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!
Big Brother's just being lazy- he's about 22 years later than he was s'posed to be.
In all honesty, each and every Senator that voted "Yes" to this needs to be removed
from office ASAP- they took a damn oath of office and they just broke it.
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.
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??
As old and "worn out" as the phrase might be- it's still quite true all the same.
If it bothers you, why don't you do something about the situation that keeps bringing it back out
instead of bitching about it?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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.
Oh, and welcome to the police state .
Nothing beats a fearmongering president like fearmongering dissent. Welcome to the real new America. Everyone has lost all perspective... Chicken Little rules the day.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Well, obviously. After all, those terrorists did it because they 'hate our freedom'. Now that the government has rid us of that pesky thing, there's no reason to fear anymore.
Well, you might experience occasional unscheduled emergency demolition work, but dont worry, anyone suggesting it wasnt's in any way legitimate will be immediately detained and umm... humanely umm... treated.
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.
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
This president apparently cares not for our constitution. Between wanting to add amendments to prevent flag burning and gay marriage, to trampling on the rights of the people in the name of security, he's never seemed to understand that his primary duty is to protect the ideals in that document upon which this nation is based.
As I see it, this program will never be legal as long as the fourth amendment protects me from unreasonable search and seizure. The government has no right to invate my privacy to further their investigations unless I provide them with enough reason for them to obtain a warrant. They can pass their law. I don't care. It doesn't change a damn thing since the constitution is the standard against which it will ultimately be measured.
As for this POTUS, he belongs in jail. His actions in office are detrimental to the long-term health and safety of our nation. If the dems somehow take control of the senate (I know, fat chance) then there should be an immediate movement to either censure or impeach him.
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?
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
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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!
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/
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.