 hours without a warrant. Congess amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to give the executive branch more flexibility. That was part of USAPATRIOT, which many Congressmen voted for without reading it, trusting the administration to do the right thing in a national emergency. Bush said it was adequate: "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists". In the same month he ordered the NSA to begin violating the law by spying without even the minimal judicial oversight of the secret and pliable court that oversees FISA taps.
FISA, the 1978 act triggered by scandal after scandal, passed with Republican support including senators like Orrin Hatch. It worked throughout the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and many smaller conflicts. It has specific provisions for use in wartime which still require eventual judicial review.
THE ISSUE ABOUT WIRETAPPING
So why break the law? Greenwald points to the answer: "The only difference between obeying and violating FISA is that compliance with the law ensures that a court is aware of who is being eavesdropped on and how the eavesdropping is being conducted". In a March 2006 reply to Congressional questions the administration admitted that their purpose was to change who made the decisions about probable cause and to eliminate "layers" of review. Certainly the judges weren't getting in the way of normal or even questional eavesdropping: court intern Jonathan Turley said "I was shocked
IS IT ABOUT MAKING US SAFER?
Yaser Esam Hamdi was a US citizen when he was thrown into solitary confinement for two years without being told what he was accused of. It could have been for life, given the likely duration of the "war on terror". The Supreme Court eventually gave the administration a put-up-or-shut-up order, with even Scalia chiming in with "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite detention at the will of the Executive". So what was done with this man who was allegedly too dangerous to be allowed to see a lawyer? He was released without charge and sent to Saudi Arabia.
Torture isn't making us safer either. Former CIA officer Bob Baer told reporters it's "bad interrogation, I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough". Torture is where the "evidence" against Jose Padilla came from.
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY
Is the President above the law? His legal adviser John Yoo says so. He told New Yorker report Jane Mayer that Congress "can't prevent the President from ordering torture".
The legal theorists who are defining what a Commander in Chief can do have set forth theories that recognize
The congress-bastards need to get acquainted with the concept of consequences of actions. Just as a three-year-old learns not to touch a hot stove.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Time to write a polite letter explaining you will not be voting for your elected official come election time, and that you will be encouraging your friends and family to be doing the same thanks to them trampling on your rights.
Here's the vote breakdown: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll502.xml
Thank you, I wish people would go read things like EO 12333 and so on, people live and die by regulations that protect your phone call to discuss apple pies with Aunt May. Even more, what the hell do you people want? I mean when a plane blows up with a bunch of people on board or crashes into a building everyone freaks out and says the government didn't do anything, and when they start passing some regulations to make it easier for them to do what they need everyone freaks out.
We're all well aware that only 3 times in like 20-30 years that a FISA warrant has been denied, so here's an idea, what does that say about all the rest of them and their credibility? I get so tired of everyone thinking that everyone in the FBI/CIA/et cetera are these evil people trying to spy on your boring lives. I wish everyone of you could go spend a few weeks working with these people and see all the paperwork and red tape they go through to get what they need done and recognize their fairly strict adherance to the law.
It doesn't matter which party runs the government. They both get their information from the same unelected bureaucrats, military, and agencies. They both have to act based on that information, with no way to verify it's accuracy.
It's not like the proposed laws actually change anything, anyhow. You don't have any more rights than you can afford to buy in court, if someone decides to have you detained or charged for any reason.
Ask anyone who couldn't afford their own lawyer how much respect their rights got in court. You might have to go to a local, state, or federal facility to find someone to talk to, though.
You might also find a lot of them are minorities from the inner cities. One future issue that will be interesting is the inevitable "revolution" of the inner city poor. Having spent all these years going on about terrorists and the war on drugs, those revolutionaries would likely be flagged as "Islamic Terrorists" rather than fed-up American citizens.
What, pray tell, is the difference between an internment camp and a prison to someone without a lawyer?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The idea of rights as absolute in a society is essentially incoherent. It's simply a logical impossibility, as the "rights" of one person will intrude on the rights of another. No one believes in such a thing, so it's essentially a straw man. It does not follow that therefore any infringements on one's rights is acceptable, as you seem to imply.
As for the rest of what you said, it's basically the same as a thread from a previous article, so forgive me if I simply quote my previous response:
Let me add two things: First, if you want to see further discussion of the statistical risks from terrorist attacks and rational versus irrational responses, I suggest checking out this paper published by the Cato Institute. I have no love for that (or any other) think tank, but I think that particular article is worth a read. Second, I am not trying to claim to be any sort of great patriot here. On the contrary, my point is that the sacrifice most of us are being called upon to make to uphold our liberties is so small that it is basically ludicrous in comparison to those that were made by American revolutionaries fighting the mighty British empire, soldiers who stormed the beach at Normand
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
What the hell has happend to all my countrymen?
Most seem to have become total cowards. It must be all the reality TV rotting their brains.
Seems to me we have lots of tall building, airplains, etc. but only one constitituion.
Why are we destroying something we only have one of, in order to protect something of which we have no short supply?
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
The criminals who bombed the WTC in 1993 -- 6 months after Clinton took office -- are currently sitting in jail. They were captured, tried, and imprisoned.
Er, not exactly. For example, there's Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who came and went between the US and Iraq, helped make the bombs involved, and is thought to still be in Iraq. He is not in prison, and despite ties to international terrorist organizations was not prevented from attempting to destroy those buildings.
Or, there's the Al Queda money-man, good old KSM. He's exactly the sort of person about which we're currently trying to decide how to detain and question. He was hip deep in the original, and second WTC attacks, and many other terror plots. He's detained, all right, but not because (as you imply) the Clinton administration performed some criminal arrest and prosecution. Nor was he prevented from conducting his attacks.
You seem to be confusing the obviously good thing of locking up terrorists when you happen to lay hands on them - using criminal proceedings if that's a good fit - with preventing mass slaughter (which is their stated objective). Normal punish-the-crime type activity isn't very helpful when you've got people doing their best to (as in the UK example) blow up trains or a bunch of planes. Sure, the victims' families would be happy to have the prosecution go forth, but they'd probably much rather have their family members still alive. For that, you've got to conduct actual counter-terrorism activities - and that's just not the same as dealing with the neighborhood drug dealer.
The solution of the left is to get the fuck out of Iraq.
And, of course, the portions of the recently leaked NIE document that the left is braying about, taken out of context, might make that feel warm and fuzzy to you. But the part of that document that's the most important is the part that mentions the important impact against future terror recruitment and activities that a steadfast support of the Iraqi government will have. If the insurgents in that country fail to widen the conflict that their employers in Iran and elsewhere want, it will take the romance and propoganda power out of that scene - essentially, Muslims killing other Muslims in the name of preventing democracy will start to lose its appeal if it doesn't work.
By the way: your embarassing reference to people "pushing memes" even as you play the "Fox" card to explain a world-view less goopy than yours is... really, really funny. "You people and your memes are bogus! And I've got a mythical meme that says so, which I will continue to repeat until everyone thinks it's true!" Heh. But that's not as funny as your need to spew names, junior high school style, at people in an attempt to show how lucid and thoughtful you are. What a hoot! +% Funny, no doubt.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
(see below for text from bill)
Notice that it doesn't explicitly "remove" your citizenship. What it does is remove the courts' jurisdiction to hear you challenge the government's assertion that you're an alien enemy combatant rather than a citizen, even if you've been an American all your life until now. They say you're an alien enemy combatant, it becomes truth simply because there is no way under law to undo it once it's said. And then they can torture you.
Obviously they were annoyed with the supreme court's recent rulings on detention and trial, so they just wrote the court's jurisdiction over the entire process right out of the law.
As it is written, even if you have a passport, a draft card, and a slice of applie pie in your pocket when they pick you up, it doesn't matter, because not only do you not get a day in court, the courts have no jurisdiction to rule on your status anyway, beginning the very moment the government determines that you're an alien enemy combatant, regardless of whether you were picked up in Afghanistan or Denver.
Bush: "You're an enemy combatant, not a citizen. I decided. Off to the torture chambers with you."
You: "Yes I am TOO a citizen! I get a trial! I can't be tortured!"
Bush: "Too late, I already said you're not. Neener neener. [To guard:] Take him away."
You: "But I can prove it! I demand to show my proof of citizenship to a judge. When is my day in court?"
Bush: "Um, sorry, but judges only have jurisdiction over citizens."
[Guard takes you away and starts the torture.]
That, and the fact that we are legalizing torture at all, regardless of who it is, is what makes this bill scary. And now law (assuming the president doesn't suddenly go insane and veto it).
-------------
SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
That's funny, I could have sworn that by a couple of days into the Normandy invasion, the Germans were gone, the mines were cleared, and the beaches were a pretty safe place to be. And this far out from D-Day, the allies had utterly defeated the Nazis, and were not hemmoraging daily reports of appaling incompetence, cronyism, and nearsightedness Over There. Furthemore, the Marshall Plan was being drawn up to revive Europe's economy and infrastructure, and unqualified cronies and no-bid contracts to American war profiteers did not figure greatly in the plan.
Since Godwin's already out of the bag in this thread, I submit that a different WWII parallel to draw with Iraq is between Rumsfeld and Göring. Both pursued ideologically-driven war strategies (the feasibility of low troop strengths in Iraq and whistling past the graveyard on what to do after the shooting stopped vs. the feasibility of resupplying Stalingrad solely by air) in flagrant disregard of both the reality on the ground and the advice of their best military professionals.
We would arrest a few masterminds, then go about our merry way. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda would just recruit more people in their place and attack us again.
Funny, I recall widespread ridicule from the right when Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at Osama in Sudan and barely missed him. Saber-rattling to distract us from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I believe was the talking point. Oh, and using a million dollar missile to destry a $29.99 tent. I also recall that the people captured in the WTC, Cole, and Embassy bombing investigations continue to be some of our best intelligence sources about Al-Qaeda (and since they've been interviewed instead of tortured, we get information from them more than once, and about things we haven't directly asked them about, and can be reasonably sure they didn't make it up to make the bad man stop.)
we could not let this dictator remain in power after 9/11. He was a thorn in our side.And how's that working out? It sure is a relief not to have Iraq as a thorn in America's side. Makes Iran/Hezbollah, North Korea, Sudan, FARC, etc. really tremble in fear to see our military no longer tied down in Iraq.
You don't seem to mind the fact that the government examines your luggage before you get on an airplane, do you? Your luggage might have your freedom of expressions in it. Letters to your wife, artwork, etc.
If the TSA reads documents in my luggage, I sure as hell do mind, as should you. Their responsibility is to keep weapons and explosives from endangering aircraft, not to be thought police.
The FISA process with its retroactive warrants wasn't broken. The only reason Bush would need to go around it that makes any sense is that he's using wiretaps on political enemies, journalists, or others he has absolutely no business eavesdropping on. And pointing to the internment camps, one of the ugliest episodes in our nation's history, to defend Bush isn't doing him or your position any favors.
And unlike the 9/11 conspiracy, this only involved one person, which means it would have been INFINITELY easier to set this up and keep quiet...
Republicans: Suck for reason X, and sometimes Y
Democrats: Sucks for reason Z, and sometimes Y
The fact is, that both parties have policies that are terrible. Yes, the Republicans have some pretty terrible ideas, that the democrats oppose. Similarly, the democrats have some craptastic ideas that the Republicans oppose. Some ideas, the opposing party will go against because that's what they do (oppose) - despite the merit of the idea itself - and making their opponents look back supposedly makes them look better.
Furthermore both parties share some extremely shitty ideas, many of which center around making themselves more powerful, and the people less so.
Lastly, the parties are made up of people. Both parties have candidates that really suck, but GWB happens to be one of those that - IMHO - sucks to an extent that it's often just short of, say, certain ex-German leaders between 1939 and 1945. On a regional basis, you'll see candidates from either side that can be extremely good, extremely bad, or flip between good and bad.
I think the end result is that the governmental body as a whole needs a massive overhaul. Despite what many people think, getting Bush out isn't going to magically fix the government, nor would removing the Republican party as a whole. There will still be a massive stain of corruption, bribery, undercutting of personal rights, and many other things used to enrichen and empower those in control. The one thing you might see is an impeachment of Bush or something of the like - to satisfy the public and make then believe "something" is happening - but that still won't fix the problem.
Today's politicians have no fear of consequences, and when you have massive power and no fear, the end result is often rather predictable.
Man, if you thought C-Span was a snooze-fest before, you should check it out now.
Their congress-cam only ever seems to show that same one guy with a rubber stamp in his right hand and a blank check in the other.
Watch this. Various links at the bottom of the page.
r es
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightma
It's odd how people go on and on so urgently about how we need to prevent terrorists from killing people. Why are you all so afraid? Cars kill more people than terrorists. The American war machine kills more people than terrorists.
On the morning of Sept. 11th 2001 I was not shocked or surprised nor did I think "no one could have anticipated terrorists flying planes into buildings" or whatever other nonsense the Whitehouse propagandists spout. Anyone who had been paying attention already knew that terrorism existed, that the US was a target, that the government was after al-Qaida and al-Qaida was after Americans. I fully expected an attack on the "homeland" and, after watching new coverage for a few minutes went about my day like any other, minus a mild shock at the total hysteria and panic of people who had somehow forgotten that the US had enemies.
Every single day thousands of people die around the world from things that can be prevented, yet you all never mention them. You don't say: "Genocide like what is going on in Darfur needs to be prevented".
Why is that? Is it because car crashes and IED attacks and African genocides do not look like special effects from a movie? They lack the spectacle required to distract you from your usual entertainments and make you notice that the world is an ugly place full of preventable death and threats to numerous to list?
Terrorism is far less likely to kill you than so many other things, yet we don't have a "War on..." anything other than "Drugs". We don't have people like you pissing your panties about 3000 people who died five years ago. 3000 people have already died today. Why don't you care about the 3000 who will die tomorrow?
Man, I'm sure glad we're fighting against all those 'evil' countries who use religious 'morals & values' to leverage their political agendas for a privelaged few who conveniently flout and change the laws of the land while stripping away 'basic human rights' of their citizens. Oh wait a minute.....
No, they are not. They are an attempt at baseless attacks meant to associate GWB with Nazi's.
Let's see the definition again:
Radical polical ideology
GWB, and Republicans in general, are not radical. Radical would be internment camps for everyone named Mohammed and martial law for the rest of us. A relatively conservative form of gov't is not radical.
corporatism
Somewhat. But Enron and Worldcom are out of business. The auto industry is beholden to unions. Corporations don't rule this country and they never will.
authoritarianism
Nope, not here. I see our government attacked daily from within and there have been no arrests made.
nationalism
Nothing wrong with patriotism. GWB and the US is not unique here. Any country with a national anthem could fit here.
militarism
We have a military, yes, but it does not patrol our streets or have anything else to do with the citizens of the US.
anti-anarchism
You mean having a government? Hell, the Constitution itself is anti-anarchism!
anti-communism
We are lot more communism friendly today than we were just 20 years ago. I'd say we are going the other way on this one.
anti-liberalism
to the extent that we are not UBER-liberal, yes. I don't see liberals being rounded up and sent to gas chambers just yet. The fact that we can have this discussion alone I think proves that the US is not anti-liberal, just not as liberal as you might like.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
That is like saying "Indeed it is a love of my puppy that inspires me to beat the crap out of my puppy every day, so that no one else can abuse him."
What planet are you from?
(incoherent ranting snipped)
An angry man is always a liar.
when our own gov stops considering us guilty-unless-proven-innocent, then I think we have to escalate.
in fact, its our civil duty to fight bad laws. see jury nullification for a constitutional endorsement of our right to fight 'bad laws'.
(there was a time in this great country when slavery was LEGAL. clearly this illustrates that blindly following STOOPID laws isn't the Right Thing(tm) to do.)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
And to vote or decide your policy positions based on that lack of information, how about just reading the bills? You're right, the media does a poor job of covering lawmaking. In fact, I'd say it does almost no job at all. But don't just decide to be uninformed until further notice. Because while everyone is doing that, time's a-passing and so are new laws.
Torture/Habeas law (now passed, ready for signing) here.
House bill on wiretapping (passed house) here.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Believeing it or saying it merely gives it more power. EVERY VOTE not cast at the ruling parties is a vote counted. It's the falicies of "My vote doesn't count" and "I have to vote for the Major canidate I dislike least or throw away my vote" that cause such apathy (or is apathy that causes thier proliferation?) in this country when it comes to voting. Multitudes around the world have died and are dieing for this right that many of us throw away. It's the crackpot's and extremists that are running our country because they CARE about whatever it is they care about.
"Zeig Hiel" Bush
If closed the mind be, so then the mouth should follow.
6 months after Clinton took office
Actually, it was 38 days, but who's counting?
unlike those trying to compare Al Qaeda and the Nazis, which have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
Uh... except for the whole... killing all the Jews thing....
For yet another example of the difficulty of applying older standards to new problems.
I didn't see that listed in the definition. Let's look at it again: "Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Well, anti- anarchism, communism and liberalism rules out a bunch of people doesn't it? Under fascism, those things are allowed (a communist party, a liberal party). Authoritarian governments rarely (if ever) respected anyones rights; after all, you're at the authority's mercy. You do what they say, and that's it.
I didn't say that. Brownshirts were shitheads because they were Nazi's, not because they were Fascists. I said most Germans were good people. Are you saying that all Germans are bad people?
So good people support a government that is inturning and forcing a group of people into poverty, becaus of their religous beliefs? Is THAT what good people do? Turn a blind eye because Hitler got the economy back on track? And why are you implying that I think ALL Germans are bad? We are talking about a specific timeframe, please limit your comments to that timeframe.
And no, the Jews were not happy during this time, but that was not my point. My point was that killing Jews is not a foundation of Fascism. It was the Nazi's that did that, not Fascism.
Isn't it funny though that the worst Genocide in history occured while Fascist governments were running the show? Oh, while your reading Wikipedia, you forgot to read this: "The original fascist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems. The most notable of these parties, created after World War I, are the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis) under Adolf Hitler."
Hmm... the most notable fascist party were the Nazis..
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Fascist, but I'm tired of people throwing the word around to describe whoever they don't like. I think the definition fits Japan better than the US, but that does not make Japan evil.
I am too, but you're off base in thinking that there isn't something inherently wrong with fascism. I doubt Japan's current government fits that bill either, especially because one of the key components (militarism) is missing.
The solution of the left is to get the fuck out of Iraq.
Oh yes. The best solution is for the well-funded, well-equipped, politically influencial stabilizing force to leave the unstable power-vacuum suddenly. That worked so well when the Russians did it in the 80s.
Whether or not you agree with the Republicans currently in office, I think almost every rational person understands that us leaving Iraq would be about the *worst* action we could take.
So you sorry pieces of shit keep pushing your memes.
And two sentences later...
and parroting whatever it is that Fox tells you to,
Brilliant, sir. Just brilliant.
Comment of the year
Wow. I disagree with you strenuously on every point.
Radical?
Absolutely, breaking with tradition and global consensus on nearly every issue and decision.
Corporatist?
They let major corporations sit in on policy authorship. The revolving door between the military-industrial aristocracy and government authority is at record levels.
Authoritarian?
See bills referenced here and consider it a nascent, but rapidly growing, authoritarianism with a strong will to power.
Nationalism?
You've got to be kidding me, you dispute this? This is the most racist, jingoistic, willfully xenophobic, flag-waving, God-appropriating culture since Nazi germany. Your ability to even get a job, a loan, or get admitted to a school is based on your willingness to sing the praises of Bush and wrap yourself in the flag.
Militarism?
Well, let's see. A war in Afghanistan, a unilateral war against Iraq just for amusement, third front in Iran almost a given within the next year, with noises about Syria, North Korea, and China if they continue to annoy Taiwan. An almost continuous preoccupation in the policy infrastructure and public discourse with war, the portrayal of war, the policy of war, or the conditions of war. This entire nation is a military.
Anti-anarchism?
Anarchism being libertarian leftism, this country has less patience for anarchism than almost anything else.
Anti-communism?
Except discussions about to communism, socialism, Marxism, or U.S. economic imperialism.
Anti-liberalism?
Liberalism being the general enlightenment-centric approach to individual liberty, market freedom, etc. The U.S. is exceedingly anti-liberal in its marketplace tendencies, as many on Slashdot have bemoaned. It is not at all laissez-faire in its tendency in the marketplace, but fosters close relationships with corporate interests and manages the market carefully through the manipulation of currency and global debt.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
While I am disgusted with Bush and the Republicans, and definitly think they are utter facists who are intent destroying the constitution... I don't think many other people are outraged for the same reasons.
When a Democrat is elected, and he wants warrentless wiretapping in order to crack down on "Corporate Criminals", or "Child Molesters", or "Hate Groups", you will hear most of the people who are "outraged" now rally behind the program and accuse those who are against the wiretapping as being "pro-corporate-crime", or "pro-hate", the same way you now have Republicans calling people against warrentless wiretapping now as being "pro-terrorist".
What you must understand is that there has been a pro-authoritarian shift in society across the political spectrum. Virtually all mainstream political positions have become completly totalitarian. I mean we have cities banning fatty foods, we have laws that make it illegal to say bad things about some protected group of people, we are passing laws that ban cartoon artwork on food packaging... Hell, it is even illegal to place political advertisments during elections!!! The solution to all problems, as seen by both the left and the right, is government crackdown! The left and the right might disagree on what exactly the social goals they want to achieve, but both are in 100% agreement that the state's need to promote those social goals takes precidence over privacy, free-expression, the right to make a living, etc.. The left and the right may have different goals, but they both 100% agree that total government control over society is fundamental to achieving the goals.
So a lot of this outrage people have is pretty non-sensical. If you support the Democrats, or the Republicans, you are fully responsible for this. When you bash Bush and the Republicans (which in itself would be OK, they are pretty evil), you are trying to imply that voting for Democrats will somehow result in a less authoritarian society, which is entirely false.
With the exception of a handful of Anarchists, Libertarians, or other fringe groups on Slashdot, nearly everyone here has completly bought into the ideology of Big Brother. Leftists of course want Big Brother to protect them from percieved exploitation, unpleasant speech, or personal responsibility... Rightists, of course, want Big Brother to protect them from a percived threat of terrorism, or foriegn enemies, or sexual immorality. But the mainstream of people on Slashdot are in love with Big Brother - They only have an ideological disagreement with those in power, not with the type of police-state they are creating.
If people don't stop and say "This is MY fault! I am responsible for this! This isn't the fault of some other party, or group, or belief system! I have been supporting authoritarianism!", then nothing is ever going to change.
Except that Al Qaeda doesn't want to kill all the Jews. Destroy Israel, yes. But Israel is a nation, not an ethnicity, and the crux of the issue for Al Qaeda is not ethnic as it was for Hitler. There are more Jews outside of Israel than in it, and Al Qaeda has not shown an interest in trying to hunt down and liquidate jews around the world as a matter of course.
There is no parallel there.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Ask the Secret Service how to prevent someone from killing the president. You get the same answer, you can't.
Ask the Police how to prevent people from killing each other. Same answer, you can't.
The only thing you can do it manage the risk level. Yes, a portion of that is intelligence, and investigation to identify threats. A portion of it is bodies in place to act on the intelligence. And a portion of it is there after the fact to track it back & use it as intelligence twords the next time. Terrorism prevention is like your harddrive, it's going to fail, the only thing you can do is try to do the reasonable things to make the MTBF as long as possible.
Note that the word reasonable is the keyword here. You can greatly reduce the possibility of the president not being assasinated if he were to just stay in the nuclear shelter under the Whitehouse for the entire time he's in Office. They don't do that because it's not reasonable.
Now ask yourself:
- If 10X the number of US citizens who died during 9/11, die every year in homicides, is it 'reasonable' to spend $2B a week on preventing another 9/11, and refuse to spend $10M a year for more police?
- If it is 'reasonable' for the Federal Govt to ignore the 4th ammendment to prevent deaths, why isn't it 'reasonable' for the local police to do the same? After all, they handle many more deaths on a yearly basis than the Feds do in a decade.
- If the Feds are going to be 'reasonable' about the use of the wiretapping, why do they insist that any oversight of their behaviour will impeed their job?
The constitution garantees protection from "Unreasonable search and seasure". Over and over the courts have made clear that 'reasonable' requires either oversight (in the form of warrents) or the presence of evidence of immediate threat of bodily harm (a trail of blood leading into a house). It's hard to argue the presence of evidence of immediate threat of bodily hard, 24/7/365 for years.I do not believe that anyone is stating that the NSA/FBI/??? can't perform wiretaps. Everyone I hear is saying they have to follow the rules, and be subject to oversite if they want to perform the wiretaps. If it's a real investigation, with real targets, and real enemies, then provide the list of people you are attempting to investigate to the FISA board & get the taps. Yes, the provisions say they can tap all calls going to a person, as long as they get approval within 3 days of starting. I find it hard to believe that it takes more than 72 hours to print off a copy of a warrent request, rubber stamp it, and have an intern cart it off to the FISA board. Why do they not want oversite? What exactly are they doing/going to do that people outside the department with top-secret security clearance can't know about it, or it will 'grossly hinder' their ability to perform their jobs?
America may have a large economy but do you really believe it is that negatively influential? The root problem of terror is the deep seated political and economic stagnation of the muslim world. What else does a young man have to do in societies devoid opportunity but to rot his brain memorising the koran and rail against injustice? And their prospects are many times greater that those of the women! GDub's valiant attempt to insert a democracy in this cesspool is laudable. But the chances of success are slim.
an ill wind that blows no good
Let me excerpt: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"
..after all, they are claiming that ALL PEOPLE have rights. And that it is the responsibility of government to secure these rights. Oh wait, the term "patriot" has been corrupted nowadays to meaning cowards willing to give up liberties out of fear and person who believes foreigners dont have rights. Last I checked the Bill of Rights itself was conceived during hostile times .. because the founders weren't wussies who felt they had to carry out cruelty or trample on rights of the people to maintain the nation.
What's that? Government exists to SECURE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS that all humans have which come from God? That can't be true can it? This can't possibly be written by patriots
I am a German who used to live in the US - NC to be precise. As a high school student our history curriculum concentrated heavily on the 20th century German history in order to ensure that German students know that a democratic republic can collapse without an open revolt. Hitler never had a majority in parliament but he managed to get to absolute power through legal means one baby step at a time. The political process of erosion in the US highly unsettled me. It didn't help that much of what passes as journalism on outfits like FOX reminded me unpleasantly of the propaganda that the GDR would broadcast into West-Germany when I grew up. I decided that the US was not the right country to raise my children in and I moved to Canada this summer. Reading things like this http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,439889, 00.html confirms to me that this was the right decision. It really feels that America is ever closer inching towards the abyss.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/20 06/08/27/no_win/?page=full
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The govt has been sued over this & to date they have 3 victories & 1 partial victory using the 'State Secrets' defense. The partial victory is because the Federal judge in question declared the NSA program illegal & filed for an injunction, but also denied the claim for damages.
So we're being told that to get the terrorists, we must sanction violations of the Geneva Accords, our Constitution, our laws, and our morals. Apparently, terrorists don't obey those rules anyway, and they get in our way. Where have I heard this argument before?
From Thomas More's A Man for All Seasons:
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
If the CIA is watching some guy in Pakistan they know to be al-Qaida, and is working on the next attack, and they're trying to figure out who the next target is.... then the guy calls somebody in Alaska, a few miles from the pipeline, YOU BET I want the CIA tapping that call! If I was that agent, I would tap the call, legal or not.
Joe Mainusch http://www.weber-amps.com
Well, they can start by offering solutions that aren't either "run away" or just standing around bitching and not offering any other solutions. If they have been offering solutions, they sure don't have the answer.
They have been offering solutions, but they currently don't really have much influence in policy-making at this time, since the Republicans control all three branches of government and aren't terribly interested in listening to what the Democrats have to say.
I keep hearing this line about 'all the Democrats do is bitch and not offer solutions' but the solutions being offered are ignored.
Besides, even if they weren't offering any solutions, I'd say that no solution is better than doing the complete wrong thing at all times and making things worse. At least with no solution, things stay the same- crappy, but the same.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Jefferson's tree of liberty is ablaze. It has grown dry and brittle in the absense of nourishment, and is being consumed. Whose blood will be spilt to extinquish it? or should we, rather, wait and reseed in its ashes? Disregard the weeping for its loss and remember only our failure to tend it. What husbandry will save the new growth?
...that they couldn't get before? The information from the attempted plane bombings and from 9/11 was obtained through legal sources, or rather through methods that were legal before 9/11. We had enough information to stop 9/11 - the problem was in understanding its significance, something that warrantless wiretapping will not help. Since the uses of this information will remain secret, no one has any control over the usefulness of the information (are we gathering useful intel or harrassing internal dissenters? don't know, can't tell); furthermore, the secrecy of the data is likely to make it harder to analyze and get to people who can use it effectively.
The law takes away substantial rights of citizens without oversight, and doesn't appear destined to help much (if you could get warrants from a secret court for surveillance after the fact, this doesn't seem likely to get you much more information, and it doesn't help in the analysis of information, which would appear to be the bottleneck). Unless there is some substantial improvement in intelligence gathering to counter the substantial erosion of rights it causes, it doesn't make much sense to applaud the law. If your friend trades his house for an oil-soaked plot below a disused gas station, you're not going to cheer the decision unless he explains about the winning lottery ticket found in the ruins or the missing gold buried in one of the tanks - otherwise, you'd be right to think him nuts.
Wow, what an eloquent message! You are quite the gifted writer and persuader. This is exactly the kind of message that persuades Americans to agree with you and vote for your guys. I wonder why you guys keep losing these elections?
Awwww did someone hurt you widdle ears? Cry harder, faggot.
BTW: Ever wonder what the people with ideas think? Believe it or not, some people are actually for things. They look forward to a better future instead or dreading the inevitable end of the world.
Really! Like.. the end of the world from the scary terrorists? Like the non-stop fear mongering that has come from the right for the past 6 years? OMG TURRISTS TORCH THE CONTSTITUTION LOLZ BUSH AS EMPROR!!1!
Idiot. You can't stand against something without standing for something. It's a logical impossibility.
Dude! Have you even been here? You are way off base on every point.
Radical?
Absolutely, breaking with tradition and global consensus on nearly every issue and decision.
What does this have to do with our form of government? The US and Brittain broke with "global consensus" when they stood up to Nazi Germany. Did that make them Fascists? The USSR did the same from the 1950's to the mid 80's. I had no idea they were fascists either!
Corporatist?
They let major corporations sit in on policy authorship. The revolving door between the military-industrial aristocracy and government authority is at record levels.
Assuming this were true, how is this is unique to the Bush administration? Oil companies pretty much rule Saudi Arabia via Saudi royalty, are they fascists too?
Authoritarian?
See bills referenced here and consider it a nascent, but rapidly growing, authoritarianism with a strong will to power.
Again, that fact that we are having this converstaion via servers based on the US disproves your point.
Nationalism?
You've got to be kidding me, you dispute this? This is the most racist, jingoistic, willfully xenophobic, flag-waving, God-appropriating culture since Nazi germany. Your ability to even get a job, a loan, or get admitted to a school is based on your willingness to sing the praises of Bush and wrap yourself in the flag.
Again, if true, how is this unique to the Bush administration?
Also, how is having a cabinet more divers than any other administration make this one racists? Isn't flagwaving a prerequisite for the job of the Presidency? Nazi Germany was God-appropriating? (and) GWB is more so than, say, Jimmy Carter? Finally, I work at a major (really big) computer manufacturer here in the US. I work with a guy that has a red star tatoo and wears shirts with Castro's picture or some other sort of communist propaganda on it every day. How was he able to get his job, his car loan, his mortgage and everything else he has or does with that sort of thing if he was unwilling to sing the praises of Bush and wrap himself in the flag.
Militarism?
Well, let's see. A war in Afghanistan, a unilateral war against Iraq just for amusement, third front in Iran almost a given within the next year, with noises about Syria, North Korea, and China if they continue to annoy Taiwan. An almost continuous preoccupation in the policy infrastructure and public discourse with war, the portrayal of war, the policy of war, or the conditions of war. This entire nation is a military.
Again, how is this different than a war in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Japan, Iwo Jima, Burma, North Africa and everywhere else we fought in WWII? Were Roosevelt and Churchill Fascists? As to the entire nation being "a military", I have not seen a tank roll down a public street since... well, never. I have never seen a military checkpoint outside a military base anywhere in the US. For that matter, it was quite a shock to see armed military in our airports after 9-11.
Anti-anarchism?
Anarchism being libertarian leftism, this country has less patience for anarchism than almost anything else.
I thought anarchy was the lack of government. I had no idea that "liberal leftism" was really anarchism. There are some lefty liberals on the Democratic ticket that are going to be surprised to learn that they are anarchists. Still, they are allowed to be on the ticket and even win sometimes, which again, disproves your point.
Anti-communism?
Except discussions about to communism, socialism, Marxism, or U.S. economic imperialism.
See my point about the Castro guy I work with above. Does he need to watch out for government snipers? Code Pink and ANSWER are both communist organizations, and yet they are not banned and their memebers are not arrested. Why is that?
Anti-liberalism?
Liberalism being the general enlightenment-centric approach to individual liberty, market freedom, etc. The U.S. is ex
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Do you notice how nuanced your analysis is when you want to discredit comparisons that you disagree with, and how incredibly broad and generalizing a brush you use when you want to draw parallels? I can't really explain your bizarre analysis in any other way. But I am reasonably certain that you aren't approaching these issues with sufficient objectivity or intellectual honesty to make more a conversation meaningful.
Withhold your vote in primaries.
Let me reiterate & clarify. Withhold your vote in the primaries; I did not say do not vote, nor did I say do not attend, I specifically said withhold. Go to your polling hall, sign in, enter your booth, vote in those elections in which you truly believe your vote -- and never, ever cast your support for a "choice of lesser evils".
If more people would withhold their vote in the primaries, it would fast become obvious how little the popular vote counts. Want to really piss lots of people off. Help prove that their government does not respect their opinion -- and a diminishing return of popular vote counts compared next to a static electoral votes would be a good first step there.
I am both saddened and amused when people shout about the importance of voting, and how so many Americans died for the honor, and so forth and so on; and still they continue to throw their voice away in a sea of pointless anonymity every time they enter the voting booth.
And for the intellectual elite out there, this works for you as well. All those times you make haughty statements about the great unwashed casting baseless votes for every conceivably wrong reason... here's your way out.
The largest problem is that far too many people do not get involved in community level politics -- where they can actually affect change. Work from your village, town, city level up. While P. Citizen Fuckyou carries no weight in national affairs, the same cannot be said for growing trends in community mindsets. Tightly integrated small to mid size communities begin to look very formidable when their are enough of them speaking together. If nothing else, you will have pulled enough people together so that you will not be standing completely alone if the shit does ever truly hit the fan.
On a brighter note, you may also find yourself with support if you decide to enter the local arena. And you should enter the local arena -- if for no other reason than to reasure The Keepers of Status Quo that you and others are unhappy. You'd be surprised how quickly incumbants take notice when a no-name Johnny come whoever, who carries no experience and very little pull, walks away with 20% of their district vote.
Okay, enough ranting. It's Guinness time.
#SickNotWeak
government. We are past the breaking point. The people have not spoken out and not taken to the streets in protest against the invasions of liberty. The people in the USA do not even understand what has happened. The terrorism that will affect the majority of people in this once great country will be perpatrated by our own government. They are the terrorist.
We shall have neither security nor liberty. OSAMA won.
we lost he won
More and more people are adopting the viewpoint that, no matter what the USA does, things are going to be bad in the Middle East for a long time. Also, people who like the war and like Bush often promote the viewpoint that things will likely to be bad in the Middle East if the USA withdraws in the next year or so (ignoring that things will likely be bad regardless).
Having said that, the fundamental thing to realize is that no one really knows what is going to happen in the Middle East and they certainly don't know which courses of action will lead to relatively better outcomes and relatively worse outcomes.
The most that can be said is that the Iraqis are unlikely to tolerate decades of occupation (and the USA is unlikely to be able to afford decades of occupation). When the occupation does end, whether that happens next year or ten years from now, it is likely that there will be substantial pressures for Iraq to split into separate ethnic homelands (like India/Pakistan and the former Yugoslavia) which, if it happens, will most likely involve some ethnic cleansing type stuff. Furthermore, whatever governments emerge will most likely be heavily tribal and be far from fully democratic.
Anyway, given that no one really knows what is going to happen, the most the USA can do is try some different stuff and see what works and what doesn't. For example, it could try withdrawing and see what happens. If an accurate and honest assessment concludes that things get a whole lot worse when the USA leaves then the USA can go back in. On the other hand, if the USA leaves and it doesn't get much worse than it already is, then the USA can stay out for a while and save some money (hundreds of billions actually).
It is only people who are blindly tied to a particular ideology who are unwilling to acknowledge the massive uncertainty in the situation and who are, as a result, afraid to adopt a flexible approach of experimentation and adapting to the situation as it evolves.
You're not reading the amendment correctly. It's the prerogative of the executive to seek a warrant for reasonable searches and seizures. But, you only get the warrant if there is PROBABLE CAUSE. This is a legal standard that is well defined as far as precedents go. It's a very Bush-Nixonian view to try to reinterpret this amendment as restricted by the word REASONABLE while ignoring the key PROBABLE CAUSE standard. In fact, I watched Congressional testimony where (I believe the CoJCS) a Bushie make the frightening claim that there IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE benchmark in the Constitution.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
How is "No, Al Qaeda does not want to kill all Jews." nuanced? It isn't, it's a quite basic disagreement with your position. Make a point or don't.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Oh yes. The best solution is for the well-funded, well-equipped, politically influencial stabilizing force to leave the unstable power-vacuum suddenly. That worked so well when the Russians did it in the 80s.
Same logic used in Vietnam. Whee history does repeat itself.
We are not winning in Iraq. Every indication is that things get worse, day by day, not better. Projecting this into the future, things will continue to get worse. There are no indications -- none, zero, zip, nada -- that things are improving let alone stabilizing.
So of course the RATIONAL thing to do is to continue hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. Someday, somehow, it will stop being so painful. Just you wait!
Whether or not you agree with the Republicans currently in office, I think almost every rational person understands that us leaving Iraq would be about the *worst* action we could take.
Poll: 72% of U.S. Troops Say End War in 2006
81% of non-Kurdish Iraqis want Americans to leave "immediately"
Opposition to Iraq War at All Time High - Only 35% support it, 61% oppose
But of course none of those people are irrational, so in the true spirit of democracy their wishes shouldn't be respected or, really, even listened to.
The major difference is that the airwaves are not privately owned but the ISPs are.
The obstacle is that cable would be exempt from the ban on political ads. Do those run on cable (not a TV watcher, so really don't know).
They have no standing in civilian courts. The courts can not assert themselves over military operations. This is clearly separated. It has been reported that judges have stated they will not grant a FISA warrant to the FBI based solely on NSA information.
What is the problem here again? I do not see why another law needed to be created when the NSA was already doing what it was supposed to do. The only thing that I can see is if the law allowed the famous "wall" to be lowered a bit so that information can more easily go between the NSA and the FBI. Which is trying to solve the whole "connect the dots" problem everyone was complaining about after 9/11.
How is "No, Al Qaeda does not want to kill all Jews." nuanced? It isn't, it's a quite basic disagreement with your position. Make a point or don't.
Compare your depth of analysis with this utterly stupid comment:
This is the most racist, jingoistic, willfully xenophobic, flag-waving, God-appropriating culture since Nazi germany. Your ability to even get a job, a loan, or get admitted to a school is based on your willingness to sing the praises of Bush and wrap yourself in the flag.
Every single point you just made is provably false with a minor bit of effort.. (similar to the Al Qaeda vs "all jews" comment) effort I am entirely unwilling to spend on someone so completely and utterly beyond the level of truth-seeking and well into the realm of agenda-pushing. It's trivial to show that the parrallels you are trying to draw don't stand up, at all, to scrutiny. You know it and I know it. You are just repeating this cursory analysis over and over because it furthers your agenda. At best, it's just extremely weak, and at worst, it's dishonest.
There are many organizations that will send mass mailings of thousands of letters to Members of Congress. A typed and signed personal letter will
receive the same scrutiny as a handwritten letter as long as it isn't, or doesn't look like, one of these mass mailings.
Also, the more an individual writes his Congressman, the less seriously their letters are read. A letter sent by someone who has never written will be
given more attention than one from someone who writes monthly.
Mail is almost always responded to with form letters printed out by interns.
(I worked for one of the CMS vendors at The House of Representatives for 4 years.)
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. --Hofstadter's Law
Radical?
Absolutely, breaking with tradition and global consensus on nearly every issue and decision.
What does this have to do with our form of government? The US and Brittain broke with "global consensus" when they stood up to Nazi Germany. Did that make them Fascists? The USSR did the same from the 1950's to the mid 80's. I had no idea they were fascists either!
No, but it does make them radical, which is one criterion for fascism.
Corporatist?
They let major corporations sit in on policy authorship. The revolving door between the military-industrial aristocracy and government authority is at record levels.
Assuming this were true, how is this is unique to the Bush administration? Oil companies pretty much rule Saudi Arabia via Saudi royalty, are they fascists too?
Again, it is not unique. But it is a second criterion met.
Authoritarian?
See bills referenced here and consider it a nascent, but rapidly growing, authoritarianism with a strong will to power.
Again, that fact that we are having this converstaion via servers based on the US disproves your point.
And for how much longer is precisely the point of this story and this debate. It is what is at issue: some of us want to stop yet another criterion from being met.
Nationalism?
You've got to be kidding me, you dispute this? This is the most racist, jingoistic, willfully xenophobic, flag-waving, God-appropriating culture since Nazi germany. Your ability to even get a job, a loan, or get admitted to a school is based on your willingness to sing the praises of Bush and wrap yourself in the flag.
Again, if true, how is this unique to the Bush administration?
Also, how is having a cabinet more divers than any other administration make this one racists? Isn't flagwaving a prerequisite for the job of the Presidency? Nazi Germany was God-appropriating? (and) GWB is more so than, say, Jimmy Carter? Finally, I work at a major (really big) computer manufacturer here in the US. I work with a guy that has a red star tatoo and wears shirts with Castro's picture or some other sort of communist propaganda on it every day. How was he able to get his job, his car loan, his mortgage and everything else he has or does with that sort of thing if he was unwilling to sing the praises of Bush and wrap himself in the flag.
Again, strong nationalism is one more criterion. I'll let Slashdot readers make their own determinations about whether a culture of nationalism in the U.S. currently exists and whether it impacts things like social capital and the ability to curry favor, service, or employment.
Militarism?
Well, let's see. A war in Afghanistan, a unilateral war against Iraq just for amusement, third front in Iran almost a given within the next year, with noises about Syria, North Korea, and China if they continue to annoy Taiwan. An almost continuous preoccupation in the policy infrastructure and public discourse with war, the portrayal of war, the policy of war, or the conditions of war. This entire nation is a military.
Again, how is this different than a war in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Japan, Iwo Jima, Burma, North Africa and everywhere else we fought in WWII? Were Roosevelt and Churchill Fascists? As to the entire nation being "a military", I have not seen a tank roll down a public street since... well, never. I have never seen a military checkpoint outside a military base anywhere in the US. For that matter, it was quite a shock to see armed military in our airports after 9-11.
Again, one more criterion. I've seen tanks, and troop carriers, rolling down the highway, and I've seen assault rifles on uniformed personnel in bus terminals and at airports. More to the point, the current cost of the Iraq enterprise exceeds $500bn and is growing at $2bn weekly. Whether the public likes it or not, they are the military, and their labor and wages are going to sustain it. It does not operate in a vacuum and would not be able to continue to operate with
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Lets throw these constitutional vampires out of our capital. Just a few weeks before you have your chance. Let them know that this is not ok. Get rid of the lot of them and replace them with people who will undue the harm done to our country. At a minimum, give control to a different party so the president can once again be kept in check and removed if necessary to restore our country to greatness.
I am entirely unwilling to spend on someone so completely and utterly beyond the level of truth-seeking and well into the realm of agenda-pushing
Well, then I need say nothing more in response to you.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Are the Democrats any better at preserving our freedom as the founders intended? It's a serious question - and I would say NO. They're already positioning themselves as the BETTER defenders of freedom for this election.
We don't live in that world anymore - the few of us that actually have a basic understanding of the law have no hope of returning to those golden days.
Sorry, but our Government has no choice in their own eyes - because the American people don't believe in the price of freedom - and I'm not just talking about a strong defense. Americans, by and large, are not educated to even know their freedoms. Because they've been unmade into wage and tax slaves, or criminals and deadbeats.
Expect checkpoints, fingerprinting and questioning in "das papier" style when you cross state and city borders - reguardless of whether you elect a Dem or a Repub. The laws have already been passed, the executive orders are already in place.
Even a nutcase like Hugo Chavez has the balls to call it what it is - demonic. And yes, I'm a conservative.
If Clinton were still president I have a feeling this issue would not even be here.
The 13 stray democrats who voted for the bill did so because the republicans would make them look unpatrotic. Infact a well known congressmen from Georgia who lost both his arms in Vietnam lost his election in 2004 because he was viewed as unpatriotic due to his opposition to the Iraq war.
This is really getting insane.
Why are the republicans doing this? Elections are near and the democrats might take back one or perhaps both houses! So what do they do? Make all the headlines about national security to make the republican party in the mind of voters and to change the issue away from Iraq. Lets hope the strategy is not successfull as we don't have these morons in office for another term.
Vote democratic if you want change? Democrats are nothing are not anything by a long shot like the republicans. The democrats own website even has negative press about the bill yet the republican's is all hype and manipulative garbage. Where are you getting this idea that the democrats are jsut as extreme to the right as the republicans?
Democrats might not be perfect but are at least sane and would stop changing issues to cover terrorism and worshipping Bush when it suits the president best and might do something like plan timetables to leave Iraq and ballance the budget and save us from HMO's and high medical insurance premiums.
THe dems are people on my side while the republicans stand for the big aristocracy of the wealthy and corrupt. Dont vote for a third party that will ensure another republican victory. Yes things were much better in the Clinton years.
http://saveie6.com/
Democrats voting for the abolition of habeas corpus and alternative interrogation methods in cases of people declared enemy combatants:
Carper (Del)
Johnson (SD)
Landrieu (La)
Lautenberg (NJ)
Lieberman (CN)
Menendez (NJ)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor (AR)
Rockefeller (WV)
Salazar (CO)
Stabenow (MI)
Republicans voting against:
Chafee (RI)
Olympia Snowe did not vote.
From what I have been reading, technically the NSA does not have standing to get a warrant from a civilian court since they are military. The NSA is restricted to foreign surveillance. Like getting a tap on some criminal, anyone calling that criminal will have their communication listened in on. This is natural and acceptable police work. This is the same with the NSA. If you call a number that is being tapped by the NSA, your communications will be captured. With the PATRIOT ACT they can pass leads to the FBI, but for the FBI to get a warrant, they would need to go through normal channels.
DC does not have representation in Congress. It's always been that way, specified in the Constitution. The residents do get to vote for President, and they can, of course, vote for things like mayor, etc.
The idea behind this is that the federal government needs to have control over the place where it does its business, and not be subject to the laws of any one state. That could potentially create a situation where the undue influence that state has on the federal government could lead to compromises in favor of that state, which wouldn't be fair to the rest of the union. I believe the rationale is described in the Federalist Papers pretty well.
Constitutionally Correct
BTW: Ever wonder what the people with ideas think? Believe it or not, some people are actually for things. They look forward to a better future instead or dreading the inevitable end of the world. Try to imagine what that's like some time. You could actually be for something instead of against everything.
That's cute.
Gimme a lobotomy and some of your Kool-Aid, and I'll lock-step right behind you.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
I try to vote in every primary and every general election. Especially the local ones. Actually, the only Republican I've voted for since '96 (when I voted for Dole) was local. Since our city council is overwhelmingly Democratic (100% now), I thought having a Republican would keep some diversity. It seemed like the right thing to do as diversity does seem to be a plank in the Democratic platform. :)
The other thing helping VA's Dem prospects is Allen's "macacca" comment, not to mention the way he's handled it. I really hope Webb wins.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"So we're giving these "powerful tools" to government, exempting the Executive branch from judicial oversight, enabling that branch to define anyone as an enemy combatant and forever preclude that person from seeking any judicial review or redress of their detention (the detention which shall require no charges or trial), all to fight..."
To be fair I would say that it is not clear that the Congress CAN exempt the executive branch from judicial oversight. They can pass all the laws they want but eventually all laws save for Constitutional amendments are reviewable by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sure, the administration could pull an Andrew Jackson* and refuse to recognize or enforce a SCOTUS decision, but I bet that would not turn out as well for them as it did for Jackson. In fact I'd think that sort of constitutional crisis would be just about the best possible advertising for the Democrats.
*It's important to keep in mind that our nation has gone through much worse upheaval and constitutional crisis and that we are still here and still strong. History provides warning but it also provides confidence and perspective.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
--"A relatively conservative form of gov't is not radical."
Some of their positions are certainly extremely radical. What's been Bush's only veto?
--"Corporations don't rule this country and they never will."
Nor is it necessary that they do. But look at Microsoft (hey, this is Slashdot). Look at Haliburton. Can't say we're exactly distant from corporatism.
--"I see our government attacked daily from within and there have been no arrests made."
How do you know? See, that's the thing. It's already publicly known that they've held US citizens for multiple years without trial. The Patriot Act has all kinds of secrecy provisions. So, really, how do you know?
--"Nothing wrong with patriotism."
Ah, interesting. Note that the bullet point was nationalism, not patriotism. The two are not equivalent, and this government pounds on the former rather a lot.
--"We have a military, yes"
And quite the willingness to use it. Remind me again what Saddam had to do with Al Queida? Not to mention the "If you don't support our military actions you're a terrorist sympathizer" rhetoric.
--"You mean having a government?"
Labeling small-government advocates as terroists is more like it. Spinning every attempt to _reduce the expansion_ of government (not even reduce the size, simply reduce the expansion) as "wanting the terrorists to win". That kind of thing.
--"I'd say we are going the other way on this one."
More socialism than communism. However, the rhetoric hasn't changed...
--"I don't see liberals being rounded up and sent to gas chambers just yet."
So it's not a problem until it hits mass execution levels? Might be a little late to fight it if you wait that long...
I like to be an optimist, unlike most liberals I know. Who's to say we won't succeed in creating a stable democracy in the middle east? Wouldn't it be great if we did? I think it's a noble goal, whether or not it works.
Besides, if we left, you know, all of those people (if they thought about it) KNOW, that whatever the fate of Iraq, it would be much worse than the Iraq under US occupation. Saying you're ok with that... that is not a noble goal.
Comment of the year
From your wiki link:
Anarchism is the name of a political philosophy or a group of doctrines and attitudes that are centered on rejection of government, or the state, as harmful and unnecessary and support its elimination.
Every government in existence fits this description.
Another Wiki link:
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.
The "right to life" was mentioned before "liberty and persuit of happiness" in the US's Declaration of Independence. Without life, there is no liberty, thus making life a primary political value of Liberalism. A dead liberal has no rights.
Your entire response seems to be a matter of:
(1) "So is everyone else" on each point, or
(2) misappropriating/misunderstanding terms and political philosophies in contradistinction to which fascism is defined
Regarding (1), the point of the aforementioned construction of fascism was the coincidence of all or most of the listed criteria (which the U.S. meets), not just any one of them. That is why it is not telling to pick a single point to the exclusion of the others and list non-fascist nations that meet the single criterion as a basis for illustration.
Regarding (2), all I can say is that if you don't understand the terms in opposition to which fascism is defined, then you also likely don't have a clear understanding of fascism, and thus are hardly in a position to claim that Nation X does not tend toward it.
The point I was making in with my "So is everyone else" points is to prove that the GWB administration is no more fascist than "everyone else". Every government by definition is anti-anacharnism. Every government on earth shares all of these qualities to some degree (with the exception of the Communist countries being anti-communist... but the people in Cuba/China/N.Korea can't argue about wire-tapping because they have not rights. So anti-communist is pro libertarian to some extent). That does not make the entire world fascist any more than it makes the GWB administration a fascist regime.
And to say I don't understand the terms when my definitions meet what you linked to on Wikipedia is a bit wrong, don't you think? After all, I used Wiki's definitions to shoot down your assumption that the GWB is somehow more fascists than the President's who preceded him and that the US is somehow more fascist than other governments in the world, including the truly fascist governments of the 1940's!
And finally, your argument stating that this law will lead us to authoritarianism:
And for how much longer is precisely the point of this story and this debate. It is what is at issue: some of us want to stop yet another criterion from being met.
Can be made against speed limits, drug laws or any other law that is on our books. Just because laws have been passed does not mean that we are on the way to totalitariansism.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
So if only 3 FISA warrants were denied, why not keep FISA? FISA has a nice paper-trail so we can find out after the fact if it was abused. Bush's new demands have no such protection.
Keep appologizing for your would-be masters, you submissive crumb.
Blar.
--"We have a military, yes"
And quite the willingness to use it. Remind me again what Saddam had to do with Al Queida? Not to mention the "If you don't support our military actions you're a terrorist sympathizer" rhetoric.
No one said that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, exept for Zarqoui being harbored there. Iraq was not about Al Qaeda or 9-11. However, 9-11 opened our eyes to what a rag-tag bunch of terrorists could do with little support. Imagine what terrorist could do with the backing of the Iraqi government! Iraq did actively support terrorists.
Who said that if you don't support the military that your are a terrorist sympathizer? I never said that. I heard the "if you are not with us, you are against us" bit, but that was meant to countries that knowingly harbor terrorist, like the Taliban for example.
--"You mean having a government?"
Labeling small-government advocates as terroists is more like it. Spinning every attempt to _reduce the expansion_ of government (not even reduce the size, simply reduce the expansion) as "wanting the terrorists to win". That kind of thing.
The argument here is wether or not the GWB administration is fascist or not. As a small gov't advocate myself, I've heard no one calling libertarians terrorists.
--"I'd say we are going the other way on this one."
More socialism than communism. However, the rhetoric hasn't changed...
Either way, it does not make the US fascist.
--"I don't see liberals being rounded up and sent to gas chambers just yet."
So it's not a problem until it hits mass execution levels? Might be a little late to fight it if you wait that long.
I never said that, but according to what I read here: Wiretapping=Fascist Gov't=Totalitarian Gov't=Liberals rounded up and thrown in gas chambers.
My point was that we have laws that limit liberty today. I can't pray in school, yell fire in a crowded theater or take a gun into a bar, yet we are not totalitarian and not headed that way.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Yeah, you can find this article all over the web. There are a couple problems, though. Lawrence Britt is not a doctor and is not a political scientist. He's an average-joe journalist. Now, you may still think those points are insightful and apropos, but the fact of the matter is, it was not written by and expert and it is not backed up by research.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
Let me guess
Meanwhile, there is this thing called "logistics" which is vital for the success of military operations.
That means planning how to get enough troops, with their equipment, in the same place as the ammo, and bringing food to them
Now, because food, equipment, transportation and AMMO all cost money, the people planning the war are operating under a budget. Not to mention the TIME it takes to produce and transport those items.
So using all your ammo taking the first hill means that you have no ammo to hold that hill or to take the next hill. Until more ammo can be purchased and transported to you.
If you have not defeated the enemy on schedule, then you have NOT defeated the enemy.
The enemy is going to "hold out" as long as he can anyway. They don't come back as zombies.
Next on the agenda: How exactly do you know that? If you call Bob, who happens to have forwarded his phone down the street to the Abdi's where he is having dinner, and the Abdi's gave $10 to the local charity that happened to send a cow to a village in Afganistan, that happened to be the hometown of some 'terrorist'. According to this bill, they have every right to monitor your call. Not only that, they can monitor you for 89 days before having to 'notify' the security panel. Note that's 'notify', not request permission to continue. How about if your work requires you to make an international call. If the contents of your call would put the oil industry out of business in 6 months, you don't think Bush & co. would know about it before the end of the day? How about if you're a lawyer and you have to discuss your case with someone who's not in the states? How about if you're a journalist?
Nobody is saying that they shouldn't have access to these tools. What they are saying is that somebody needs to be watching the fox while he's guarding the henhouse. And like any good fox, the Shrub is objecting that he's perfectly trustworthy. Even if I buy that line, how do I know that the person taking office in 28 months is going to be? Hell, how do I know the peon over at the NSA is?
No, I need either oversight, or to trust every member of the executive branch higher than an intern. Of the 2, I think oversight is the better option, 'cause I barely trust my town council not to invoke eminant domain to turn my house into a parking lot - and even there it's mostly because hills make bad parking lots.
I don't know why bother with these semantical debates anymore.. but here goes:
What's nonsensical about it? If you mean "fascist" as in "supporter of the early 20th century political movement led by Mussolini", then it's certainly nonsensical. So it follows then that they can't be meaning "fascism" in the most literal sense*, but are rather referring to a broader, more abstract definition of the term. (*well the most literal sense would be "someone who likes fasces", I guess. Intersting considering they've got some decorating the House of Reps..)
And in that respect, it seems fine by me. I'll give my own definition, based on my thinking and experience:
(My experience consisting of knowing an ex-Nazi, another guy who turned into one, and my family - My grandparents moved to South America after the war. 'nough said.)
1) They are extremely conservative.
2) They are militant.
3) They advocate a totalitarian form of government.
4) They are Group-ist, Group- = however they choose to distinguish "us" from "them" (nation/race/religion).
5) They appeal to romantic notions of recreating a glorious past (The Romans, The Caliphate)
6) They perceive themselves as a superior group, morally if not in more ways, who have been corrupted and treated unfairly.
7) The percieved corruption due to modern society and/or 'foreign' cultural influences (Jazz music, Baywatch), where 'foreign' means 'not part of the Group' (this always holds true since producing such a thing means you are corrupted and can be excluded from the Group.)
8) Unfair treatment should be some real injustice, current or historical (Versailles Treaty, Colonialism), and it should be exaggerated as much as possible.
9) If none exists, one is invented, that is, a scapegoat. Or conspiracy of scapegoats, even.
10) The ends justify the means, or rather: They believe themselves to be acting in defense.
These points aren't really independent, and you can't really expect them to be, since they're all products of the same mindset, which can really be stated as simply as: victim mentality.
Anyway, my opinion here is that 1), 5) and 7) are defining for Fascism as opposed to other totalitarian ideologies, although the latter two are more or less implied by the first. Communism substitutes "conservatism" for "radicalism" in 1), "glorious past" becomes "utopian future" in 5), and "modern/foreign" should read "capitalist". (This is a bit simplistic*)
(8) constitutes the real threat-potential. Extremism will always be marginal (in numbers) unless there's a sufficiently big real injustice going on, or an existing one can be exaggerated enough. Hitler and Mussolini, for all their political prowess, would never have succeeded on bogus anti-semitism alone.
As for (10) - Aggressors invariably rationalize their agression as 'self-defense'. The old saw about how islamists supposedly misinterpret "jihad" as allowing aggression when it only allows defense, is really totally irrelevant: They consider their acts to be self-defense anyway. Even Hitler thought he was acting in self-defense when attacking Poland.
Anyway, back to the topic: So yes, I think "islamofascism" is a perfectly apt term when applied to what is more commonly known as islamism or islamic fundamentalism. (And an equally bad term when applied to islam) Similarily, I'd find "christianofascism" a perfectly good term for christian fundamentalism.
(although somewhat redundant, since classical fascism often did draw its moral superiority, in part if not in whole, from the Church).
The people who seem to most often use the term "islamofascism" are the American right-wing pundits. I find this ironic since I consider them to be increasingly fascist. (And
What the fuck?
Even the mechanic at the local garage can give you a schedule as to when he will have your car fixed and how much it will cost.
So a mechanic can "predict the future"?
But you say that "no one can predict the future."
Seems that you're wrong.
As far as I'm concerned the goal is to be neither an optimist or a pessimist. The goal is to see life clearly neither assuming that things will work out when they won't or assuming that things won't work out when they will.
Something a lot of (particularly religious) conservatives have trouble understanding is the difference between possible and probable. Sure, pure stable democracy is possible - but probable? The facts have a liberal bias and the facts just don't think so.
Traditionally the nobility were opposed to democracy but, then again, they did like to run other peoples lives. I suppose that if you believe in the whole "divine right of kings" then you might think that the ruling class had a tendency to act in a way that was beneficial to others. Personally, as far as whether it is beneficial for the Iraqis to suffer and die "for democracy", my own observation of how the world works suggests that they would be better able to make that decision for themselves. It is not at all clear to me that whatever the Iraqis are likely to gain from the US invasion will outweigh the costs to the Iraqis in death and suffering and destruction of property.
At any rate, it hardly seems noble to make that decision for someone else - except in the most cynical interpretation of the word noble.
Should the differences in the House and Senate versions be reconciled and this anti-American is signed into law. I hope to God that the Supreme Court gives them the biggest smackdown in US history. Our country is strong because of it has ***three*** branches of government, and I wish the Executive Branch would learn that.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
Should we start replacing the "in Soviet Russia" jokes with "in Neocon America" ones?
Before there was any terrorism in the U.S.A., it existed in Europe, by Muslims, but also by opposing ``Christian'' groups in Ireland. I put quotes around ``Christian'' because it really is more an Anglo vs. Celtic thing than a Protestant vs. Catholic thing. There were communist and Muslim terrorist groups in the Philippine Islands for almost a century. So calm down, you don't know what you're talking about. The worst thing about the U.S.A. is that ignorant people such as you are regular products of our sadly deficient education system.
For those few who haven't seen it already, please check out this video:
The History of Oil by standup comedian Robert Newman
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
But the links you give do not corroborate that statement either. All they say is that he wrote a book. I see nothing more or less.
What a load of utter bullshit. As if you need to be an "expert" to know something. Apparently you've never heard of ad-hominem attacks or appeals to authority, eh?
It doesn't matter one bit what his qualifications are because he isn't the one appealing to authority to make his point. The guy using rational argument. The article also provides references which is conclusions were presumably based on, most of which were written by experts, if that's so important to you.
Now: What are you basing your assertion that it's "not backed up by research" on? You haven't given any justification. Not even an appeal to authority. Are you an expert on the subject? If you're so certain it's wrong, you should have no problems coming up with an actual counter-argument.
I can only assume that you're not giving one because you don't have one. Why are you so sure he's wrong if you don't know why? Could it be that you don't like what you're hearing? I assume you dislike fascism? Shouldn't you then be correspondingly careful about dismissing the allegation out-of-hand?
You're plainly talking out of your ass with the entire "research" claim. "Fascism" is not something open to objective measurement, it's just a label. As such, its meaning is whatever you want to define it as, and every political scientist out there has his own variation. And it's not relevant; the guy is not purporting to give an absolute definition of the term or ideology. He's enumerating a set of common features he has identified, and which he considers important in a set of dictatorships he (but most others too) consider fascist.
Exactly what kind of research would refute or back that up? No kind! It's completely subjective how you define the characteristic, which ones you think are significant, and how you determine whether the criteria for it are met. Research does not do Top-10 lists, buddy.
This is not research and doesn't need any because it's obviously not fact, nor political theory. It's an opinion, and his reasons for it in terms of the facts and how he interprets them. And that does make it interesting.
Laurence Britt's novel, June, 2004, depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists.
Will we next create false gods to rule over us? How proud we have become, and how blind.
In fact I hope to the Goddess you are a troll.
If not, if you truly believe what you are saying is correct I would strongly sugjust you read "The Art of War", by Sun Tzu, considered by most of the worlds real military stratigist and leaders to be one of the finest doctrines of how a war should be fought. Maybe after you have read this you will HAVE A FSCKING CLUE!!!!!!!!!! of the cost and logistics of real warfare.
Till then keep making a fool of yourself, I'm finding you quite entertaining.
Will somebody please stop attacking political parties for a second and answer this simple question?
Should the government be allowed to listen in when someone calls from a landline in the United States to a phone number of a known terrorist overseas?
Answer me that question and then we can get on to the question of how best to do that (or not do that).
The evangelicals think that Bush was chosen by God to lead the USA, and the reasons are far wider than terrorism. "Culture of faith," "Christian country," "returning God to our public lives," "returning God to the schools," "fighting secularism/humanism/filth" etc. Absurd and surreal as it is to the rest of us that anyone could look at the Bush administration and see the Hand of God, many do, and their worldview does not include the possibility of losing the next election. If they do lose, they will consider it stolen by the forces of darkness.
A vote for the Republic Party is a vote for God, and a vote for anyone else is a vote for Satan. You don't like Satan, do you? No not everyone is like that, but the dominant theme is very much present.
So yes, I guess the Democrats are better. Not great, but better. I know that isn't important to you, because you aren't the one being tortored to death. But I care about torture, and who is better and worse does matter to me. Maybe you're okay voting for an apologist for torture, but I'm not. Are you? I'm stuck on the basic idea that torture is wrong. Can you help me get over that basic moral failing?
How it's suppose to work is that Legislative and Judicial branches should have taken severe punitive action after the initial illegal action. Instead they roll over, wag their tails, and try to make it legal. Why? .
We are all just people.
only bush knows how to it! if support bush and his fellow dumbshits you need a good swift kick in the face.
The warrantless wiretapping has already been ruled unconstitutional. Congress cannot authorize an unconstitutional act. This will fall apart the moment it gets in front of a judge, just like the torture act.
We only want a quiet place to finish working while God eats our brains.
--Bruce Sterling
only problem is these things only solve half the problem. if your isp is forced to log all your activity, they sill can turn over a nice list of ip addresses, or from: to: information if you prefer.
I was talking only about the Islamic extremists who are a byproduct of our meddling in the Middle East. I'm well aware that there are and have been plenty of other types and groups of terrorists throughout history, you cocksucking anonymous fuckbag.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Those who would sacrafise liberty for safety diserve neither liberty nor safety.
Keeping the population in fear is the only effective means of mass control. Now that the cold war is over, and Da Man who's always tryna keep a brother down, who ran both the totalitarian commie systems and the western imperialist capitalist free democracies, and could keep both sides in fear by pitting them against each other, so Da Man is searching for a new ultimate fear object - terrorism, WMD's, etc, whatever works man, just come up with something that works, because we all gotta fear something in order to conform and stay motivated, otherwise people have rights such as "even the King of England may not enter", so we need those comfortable exceptions where "even the King of England may not enter except when.." Fortunately or unfortunately the population has it too good to pay attention or give a crap and start living in fear, at least compared to how going to hell was feared back in the Dark Middle Ages, we're nowhere near that kind of fear. Talk about total mind control. These days people got used to being callous, or at least they learned to stay out of Da Man's Game, unless their life is personally affected.
How did a 13-year-old get a 5-digit user ID?
Let's look a little more closely at that phrase "The terrorists are winning". It has two parts which imply or presume the existance of two things:
1. There exists an group of people ('them') capable of causing terror (in 'us'),
2. And they have an objective, the accomplishment of which they consider to be a "win".
Your statements clearly indicate that the "win" for the "terrorists" is the creation of terror in the American populace. So the prime objective, if not the only objective, you see here is to cause you to feel fear.
Are you afraid to take the New York subway if a bomb goes off in a train station in Spain?
If a suicide bomber kills some people in a shopping mall in Tel Aviv, are then afraid to go to the mall in Houston?
How about if a dictator in Korea tortures his countrymen, are you then afraid to live in America?
Of course not. But why not? What would make you afraid?
Clearly, having American people and American buildings in America being destroyed. 'Ah ha! 9/11' you say. 'See, there ARE terrorists performing terrifying acts of terror to terrify us into staying home and not shopping!'
It is true that some planes were used as instruments of fear on Sept 11, 2001 in America. What about before that? After that? Nothing? Not one suicide bomber at a mall? (in America). Not one train station attacked? (in America). Hmmm...
So I question whether there is a foreign group trying to sow fear in Americans living in America. There really seems to me to be a lack of evidence of this - one act is not much evidence of a supposedly highly organized, well funded, well trained, fanatically motivated group of terrorists, is it?
Counter thought: Is it possible that the events of Sept 11, 2001, while extremely tragic, were not the actions of "the terrorists"? There are several documentaries that show evidence that plausibly calls into question the official government interpretation. Search on Google Video for '9/11'. Perhaps Al Qaeda is a convenient scapegoat or bogeyman.
Now let's take a look at your statement:
They have the perfect patsy in GW, he reacted EXACTLY the way they expected. He is promoting Terror more than the Terrorists EVER could.
What you are saying is that this group has a such a deep insight into the psyche (thoughts, emotions, actions and reactions) of the entire leadership of a nation - or even, if you want to narrow the scope of meaningful influence to one man: GW - that they can manipulate his decisions regarding the execution of his office for many years through just one act. Plus all of the advisors of this one man behave in exactly the way this group wants and not one dissenting voice is raised by any of them - year after year, bill after bill, decision after decision. All with only one solitary act to precipitate it all. I doubt that you or anyone would believe this, would credit any group with this level of understanding and manipulative ability.
Bottom line: by making the statement "the terrorists are winning" you are supporting the governments fear campaign because you are reinforcing an unverified bogeyman (but excellent scapegoat), "the terrorists". In fact there are no foreign groups of terrorists terrorizing America; "they" are not "winning" because no terrorist acts are being carried out in America by any foreign group of terrorists.
So if what GW and crew are DOING, if their ACTS, policies, regulations (ie TSA), and laws SCARE you then maybe you have found out who the real terrorists are.
Last question: What is the ultimate goal of those that are performing these SCAREY acts, laws, etc.? All terrorists have a goal, and it is not terror. Fear is a tool used to reach an objective. Usually fear is used to paralyse and/or distract the target. This is the essential, the core, the "follow-the-money" question. Personally I like the answer as given in the story "V for Vendetta". 1984 and Animal Farm work too.
I'm going to sound like a raving lunatic here, but WHAT THE FUCK IS CONGRESS THINKING? Allowing the government to spy on americans without anyone ever knowing about it? Jesus, its free phone sex for Karl Rove.
That list takes a while to get updated.
The point is that liberty is something very important. It is something that can be worth dying for. It is something that many people have suffered or died for. It should never be idly cast aside simply out of convenience or comfort. That is what that quotation from Patrick Henry underscores, and it is this that is, I hope, an American ideal. As I said, talking about unlimited liberty is just incoherent as long as the world has more than one person in it. There will always be some limits on liberty. The ideal I'm arguing for, though, is that liberty must be preserved as much as possible, meaning that we should only be willing to accept infringements on our liberty when they do not infringe upon a substantive liberty interest (i.e. they don't take away any really substantial liberty), they are limited in scope, and we should only accept them after we have a very strong argument that they will actually be effective in achieving some vital goal. It's only when all three of these conditions are satisfied that we should even consider allowing infringements upon our liberty. A large part of the difference then between the American model and the Chinese model, is whether you refuse encroachments on your liberties until it's been proved to you that they should be accepted or whether you accept them by default.
Now, lets consider your examples: Laws against drunk driving only limit your freedom to drive while intoxicated. None of us consider this a fundamental right or even a substantive liberty interest. They are limited, because there are clear criteria about what constitutes intoxication and under what limited circumstances one may be tested, so it doesn't give the government arbitrary power to infringe on our liberty. And, finally, we have direct evidence to believe they will be effective in preventing a significant number of deaths. A law against yelling "fire" in a theater is precisely the same. It limits only speech that has no meaningful, useful, content and only in very specific situations. There are relatively clear criteria under which it applies. And it's the case that without this law, people needlessly died from such incidents.
You take issue with the statement, "[I will] not surrender even a single liberty out of fear," but this is exactly the statement we should all hold to. If we accept any infringements on our liberties, we should do so based upon reason, not irrational fear, and this is precisely the problem with the argument you are making. You're presuming (without any proof) that this wiretapping will actually significantly decrease the risk of terrorism, and you therefore conclude that it's justified, but you can use this rationale to justify taking away any of our rights. Our 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights no doubt make it harder to prosecute criminals, for example, but we keep these rights around, even though we'd be safer from crime without them, because they are so important.
Now, if we try to rationally look at this wiretapping question based on the criteria I laid out, it fails on one and perhaps all of them. First of all, privacy is a central, fundamental right. It is evident from many things, including our 4th Amendment, that the framers thought so, and it is clear from the fact that warrantless wiretapping of domestic phone calls has been found unconstitutional in the past that it's still seen so today. My right to privacy is violated when someone listens in on a phone call I'm a party to. Who the other party is and where they are located is entirely immaterial. While you may not personally make international calls, I do, and so do many other Americans. There is also no good evidence that the scope of who is wiretapped is particularly small or specific. Given that countries such as England, Canada, and Germany have had Islamist terror cells, your implication that it'll only matter if you're calling Pakistan or Afghanistan is simply incorrect. Furthermore, if there were reasonable evidence to suggest that the person you
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
I think you're missing the point. There is nil argument against any Government doign what it needs to do to protect people, but there is every argument to ensure that this ability cannot be abused. It's the potential for uncontrolled abuse that is the problem, not the ability, and there's is plenty of evidence around that that control is needed.
The irony is that the lack of control can actually harm a country. It can turn a country into a 3rd world nation.
Who watches the watchers: not without reason a classic line..
...because they can't do tubetapping yet. Slashdot remains safe.
Indeed corporations are complicit in the illegal alien problem. It has hurt employment prospects and wage growth for the segment of our society most in need. One wonders where the loyalities of such companies lie. Nonetheless, immigration laws exist and they are being flaunted. It looks like congress might be taking the issue seriously with passage of the border fence law. Expect a considerable number of deportations of the 12 million illegals to follow.
JFK was assassinated when he was in full zeal for the Vietnam War. There goes that theory. He started it! His successor Johnson screwed it up royally, heaping shame on all of us.There goes that theory.
The pentagon was asked to fight a war. They kicked ass, and took prisoners. The prisoners had to go somewhere. In WWII we kept 400,000 Germans and Japanese in prisons all over the US. I had an in law who had prisoners working on their cattle ranch (El Reno, OK). They were paid, housed, and fed well if they behaved. Many stayed and became loyal citizens! The fellows at Gitmo have made a lot of mischief. They need to be kept on ice until Al Qaida surrenders.
Another whacko conspiracy theorist reveals himself. Why do you find it implausable that a fully fueled airliner traveling at 500 miles per hour could bring down a building? We both watched it on TV. We have video of the perpetrators. Now that you are a responsable adult should should stop smoking dope!
God bless President George Bush. May his armies crush the enemies of the United States.
an ill wind that blows no good
Uh huh. Face it, that drug-addicted, philandering leftist prince dramatically escalated the conflict, your lamest of revisionism notwithstanding. Hardly the act of a president who wanted to "cut and run". Not that I care, mind you. I wish Johnson has the stones to do right by our servicemen and win the thing.
Fact: Al Qaida prospered under the inept leadership of Clinton. Fact: under President Bush all areas of homeland security have dramatically improved. Fact: President Bush removed grave security threats in Afghanistan and Iraq, leading to unpresidented economic prosperity in the US. As for the rest of your rant - ??? And I am not a neocon. I fancy myself a Reagan conservative, God rest his soul.
an ill wind that blows no good
Congratulations. You just won the "Not paying attention" award.
The 4th amendment is: "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."
The government can tap your phone without a warrant (FISA). The government can search your home without a warrant (Patriot act.) The government can search your car without a warrant (your local cops will do this in a heartbeat.) The government can take everything you own (seizure) including your house, your money, your vehicles, your investments, and more. They can do this not only without a warrant, but they can do it without even winning in court (United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency.) With the passage of the legislation last week, arrests need no warrant, arrestees have no recourse to representation or haebus corpus (ability to contest the arrest) and have no hope of any guarantee that they will ever be released.
Really — you're simply not paying attention. The 4th amendment is, at present, a historical relic, no more, no less. Along with many of the other amendments and original constitutional constructs. If you want the constitution and its amendments to return to being a significant force in American law, you're going to have to see a lot of things change in the opposite direction they are changing now.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Use them in that order. Use them now.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
FISA works, we don't NEED more legislation.
Blar.
Hmm, no. I'd agree with no corporate donations (because the fusion of political and economic power is very very dangerous) but political preservation/advancement of SomeInterest is certainly a legitimate activity for a group about SomeInterest.
If I belong to a chess club and my right to play chess were ever threatened, I'd expect to be able to work in concert with other chess players - collectively, through the chess club organization - not as a bunch of individuals, which is far less efficient. I send in my dues, and the chess club takes care of the details. We all have busy lives, and delegating responsibility to specialists is how we cope. Make sense?
Constitutionally Correct