ACLU Drops Challenge Over Patriot Act

An anonymous reader writes, "The ACLU announced on Friday that they were dropping their case against the US Government over the highly contested section 215 of the Patriot Act. ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson stated: 'While the reauthorized Patriot Act is far from perfect, we succeeded in stemming the damage from some of the Bush administration's most reckless policies. The ACLU will continue to monitor how the government applies the broad Section 215 power and we will challenge unconstitutional demands on a case-by-case basis.'"

Comments

Re:"Reauthorized"

[NoTheory]

Reauthorized means, passed through congress again. :P I think it's significant that congress was dumb enough to let it get by again without more of a fuss. But then, i suppose this isn't a subject that anybody could raise without getting tarred and feathered.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[Anonymous Coward]

George Walker Bush doesn't "reauthor" or "rewrite." George Walker Bush reauthorizesmatizes! How dare you misunderestimate him?!

Patriot Pieties

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most amazing and amazingly unremarked upon aspects of these 9/11 commission hearings is the unanimity about the benefits of the Patriot Act. They don't often say it outright and the Democrats especially talk about how important "increased cooperation" between the CIA and FBI is. But the reality is that all of these "needed fixes" everyone keeps talking about are the Patriot Act. All of the "institutional barriers" that prevented us from "shaking the tree," all of the obvious things that should have been "checked out" etc are what the Patriot Act was designed to fix. It may not be perfect but I think it's hilarious that this seems to be the one bit of policy consensus from these hearings but few are willing to admit it.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[gravesb]

That would be evidence of the government working. Its far more politically empowering to point out how it fails and blame it on the opposition. Crap, did I say the government worked? It must be early.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[NoTheory]

Do you have evidence that the Patriot Act actually improved anything? I don't.

Is there any evidence that there are fewer institutional barriers to cooperation and coordination? Because if the rest of the agencies effected by the Patriot Act were reorganized like FEMA was, i don't feel very confident that the changes made to the US government are of any use at all.

Also, there is a difference between policy consensus, and the reality of implementation. (for instance, integrating national crime databases, sounds like a great idea, but apparently this isn't an IT project the government could handle building)

Re:Patriot Pieties

[Mainusch]

Virtually no Americans have died in America from terrorist attacks following implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Now you might argue that this came at the cost of liberties, which I totally dispute. However, to say that the USA PATRIOT Act has accomplished nothing flies in the face of the last several years of demonstrable safety in the homeland versus terrorist attacks.

You must remember, the USA PATRIOT Act is largely just an adaptation of the RICO Act, extending it to those involved in terrorism. There were some limitations on law enforcement which prevented them from preventing terrorism. Some of those limitations have been modified by the USA PATRIOT Act to allow law enforcement to more properly function in this arena. That we are safer from terrorism as a result is obvious.

How much safer? Up for debate. Does it erode freedoms in the process? Up for debate. Has it made us safer? Obviously.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[calbanese]

idiot

Re:Patriot Pieties

[aplusjimages]

There's proof that the patriot act has made us safer? Where?

Re:Patriot Pieties

[ssstraub]

"Has it made us safer? Obviously."

I wore a red shirt yesterday and a green shirt today. It was colder yesterday than it is today. Therefore, wearing a green shirt makes the temperature warmer.

How is this reasoning any different than yours? Correlation does not imply causation

Re:Patriot Pieties

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't been attacked by tigers all my life. Clearly this is due to my tiger-repelling stone. To say that this stone has accomplished nothing flies in the face of the last twenty-one years of demonstrable safety versus tiger attacks.

1995 -> 2001 didn't have any significant terrorist attacks either. Change to 1996-2001 if you prefer to include the Unabomber as significant during that time period, though I'd argue that you'd then need to include the November 2001 anthrax-letter attacks (insignificant as they were, they were more so than late-period Unabomber IMO).

Re:Patriot Pieties

[LihTox]

Or to take the logic in the opposite direction: if the US were attacked tomorrow, would that prove that the Patriot Act was a bad idea?

Re:Patriot Pieties

[dosquatch]

Virtually no Americans have died in America from terrorist attacks following implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Virtually no Americans died in America from terrorist attacks prior to the Patriot Act, either, excepting one particular day in September. I am far more inclined to attribute the relative safety of the past 5 years to status quo than to some hastily and ill-conceived piece of legislation, but that's just me.

That we are safer from terrorism as a result is obvious.

This is not obvious to me. That the Act mandates better comms between the alphabet soup agencies is a Good Thing, but at what cost? How many freedoms and liberties lost or curtailed? How much indignity? How much opacity added to the process?

I mean, do you really feel safer when Gatorade is banned from airline flights? I think the continuous fostering of unfounded paranoia does us more regular damage. After all, if the point of terrorism is to make us feel fear and thereby use it as a weapon, and that is bad, then I can see no good in the fear mongering of our own elected officials. That is the real and continuing cost of 9/11.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[Eljas]

I have a stone that protects from tigers that I think you would like to buy...

Re:Patriot Pieties

[sniperawd]

i have to agree with you on that

Re:Patriot Pieties

[diamondsw]

The ACLU did admit this up front. As you'll notice, they only object to a single section - you might want to read the fine summary.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

It's fair and important to point out that USAPATRIOT is more than just the vivil rights violations.

"Shaking the tree", however, was possible before it passed.

Proof by example: end of 1999. There were warnings of possible "millenium" terrorist attacks, not as numerous or as loud as the warnings before 9/11, but serious. The administration met, planned, and passed alerts down to various law enforcement organizations. An alert border guard then spotted somebody who turned out to have a car full of explosives meant for a Seattle landmark.

We keep forgetting that there were two attacks on the World Trade Center. The first, in 1993, wound up with the plotters rotting in prison. Normal police powers were enough for that.

BTW the next time somebody says that the "moonbats" were just scaremongering about library records, point them to the 2005 Connecticutt case.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[operagost]

The USS Cole was attacked by terrorists in 2000.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[operagost]

We keep forgetting that there were two attacks on the World Trade Center. The first, in 1993, wound up with the plotters rotting in prison. Normal police powers were enough for that.

I prefer we find the terrorists before they kill people. Police find and arrest murderers after the fact, but they very rarely stop a crime from happening (which is why people who expect the police to protect them rather than watch their own six disturb me).

Re:Patriot Pieties

[GodfatherofSoul]

Well the way our laws work if 1% of a complex set of regulations is unconstitutional, it shouldn't be passed. No one ever made the argument that the Patriot Act was all bad. But, the small percent of it that is unacceptible validates a challenge. Too bad the public was never allowed to hear an honest debate over it.

The entire "institutional barriers" slogan was just a bunch of Rovian trash. There never *was* a legal barrier. Unless you consider your 4th amendment rights a barrier. The CIA can do things outside this country that the FBI can't do. Whenever there were gray areas or overlap, you could always go to a judge and get the warrants to do the searches etc. that you wanted to do. The problems came about in cases like Moussaoui's (the supposed 20th hijacker) when the judge said info could be shared as long as there was a filtering process. Without it, you effectively give the FBI a backdoor for circumventing the 4th amendment. Instead of following orders, unscrupulous agents from both agencies would "screen" intelligence together. They then *lied* to a judge about it and had their warrants revoked. Which is why Moussaui's laptop was never looked at. It wasn't because of a barriers, it was because of lying-assed Feds.

Another problem was that the FBI wasn't well informed of the exception rules. They must have been too complex for managers to deal with since so many agents developed the impression that it was a simple no-no. Jane(?) Gorelick on the 9-11 commission helped construct the original wall laws and I recall her saying that the "intelligence wall" shouldn't have obstructed investigations.

Now, if you want to argue the turf-protection problems with sharing information then that's another story. But, it's not a legal issue. From what I gleaned from the 9-11 commission report, the stovepiping problem was more of an intra-agency problem. FBI field offices weren't talking to each other.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[operagost]

Virtually no Americans died in America from terrorist attacks prior to the Patriot Act, either, excepting one particular day in September.

Are you kidding me?

Re:Patriot Pieties

[cold fjord]

Does your shirt changing have a record of assisting in investigations leading to arrest, prosecution, and conviction?

The Department of Justice has already utilized section 220 in extremely important terrorism investigations. As the Criminal Division's Assistant Attorney General, Christopher Wray, testified before the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary on October 21, 2003, section 220 proved useful in the Portland terror cell case, because Athe judge who was most familiar with the case was able to issue the search warrants for the defendant's e-mail accounts from providers in other districts, which dramatically sped up the investigation and reduced all sorts of unnecessary burdens on other prosecutors, agents and courts.@ This provision of the PATRIOT Act has been similarly useful in the AVirginia Jihad@ case involving a Northern Virginia terror cell and in the case of the infamous Ashoebomber@ terrorist, Richard Reid.

That might be a little bit of a difference.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[dosquatch]

Kidding? No. Operative words: "virtually", "in America".

Not to be too dismissive, but an embassy in Lebanon isn't quite the same discussion as downtown New York City. I say "in America" meaning within the political borders of the continental United States, North America.

That said, from your list:

• 1920 - 35 dead
• 1975 - 4 dead
• 1993 - 6 dead
• 1995 - 168 dead

To this point, Oklahoma City has a higher death toll than the rest of the list, and that's domestic terrorism, seemingly not the impetus behind the Patriot Act. I suppose one could count incidents such as arson and the beltway sniper as acts of terrorism as well, and quite possibly Pearl Harbor (but no, that's an "act of war"), but these didn't get listed in your source.

So, of the four "on American soil" incidents above, there are 213 dead. Then we come to the morning of September 11, 2001:

• 2973 dead - 2749 in NY, 184 in the Pentagon, 40 in PA, and I refuse to count the 19 hijackers

One attack, 14-fold the damage of everything else combined. So, yeah, "virtually" no Americans died in America from terrorist attacks prior to 9/11. Half that many people die in car accidents each day.

Do you want to compare our scars of terrorism against places like Lebanon, Ireland, Israel? These places put up with this shit on a very, very regular basis. We don't.

Nevermind that this is completely off the point. My point was less about the statistics and severity of terrorism against the US, and more about the fact that I don't believe the Patriot Act has a lot to do with that either which way.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[iocat]

Look, I know this is slashdot, but man, not one GWB PWNS ACLU post!? WTF!?

Re:Patriot Pieties

[dosquatch]

Hasty and ill-conceived piece of legislation? Most of the meat of the act had been on paper for years [...]

See, now, I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt. If this is true, that makes this Act more of an opportunistic power-grab at the expense of several thousand people's lives, and in my mind moves it out of the realm of typical bad policy and more into the realm of actively malicious policy.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[tsrich]

OK, by your logic there have been several attacks since the Patriot Act was put in place. Must not be working.

Either we need to get rid of it, or we haven't moved far enough along the line to police state.

Wonder which of those arguments you'll pick?

And as an aside, I know there are pieces of the Patriot Act that are worthwhile (eg intraagency communication improvements). I have problems with the fact that this admin took the opportunity to stick in unAmerican quasi-fascist items pretty much because they knew no one could vote against it (warrantless searches anyone?).

Then again, I oppose the war and by definition am unAmerican and support the terrorists.

Re:Patriot Pieties

[sumdumass]

We have had legal, warrant less searches for quite a while now. Probable cause has been the underlying factor on searches and the court have constantly move the scale for it. You doubt me? Just look at the hit tv show designed to get you used to having rights violated called "cops". It will show people getting pulled over for tinted windows, the trooper decides tinted windows is enough to search a car, after a few cut scenes, a kilo of coke comes from the trunk underneath the spare tire. Go figure, were is the warrent or probably cause? And a court supported this action, and people support this action because he is getting drugs off the street.

UnAmerican my ass. This is typical American for quite a while now. Hell the cops can even use illegally obtained evidence in most areas as long as the cops didn't violate a law. That means, they could hire you to offer and hook me on drugs, tape a sale and then prosecute me but protect you because your not a cop but are working to assist them. You don't believe me? This happens more often then you think. I know of it personally happening in a lead up to an election in an attempt to cover a corrupt sheriff who eventually went to prison. Two of the people convicted were friends while another managed to claim he was setup and the charges were dropped only to have something else appear later and get him. Sadly, the sheriff went to a different prison then the people he set up and he went to prison for fraud under color of office and embezzlement charges.(demanding protection money from stores and crime victims and using county funds for personal use). Ironicly the police chief resigned under much the same accusations but was never pursued.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[bwd]

There was a sunset provision in the Patriot Act which required it to be reauthorized through a vote in both houses. Hence, it was reauthorized with some changes.

So They Lost and Declared Victory

[geoffrobinson]

because they got modest tweaks.

Seems like they realized the courts weren't sympathetic to their legal arguments.

it's about the lawyers

[slightcrazed]

Most Lawyers I know don't drop a case unless they know that they have no chance of winning, and that doesn't happen often, because they most likely would not have taken the case in the first place. Isn't it possible that the ACLU's arguments were just bunk and the lawyers decided it was better to cut and run?

Re:it's about the lawyers

[Peyna]

Isn't it possible that the ACLU's arguments were just bunk and the lawyers decided it was better to cut and run?

Or they see some change happening in Congress in the near future and decided that might be a better way to fix the problem.

Re:it's about the lawyers

[geoffrobinson]

If they lose and lose badly in court, people wouldn't be able to complain about all the lost liberties due to the Patriot Act. Now, people can still say we are losing unnamed liberties without having to establish that belief with legal reasoning.

Re:it's about the lawyers

[CAIMLAS]

... or they saw a change happening in Congress and maybe the White House in a couple years, and thought, "hmm, our people could greatly utilize these laws in the quest for furthering political correctness".

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you're right. The government would operate so much more efficiently if there were no descent. Let's just get rid of the judicial system and the legislature, too. They're just wastes of my hard earned dollars!

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[autocracy]

They won the case against the version of the PATRIOT act which has already expired. The judge didn't rule on the current version. It really wasn't a waste.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[Peyna]

WTF is "reauthorized" meant to mean?

Authorized again.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[Dunbal]

WTF is "reauthorized" meant to mean?

      To give authority again. Has nothing to do with writing.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[Pink Tinkletini]

ITYM "dissent," but, as it happens, yours works too.

Blame the opposition?

[NoTheory]

You must have a bad case of time/perspective warp. The first patriot act was passed almost unanimously. It's hard to blame "the opposition" for anything when there was no opposition. Also, in this case, i assume you mean the Republican controlled House, Senate and Executive, which, being the complete majority in 2 of the 3 branches of our Federal Government, i can hardly fathom calling "opposition", since they in fact, dictate the entire course of our government, and have for the past 6 years.

But yes, by all means, criticize anybody who's "blam[ing] it on the opposition".

Re:Blame the opposition?

[finity]

Politics has always been a game of blame the opposition. When the Democrats swing back into power for a while, I'm sure the Republicans will start blaming them for everything that goes wrong. It's too bad we don't hear about what goes right every once in a while. I think our Nation's opinion of the war in Iraq would be a lot different if we did.

Re:Blame the opposition?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I guess you're the guy who keeps saying that Iraq is going swimmingly, except we never hear about the good news. Well, the good news is that only 101 Americans have died so far this month, and only a half million Iraqis are dead from the war.

Yea! Where's the fucking cake! Things are AWESOME!

Re:Blame the opposition?

[finity]

Just pass the cake, Milton. Just pass the cake.

I know why they did it

[UbuntuDupe]

They dropped this case because they felt they needed to divert more of their efforts to protecting the Second Amendment.

Re:I know why they did it

[Guuge]

The second amendment is under attack?

Re:I know why they did it

[UbuntuDupe]

Yeah.

Re:I know why they did it

[Guuge]

Please cite the bill/amendment in congress that would limit the second amendment.

Re:I know why they did it

[mrchaotica]

I don't know if there are any new ones, but I'd say all those laws banning automatic weapons, requiring registration, etc. count as attacks on (or rather an occupation of, since they're already in effect) the 2nd Amendment.

Re:I know why they did it

[brother_b]

FWIW, the 2nd is the one Amendment that the ACLU doesn't give a rat's ass about, other than wishing it wasn't there.

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

Well, the NRA, which doesn't care about any other amendment, seems to fill in that gap rather nicely.

or would you prefer the ACLU and not the NRA fought 2nd amendment issues?

Re:I know why they did it

[moeinvt]

"Please cite the bill/amendment in congress that would limit the second amendment."

Wait until the Democrats take control of Congress and the Presidency, and I'll be happy to provide said list.

The Republicans really hate the 1st Amendment and will do everything they can to undermine it.

The Democrats despise the Second Amendment and desperately want to destroy it.

BOTH parties agree that the remaining 8 Amendments to the Bill of Rights should be eradicated, and their voting records prove it.

Re:I know why they did it

[moeinvt]

"Well, the NRA, which doesn't care about any other amendment . . ."

The NRA's primary focus is on protecting the Second Amendment. That certainly doesn't imply that they "don't care" about the rest of The Constitution. In fact, they sided with the ACLU in fighting the McCain/Feingold free speech infringement act which prevents either group from projecting their message in the days before an election.

I seem to remember that the NRA filed an amicus brief in the Kelo vs. New London case as well. I can't find a reference at the moment, but I'd challenge you to find an NRA source which claims that they "don't care" about The Constitution, apart from the 2nd Amendment.

Re:I know why they did it

[Guuge]

Didn't the assault weapons ban expire? Pro-gun conservatives have been in power for some time now, and you haven't even noticed the difference? By all accounts we ought to be living in a gun paradise by now. Why are people still harping on second amendment issues?

Re:I know why they did it

[Copid]

Question: If a private US citizen managed to acquire the equipment, materials, and knowhow to create a low-yield nuclear weapon and keep it in his house, would his right to do so be protected by the 2nd Amendment?

Re:I know why they did it

[Overzeetop]

The NRA generally covers threats to the 2nd amendment* before they become law.

*which I support, though I feel is no longer of any practical use as it was envisioned, and love to play the parsing game with the actual text just to piss people off.

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

The focus of the ACLU is to protect the bill of rights. All of them.

The focus of the NRA is to protect the right to bear arms. Whether in a malitia or not.

The NRA does a terrible job of defending my right to counsel, for instance. Why cannot I say that they "do not care" about this right?

Frankly, they shouldn't, it would waste valuable resources, and dilute their message. Apparently, you disagree. Whatever.

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

Wow, no wonder you posted as AC, you are a huge dumbass.

The position of the ACLU is quite clear. They take the stance of the constitution:

ACLU POLICY

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

BTW, the NRA has nothing to do with the second amendment. They care only about the right to bear arms. They could give a flying fuck about a "well regulated malitia" qualifier.

I have no problem with what the NRA is doing, but lets call a duck a duck. And when I say "don't care" I mean, if it doesn't affect the run to johnny owning and using a gun, it won't appear on their agenda. As a GROUP, they remain neutral, not taking a side, not caring.

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

God you are lame.

Re:I know why they did it

[Copid]

Do the police have nuclear weapons?

No, they don't, but that's not the question. Do you think that nuclear weapons would be covered by the 2nd Amendment? If not, why not?

Re:I know why they did it

[EvilJoker]

Not everyone in favor of private gun ownership interprets that clause the same.

For instance, on Penn & Teller's Bullshit, they claim that it means private citizens should own guns to be able to use them AGAINST that necessary and regulated militia. (and they support it quite well)

Others believe that the term 'militia' itself means non-professional soldiers, i.e. private citizens.

Many proponents of gun control believe that it means the active-duty military can always carry guns.

NRA mostly falls under #2 (or a variant of it), and thus doesn't have any self-contradiction.
(BTW, the NRA has pushed for stronger penalties for crimes committed with guns, etc- they are focused on gun ownership for law-abiding citizens ONLY)

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

The ACLU is straightforward in what its position is.

The NRA is less clear, but their position is NOT about the constitutional right to bear arms. It is about the right to own guns.

Regardless of whether the word militia refers to individuals in support of or outside regular army or even just Joe Q. Public, the 2nd amendment does not say "a militia" or "a regulated militia", but "a well regulated militia". The simple fact is, the NRA has no interest in any of these terms except for where it allows an individual to own a gun. From the link above, the NRA is AGAINST "well regulated": they are against registering guns, licensing guns, limiting what guns can be purchased (assult weapons ban), and mandatory training before you can use a gun.

My point is not to criticize or applaud the NRA, merely to point out that they are not about the 2nd amendment. They are about removing limits on gun ownership. They are perfectly happy USING the 2nd amendment, though

Re:I know why they did it

[krell]

T"he NRA is less clear, but their position [nraila.org] is NOT about the constitutional right to bear arms. It is about the right to own guns."

What part of "keep and bear arms" do you not understand?

"From the link above, the NRA is AGAINST "well regulated": "

The NRA has been long in favor of stiff sentences against those who abuse their firearms (commit violent crimes with them). This is a good example of them wanting the matter to be "well regulated." They have been against ludicrous over-regulation, however, including such ideas as "licensing guns" which violates the 2nd Amendment. They are all about the second amendment and its protection.

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

T"he NRA is less clear, but their position [nraila.org] is NOT about the constitutional right to bear arms. It is about the right to own guns." What part of "keep and bear arms" do you not understand?

Did you read my link or just come up with this piece of dumbshittery yourself? Do you not understand that arms != guns?

"From the link above, the NRA is AGAINST "well regulated": " The NRA has been long in favor of stiff sentences against those who abuse their firearms (commit violent crimes with them). This is a good example of them wanting the matter to be "well regulated." They have been against ludicrous over-regulation, however, including such ideas as "licensing guns" which violates the 2nd Amendment. They are all about the second amendment and its protection.

Regulate means to control or supervise. NRA is against ANY control or supervision. Specifically in this case, regulation should happen to PREVENT abuses, not to assign sentences after the fact. Please expand on how "licensing guns" violates such constitutional protections as "well regulated". Seriously. I think you are not paying attention and knee-jerking. Take the time to formulate a well thought out answer, and I'll read it and if you are coherent I may change my mind.

I have no personal problem with my neighbor owning a gun. I'd feel better if he was trained on it. I'd like to think I was safe from him having a dangerous 100,000 round ammo dump 30 ft from my house, but that would be regulation, and his rights apparently supercede mine.

Re:I know why they did it

[krell]

"NRA is against ANY control or supervision"

Here's just one example of their hardline attitude toward gun violence. And here's supervision at work.

"Do you not understand that arms != guns?"

When the Bill of Rights was put in place, most of the arms they were concerned about happened to be guns. The same is true now.

"Please expand on how "licensing guns" violates such constitutional protections"
The protection violated is the right to keep and bear arms. This is not a priviledge, like driving the cars on the roads, for which you need a license.

"I'd like to think I was safe from him having a dangerous 100,000 round ammo dump 30 ft from my house, but that would be regulation, and his rights apparently supercede mine."

Your rights aren't even at conflict. As long as he doesn't have a bunch of nuclear rockets that are irradiating over to your property, it's really none of your concern or problem. Just like you aren't violating his rights by having a tablecloth of a color he does not like. If you don't like guns, don't own them. Problem solved.

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

Your first link doesn't work. Your supervision link doesn't support your argument. It is great that the NRA puts in place education programs. However, their position is that REQUIRING education is a limitation. Not a 40 hour program, not even a 5 minute "can you tell me which end of the gun goes bang" questionaire. Any licensing at all. So, that makes me as the question, what's the point of your link?

You need to chill on your constitutional rights arguments. They are very wonky. Not all rights are unabridged. The freedom of speech ends when causing bodily injury. And in the case I posed with a neighbor, they can't fire a gun (just like I can't play my radio too loud), they can't run an open gun range (they can possibly have a closed one), they can't beat their children with the butt of their gun, and certainly my rights are in conflict when a simple electrical fire can blow up my neighbors house and take mine with it.

So, you think it should be legal for someone to wave a gun in your face? It's not hurting you. It is his "right to bear arms". These are things that the Supreme Court has already decided. I guess you must be smarter than a supreme court justice.

Arms at the time of the constitution did not just mean guns. They included at a minimum: Mortars, artillary, howitzers to fire exploding bombs, cannons, rifles, and handguns. These were all used in the revolution and are collectively known as arms. The NRA seems to focus selectively on guns. If you look at their issues and FAQs etc, they are focussed on rifles, handguns, .50 caliber, hunting, ranges, etc. Heck even they're page on the 2nd amendment only discusses guns. That is because they are only interested in the 2nd amendment as far as it allows people to have guns.

Re:I know why they did it

[krell]

"The freedom of speech ends when causing bodily injury"

Excellent point! Then why do you care about individuals expressing their 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms regardless of whether or not they cause bodily injury or even threaten to at all?

"and certainly my rights are in conflict when a simple electrical fire can blow up my neighbors house and take mine with it."

The exact same thing can happen if your neighbor happens to use natural gas. In fact, natural gas explosions are far more numerous (by a significant magnitude) than personal ammo dump explosions. Yet, which one are you worried about?

"The NRA seems to focus selectively on guns"

So? Maybe their arguments should be expanded. That, however, does not make them apply less to guns.

"So, you think it should be legal for someone to wave a gun in your face? "

Such brandishing of weapons in an assaultive or threatening fashion is a perfect example of existing laws against gun crime that the NRA specifically wants enforced even more. Don't confuse the constitional right to merely have them (which the NRA supports) with the idea of actually doing bad things with them (something the NRA is a leading voice against.)

"I guess you must be smarter than a supreme court justice."

I know I have better reading comprehension than a few of them. And no, I will not chill on thinking that the Bill of Rights is a good idea.

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

I'll assume you mistyped your last sentence.. no worries, I understand your point.

However, my point was never about what the NRA believes or does not believe about guns. It was whether they were all about the 2nd amendment. I said they only cared about the guns part. In answer to you:

"The NRA seems to focus selectively on guns" So? Maybe their arguments should be expanded. That, however, does not make them apply less to guns.

THAT is exactly my point. You are now seeing what I mean.

"So, you think it should be legal for someone to wave a gun in your face? " Such brandishing of weapons in an assaultive or threatening fashion is a perfect example of existing laws against gun crime that the NRA specifically wants enforced even more. Don't confuse the constitional right to merely have them (which the NRA supports) with the idea of actually doing bad things with them (something the NRA is a leading voice against.)

There is a case to be made that merely owning a gun and letting someone know that is an implied threat. However, my point here was that brandishing a gun is "bearing arms" and of course there are limitations to this. The NRA agrees wholeheartedly as you so kindly point out. They admit there are limitations to bearing arms, but they do not want ANY limits on "keeping arms". So lets review. We started with a "right to keep and bear arms". You've admitted that that the "bearing arms" part is NOT supported by the NRA, which leaves my point: The NRA doesn't care about the 2nd amendment, they care about being able to have a gun.

I don't understand why that statement is interpreted by you to be some kind of attack on the NRA. My focus is that the ACLU cares about the Bill of Rights in what it says, but that NRA cares about a particular right. They are pretty upfront about it, too in the way these organizations chose to name themselves.

Re:I know why they did it

[krell]

The ACLU is not really about the Bill of Rights. They have an entire division devoted to forwarding policies by which the government punishes people for having the wrong skin color in the name of "diversity" (so much for due process). They have frequently tried to censor non-government speech that happened to be considered "religious". Finally, as far as they are concerned, the Second Amendment does not exist.

If the ACLU supported equal rights for all, opposed all censorship, and gave consideration to the Second Amendment, I'd support them.

Re:I know why they did it

[pboulang]

There is exactly zero organizations out there that believe exactly what I believe. But some come close, so I support them.

Regarding your statements: I don't believe in affirmative action. I think any mention of religion constitutes "respecting an establishment of religion" (I'm an atheist, I think anyone believing in God can keep it to themselves.... hell, I think bibles shouldn't even be in a court room, it's not like they compel you into telling the truth), and feel that everyone should be encouraged to go through training and own a gun.

Correct. The ACLU doesn't help the 2nd amendment, but they don't do anything to hurt it either.. kind of a toss up. Not supporting them on that is like not supporting a candidate because they have no opinion on on the artwork on your refridgerator. I'm just saying that the ACLU and NRA are not at odds for the most part, and I support them both.

Re:I know why they did it

[krell]

" I think any mention of religion constitutes "respecting an establishment of religion"

That's a restriction on Congress, not individuals. For individuals, there is no exception to "Freedom of Speech" when it comes to religion. The ACLU is out of line when it censors individuals. Do you own a gun, by the way?

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[smooth wombat]

Thanks ACLU. Thanks for increasing government expenditures and taking money out of my pocket.

Like the Republicans who currently control the purse strings wouldn't have found a way to increase government expenditures and take money out of your pocket.

You know, like wanting to prosecute Jose Padilla as a terrorist, holding this american citizen in jail for three years without counsel then dropping all terror related charges and finally settling on a charge of aiding terrorists in a civil, not military, court.

Seems that the government knew its case wasn't going to fly so it settled on lesser charges and claimed victory. After spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money on legal fees on a case they couldn't win.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[Peyna]

Government lawyers don't work on billable hours, they're paid a set salary. So really, unless the government hired outside counsel or more attorneys to deal with the problem, they didn't cost taxpayers much.

Of course, the state of Indiana recently gave a lot of money to the speaker of the Indiana House's old law firm buddy to help the state appeal a ruling regarding prayer in the statehouse.

Here's a thought...

[Etherwalk]

IANAL, but traditionally one drops a case if one is payed off, if one is likely to lose, or if one might lose and it's a bad test case for the issue. (The last applies if you're more concerned with the system than with one or two particular clients.) In this case, might the case have been dropped because of the possibility of it raising the "right to privacy" question before the supreme court? With the current court, such a question opens the door wide on abortion--there's no explicit right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution, and Roe v. Wade depends heavily on it. This may simply be far from the ideal court (or case) with which to revisit the question of that implicit right.

So maybe they did the math. Lose the right to privacy en masse or gain a little bit o' facism.

Re:Here's a thought...

[harks]

No explicit right to privacy? They might not use the word, but the Fourth Amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, . . ." This is what privacy means.

Re:Here's a thought...

[CAIMLAS]

I suspect that they expect (and hope) that Democrats get into power next month, and then maybe again in 2008 in the White House, and that "their side" would then be able to abuse the previously-complained-about parts of the Patriot Act. They probably see Bush and his administration as a lame duck at this point.

Re:Here's a thought...

[MindStalker]

Yes, but the legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade was an extenstion to the previous idea of the right to privacy. Essentially pre Roe v. Wade, you could get an abortion but you were required to get a judges consent, and of course tell the judge that you wanted an abortion. Roe v. Wade said that the requirement to tell a judge why you wanted an abortion was an invasion of privacy. Which in many legal eyes isn't "unreasonable" as every other issue in in the matter of privacy such as search warrents, come before a judge. There is huge amounts of legal room to argue the actual constituationality of this. Directly it has little constitutional reasoning, but it hinged on decades of other privacy related precident that did have constitutional muster.

huh?

[krell]

"They won the case against the version of the PATRIOT act which has already expired. The judge didn't rule on the current version. It really wasn't a waste."

How is it not a waste to win a case against something that did not exist anymore? It makes as much sense as trying a dead man in court.

Re:huh?

[JayBlalock]

How is it not a waste to win a case against something that did not exist anymore? It makes as much sense as trying a dead man in court.

Because the law DID exist when they filed the case. The reason it "doesn't exist" anymore is that there was a sunset (ie expiration) clause built into the bill. Congress could have chosen to reauthorize PATRIOT 100% exactly as it had been passed before. Instead, they rewrote sections of it to give back some of the civil rights they had previously taken. In all likelihood it was the ACLU's initial court victory that convinced the government that it needed to tweak section 215 to make it more constitutional.

A case doesn't HAVE to get to the SCOTUS to convince Congress to rewrite a law, you know. If they see the writing on the wall, they're free to change it before they get ordered to. And therein lies the victory here.

Wouldn't it be funny if

[pair-a-noyd]

a story about "The Patriot Act" appeared on /. and nobody commented on it because they were afraid to?

Re:Wouldn't it be funny if

[uujjj]

This is a USA specific item being posted when mostly Europeans are on slashdot. Of course hardly anyone is going to comment.

Hey slashdot editors: please post US-specific stuff when Americans are online.

Re:Wouldn't it be funny if

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you what's funny. I'm an amateur movie maker.

I'm self-censoring because I'm afraid of the government.

Proud of it? No. Just realistic about the fact that they have more guns and bad attitude thugs than I do.

This is a chilling effect. Now excuse me while I sing the star spangled banner for a while.

Re:Wouldn't it be funny if

[The Cydonian]

Making your population afraid is old-school, and pretty much died with the Cold War. Making your population apathetic, otoh, is what all New Totalitarianism is all about.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[yoder]

I'm going to imagine for the sake of argument that you wrote that in all seriousness. So making the government explain itself is bad? Trying to make the government more transparent is bad? Or is it just bad that they failed, while 99% of the country sat with their thumbs up their asses watching "Survivor" without the slightest clue or even the desire to have a clue about what is going on around them in this country?

Re:That's not funny.

[RKBA]

Yes, it's quite a struggle.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[Arramol]

Frankly, I don't mind them spending my money on legal fees when it's court battles such as this. Even if they aren't likely to win, it's nice to know someone's trying.

Clinton's watch

[WindBourne]

After the first attack on the WTT, there were no more attacks on American soil. And that was done without the patriot act. So, by your level of proof, I guess that it "proves" that patriot act is not needed, just a pres. with a desire to prevent it.

To state that it has made us safer is up for debate as well. There is no proof that it done its job.

Re:Clinton's watch

[WindBourne]

If you want to include our embassies, USS cole, etc, then by your definition, we have lost another 3K ppl (after all, we own the soil that our bases are located on). 9/11 occured because the current president dropped the ball, not because clinton did. It should be obvious to all that there was plenty of evidence. Simply put, W. did not make it a top priority.

Re:Clinton's watch

[spike2131]

After the first attack on the WTT, there were no more attacks on American soil

*cough* ANTHRAX *cough*

Re:Clinton's watch

[operagost]

If you want to include our embassies, USS cole, etc, then by your definition, we have lost another 3K ppl (after all, we own the soil that our bases are located on).

You might as well include people who died from lung cancer and smoking in those figures, because the USA Patriot Act has absolutely nothing to do with military casualties.

Re:Clinton's watch

[corbettw]

9/11 occured because the current president dropped the ball, not because clinton did.

Bwa-ha-ha-ha!! That was great!

Oh, you were serious.

Go read the 9/11 Commission Report, there's plenty of blame to go around. But at least Bush did something about it, Clinton just ignored it and hoped it would all go away so he could back to chasing interns.

Re:Clinton's watch

[toddestan]

While you're throwing blame around, do be sure to note that Bush likewise ignored the threat for the first 8 months of his office.

Re:Clinton's watch

[corbettw]

While you're throwing blame around, do be sure to note that Bush likewise ignored the threat for the first 8 months of his office.

Like I said:

"Go read the 9/11 Commission Report, there's plenty of blame to go around. But at least Bush did something about it, Clinton just ignored it and hoped it would all go away so he could back to chasing interns."

But I know, Bush is horrible because he didn't do enough in eight months. But Clinton is a saint because he did nothing for eight years.

Re:Clinton's watch

[sumdumass]

9/11 occured because the current president dropped the ball, not because Clinton did.

9/11 occurred because the political system and interest in limiting the powers of government had convoluted the process of collecting information and analyzing it to the point that any armchair quarterback can see the connections after the facts but not before because they couldn't see what you see. Quite a few of these facts, happened under both administrations but neither president knew enough because their analyst didn't know enough to put it all together.

You cannot place the blame on any administration because the truth is neither one knew. Their staffers didn't know, their intelligence agencies didn't know, Their cabinets didn't know, and the only reasons you know is because after it happened, there wasn't the separation of agencies when you got the evidence. And if you look at "all" the evidence in perspective with who knew what when, you would know that none of it pointed to anything like 9/11 happening when viewed separated from the rest.. political one liners and arm chair quarter backing is what the amature's do. The pro's are the ones in front making the plays that allow you and me to spout "he shouldof" or "they could" of or "IF". My grandmother used to tell me that "if is a powerful word. If the dog didn't stop to shit, he would have caught the rabbit, but if the rabbit didn't stop to shit the dog never would have caught him". The truth is that we don't know either to be true, it just sounds good to make a point so lets stop citing it as fact!

Re:Clinton's watch

[toddestan]

But I know, Bush is horrible because he didn't do enough in eight months. But Clinton is a saint because he did nothing for eight years.

Yes, of course, because any attempt by Clinton to do anything about it was simply "wagging the dog", correct?

Re:Clinton's watch

[corbettw]

Yes, of course, because any attempt by Clinton to do anything about it was simply "wagging the dog", correct?

100% incorrect. It's because the man literally did almost nothing for eight long years. He lobbed a few cruise missiles in '98, which was a good idea in theory even if the actual implementation sucked (I was never one who questioned the timing of the strikes, I recognized then and now that you can't control when targets of opportunity come up, and you can't ignore them because you're in the middle of something else). But other than that, his administration failed to do anything substantive in combating global terror. For eight long years, twelve times as long as Bush was in office before 9/11.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[udderly]

Right. What slays me is the regular folk who are so partisan in favor of one political party or the other. Give me a break! The party in power always grabs more power and the opposition tries to stop them. Why? Duh...to stay in power. When the winds of political change come, all they do they switch places.

People may originally get into politics for noble reasons but, eventually, it becomes about "doing business." And whether they are Republicans or Democrats it makes no difference. Eventually the media-government-business complex will select from among the candidates that they can "do business" with (sorry for ending my sentence with a preposition). What, you thought that you actually had a choice? Get real.

Like the old saw goes, power corrupts. But what gets me is these self-righteous A-holes who honestly think they they wouldn't be corrupted by it.

thanks

[krell]

Makes sense now.

Re:Please fix your country

[Slithe]

When is you next election?

November. I assume you mean when is the next presidential election. That takes place in November, 2008.

Habeus Corpus

[I*Love*Green*Olives]

Given the government has suspended habeus corpus, and what we know of the many abuses which occurred the LAST time this happened, this doesn't surprise me at all.

Why fight when your enemy can change the rules of engagement on a whim? Why fight a battle which cannot be won? How many people are still in custody without trial despite the ACLU's best efforts?


America is dead. Long Live America.

--I*Love*Green*Olives

Re:Habeus Corpus

[corbettw]

Given the government has suspended habeus [sic] corpus

That's a lie, habeas corpus was not suspended. It was just clarified that non-citizen enemy combatants do not enjoy that right. Unless you want Osama to have access to an attorney?

Re:Habeus Corpus

[mrchaotica]

It was just clarified that non-citizen enemy combatants do not enjoy that right.

Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It says "no person," not "no citizen" or "no non-combatant" or anything else. It means no person, period. That includes Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and Satan himself. In other words, your "clarification" is explicitly unconstitutional!

Unless you want Osama to have access to an attorney?

You betcha! What, are you afraid he'd somehow manage to win anyway? Don't you have any confidence in our laws and the ability of the US prosecution to put forth enough evidence to convict him?

Re:Habeus Corpus

[BingeFolder]

I certainly do not have any confidence in our courts. Do you really want Osama to get off on a technicality?

Re:Habeus Corpus

[LouisZepher]

It would seem that, according to the president claims that the "war on terror" isn't technically about Bin Laden specifically, Osama already has gotten off.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[orielbean]

Yes, but it has been ruled several times that non-citizens are not held to the strictures of the Constituion or Bill of Rights by our Supreme Court - the Geneva Conventions used to be useful as they did cover world wide definitions of combatants / soldiers / POWs.

But the new law that Bush and Co. passed circumvented that and took the right to name who and what a combatant was away from the conventions and into the loving arms of the Executive & Congress.

So, the foreign terrorists were never under Haebeus Corpus, but were under the conventions. Now, they enjoy neither protection.

Also, for you budding home-grown US terrorists, you would be protected under Haebeus Corpus - but if the Executive declares you a combatant, there is NO RELIEF allowed for you to petition the court under the new law. Which means you can be denied Corpus / Due Process.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[Pike]

This is not a law-enforcement issue. We're in a war. We don't arrest wartime enemies and give them lawyers and court dates. We kill them. That is how it has always been in this and every other country in the world throughout all of history.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[jamstar7]

I certainly do not have any confidence in our courts. Do you really want Osama to get off on a technicality?

He already has a standing conviction from the 1993 WTC bombing. Even if he somehow manages to beat the 911 specific charges, he still goes to jail forever and ever and ever, amen.

Oh, and they did that without the PATRIOT act.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[eaolson]

We're in a war. We don't arrest wartime enemies and give them lawyers and court dates. We kill them.

Who specifically are we at war with? That is to say, other than "the terrorists." Who do we have to kill or who has to surrender to end this war, bin Laden, the Taliban? The fact is, we are not at war in any meaningful sense of the word. We are at war only in the same sense that we are at war with drugs and poverty.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[cold fjord]

Your formatting of the 5th Amendment is bad. I fixed it for you:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

It says "no person," not "no citizen" or "no non-combatant" or anything else. It means no person, period. That includes Osama bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, and Satan himself. In other words, your "clarification" is explicitly unconstitutional!

See above.

And yes, we are at war with Al Qaeda:

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful. Robert F. Turner,co-founder of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law

Don't you have any confidence in our laws and the ability of the US prosecution to put forth enough evidence to convict him?

As long as the appropriate law is being used we should be fine. Criminal law and the Law of War are aimed at different problems with different standards and procedures. What will get us into trouble is trying to apply civilian criminal law when the Law of War is what should be applied. A battlefield isn't just a sort of really big police raid. Few soldiers will ever use warrants.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[Ster]

Unless you want Osama to have access to an attorney?

You bet your ass I do! Justice is best served in public, where the accused have every opportunity to defend themselves, and everyone can see the evidence for themselves. And if the accused is found guilty, it is because the evidence clearly indicates their guilt.

-Ster

Re:Habeus Corpus

[cold fjord]

The use of the capitalized version of "militia" means that this clause applies specifically to US armed forces -- of which there were none at the time the document was written, only state-run militias thus the use of "militia" as a stand in-- and provides solely for military "courts martial" during wartime.

The phrase "the land or naval forces" refers to the army or navy. Putting an enemy on trail after capture by the army would be part of that "cases arising in the land or naval forces" referred to in the amendment, during "time of War or public danger".

I see... and where, exactly, on a map of the world, is this nation of "Al Qaeda" of which you speak, and claim to be at war with?

Oh... You can't do that? Then I call bullshit.

You make war against people, not territory. You shoot or bomb because there is, or may be, an enemy soldier at that spot, not because you are trying to punish a hill or field. A terrorist group is a collection of people, an organization. It doesn't matter where they are, or if they own the territory they are on, you can fight against them. If it helps you get your head around it, think of Al Qaeda as claiming to be the Caliphate's government in exile's terrorist "army". Many governments in exile made war during WW2. Surely you can't be claiming anything so silly as the idea that large groups of people can't engage in violent warfare, or be killed in turn, if they don't have a chuck of land that they call their own? If so, I refer you to the First Law of Holes: if you are in one, stop digging.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[Draconomicon]

At this time, the United States is *not* in a state of war. If we were, we would be expected to abide by little inconveniences like the Geneva Conventions. This is the logic that Our Fearless Leaders have used to excuse their inexcusable behavior. Therefore, either we are at war and have been violating a considerable number of international laws, or we are not at war and we are expected to follow our own domestic laws, such as the phrasing of the Fifth Amendment that someone else has already mentioned -- which specifically states that it applies to any PERSON, not just to any citizen.

Which is better -- to be seen as criminals in the eyes of the rest of the world, or to be seen as hypocrites both at home and abroad?

Re:Habeus Corpus

[cold fjord]

Who specifically are we at war with? That is to say, other than "the terrorists." Who do we have to kill or who has to surrender to end this war, bin Laden, the Taliban?

Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and the Taliban at present. Hezbollah is operating in the US, and has threatened the US, so its time may come. Hamas, also operating in the US might get there too.

The fact is, we are not at war in any meaningful sense of the word. We are at war only in the same sense that we are at war with drugs and poverty.

Here is a useful guide to figure out when you are in a literal versus figurative war: When you are expending M1 tank main gun rounds, 500 lb or larger bombs, and artillery, to kill people, it is very likely to be a real war.

Al Qaeda in Iraq admits that the US has killed at least 4,000 foreign fighters who came to Iraq to fight in what Bin Laden refers to as, "...the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era".

Now, if you are killing thousands of enemy fighters with tank main gun rounds, big bombs, and artillery, and your enemy says that they are in, "the greatest battle of Islam in this era," and trying to kill you in large numbers, take the hint: you are in a war.

The metaphorical "war on drugs" generally only uses pistols or shotguns, education, and prison cells. The metaphorical "war on poverty" generally only uses government aid checks and programs.

The Cold War lasted about 45 years, don't be surprised if the war against the Islamist extremists lasts as long. Right after 9/11, President Bush referred to the War a ... a long struggle.

It isn't so hard to figure out if you try just a little.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[corbettw]

Wow. Just, wow.

Someone else already pointed out that the fifth amendment doesn't apply in war time situations, so I'll leave that aside. But you're basically saying we can't ever go to war with anyone, but we have to send the FBI to arrest them. So no D-Day, instead, serve Hitler a subpoena. That's just...wow.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[inKubus]

Who specifically are we at war with? That is to say, other than "the terrorists." Who do we have to kill or who has to surrender to end this war, bin Laden, the Taliban? The fact is, we are not at war in any meaningful sense of the word. We are at war only in the same sense that we are at war with drugs and poverty.

Or as I like to say, "There is No War". Watch "Wag the Dog", it's interesting.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[delong]

But the new law that Bush and Co. passed circumvented that and took the right to name who and what a combatant was away from the conventions and into the loving arms of the Executive & Congress

Really? Because in the first section of the Act it defines an unlawful combatant and a lawful combatant, with a lawful combatant being defined exactly as in the Geneva Conventions. See section 948a(1)-(2).

So, the foreign terrorists were never under Haebeus Corpus, but were under the conventions. Now, they enjoy neither protection

The foreign terrorists were never protected by Geneva, because they were not the regular armed forces of a State party to the Convention, nor were they regularly constituted militias answerable as aux forces to a State party wearing insignia, carrying arms openly, complying with the laws of war, with a distinct and answerable heirarchy. As a matter of fact, under the laws of war any of the AQ Arab fighters caught in Afghanistan, for instance, could be summarily executed on the spot as spies/sabateurs.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[Bloody Troll]

Someone else already pointed out that the fifth amendment doesn't apply in war time situations, so I'll leave that aside.

So has the Congress declared war? May I have a link to the declaration of war please? Thank you.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[orielbean]

THe point here is that the Act takes pains to define the combatants, where before we did not have our own definition. It may seem like a small thing, but remember that we were signatories to the treaties and Conventions - so that means we don't make changes to those without bringing the other member groups in to discuss. Unless we wanted to create our own definitions.

And back to the "terrorists were never covered by Geneva" defense I always hear - Here is the Convention, Second Section, Article 43-45 where we see exactly what is supposed to happen to someone captured on a battlefield (like most of the Guantanamo prisoners captured in Afghanistan).

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war. 2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate. Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c). 4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities . 6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention. 7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to the conflict.

WHat is the point to all this wrangling? Even back then, they realized that insurgents / terrorists / rebels / partisans would be sucidial to simply wear uniforms and fight their occupiers, so they said it was okay to not wear a uniform. THey wanted soldiers to wear uniforms, but put the goddamn caveat in there that says if you don't have a uniform it will not deprive you of your combatant status.

T

Re:Habeus Corpus

[BlackSabbath]

>> We're in a war. We don't arrest wartime enemies and give them lawyers and court dates. We kill them.

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_trials

They may well be executed ... after they've been found guilty.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[cold fjord]

This should help you out.

For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.
FISA vs. the Constitution

Re:Habeus Corpus

[delong]

THE ONLY THING that would deprive you of this is committing perfidy by feigning surrender, sickness, or civilian status when captured

You obviously didn't read the whole Convention, just the parts that agreed with your perception. Note that the section you quoted from the Protocol Additional has a defining clause - to receive the benefits of a combatant you must be: 1. member of the regular armed forces of a State Party to the Convention, or 2. part of a militia or other group that is under the command and is responsible to a State Party, and that 3. is answerable to a discipline system that enforces compliance with international laws of war. AQ belongs to none of the above, not even the Arab Afghans during the Afghan war. Furthermore, if you look further down the Protocol Additional, you will see that spies and mercenaries are not entitled to the protections of the Convention, per customary international law.

This is further strengthened by reference to the actual Convention that I mentioned in my original post.

The Conventions aren't for the protection of insurgents / terrorists / rebels / partisans if they fail to abide by the laws of war or are outside the international system. International law applies to States, and the Conventions were intended to regulate the conduct and protect the regular armed forces and their auxiliaries of States Party.

Re:Habeus Corpus

[krell]

Those trials took place after the war had ended, interestingly enough. Is there a legal distinction between wartime vs when the war is over?

Re:Habeus Corpus

[mrchaotica]

Yes, but it has been ruled several times that non-citizens are not held to the strictures of the Constituion or Bill of Rights by our Supreme Court

And the Supreme Court has been WRONG every time!

Now if we can

[Krojack]

succeed in stemming the damage from ACLU. I'm willing to give up some of my freedoms and rights for a while. I have no problem with it. Also the none of my civil rights have been broken. I don't know why everyone feels the government will be listening to EVERY phone call that gets made anywhere in America. Its just not possible to monitor them all. They monitor incoming international calls from certain people and outgoing international calls to certain people. They aren't listening to you talking to your grandma and could care less about that.

Its all find and dandy that the ACLU is trying to protect my civil liberties but when they are pushing to have a cross on the side of a road where someone has died be removed or pushing to have a stone ten commandments be removed, how are these civil liberties away from anyone? Also the ACLU standing up and demanding that all prisoners of war, regardless of what they did be released if the evidence against them is not made public.

the ACLU needs to be investigated in my opinion.

Re:Now if we can

[krell]

"Its all find and dandy that the ACLU is trying to protect my civil liberties but when they are pushing to have a cross on the side of a road where someone has died be removed or pushing to have a stone ten commandments be removed, how are these civil liberties away from anyone?"

That's one of the many examples where the ACLU works to censor expression. I don't think they need to be "investigated". However, they can do more work to protect individual rights instead of fight against them, as they sometimes do. Examples of this include the pro-censorship fights, and instances where the ACLU fights for policies that deny individuals their rights based on skin color as part of meeting "diversity" policies.

Re:Now if we can

[Uninvited Guest]

You know, you're right. Government monitoring of suspicious communications likely increases the chance of catching a criminal or an enemy agent. Know what would increase the chances even more? Government monitoring of all communications, all movements, all public and private activities. And when the government has perfect intelligence on every person associated with the U.S., when every terrorist has been found and a terrorist attack in the US becomes quit impossible, who will save us from our government?

Re:Now if we can

[krell]

"What part of establishment of religion don't you understand?"

It looks like you don't understand it. This part of the Bill of Rights is certainly not a justification for censoring individual expression that happens to be "religious." What part of "abridging the freedom of speech" do you not understand?

Re:Now if we can

[davewalthall]

I would be very upset if the ACLU tried to prevent *individuals* from expressing their religious beliefs. However, I'm very much in favor of the ACLU's fight to remove *governmental* expressions of religion. The ten commandments that the ACLU fought against were not displayed in front of a (private citizen's) house, they were in front of a public courthouse. There was no "individual expression," it was a government sponsored display of religion. If the judge who erected the ten commandments had put them in front of his own house, I would have supported him.

Re:Now if we can

[mrchaotica]

when [the ACLU is] pushing to have a cross on the side of a road where someone has died be removed

I'd be very interested if you would provide a source for this, because frankly, I don't believe you. Either that, or there's significantly more to the story than you're mentioning (e.g., the cross was put there by the state, or it was on public property and the owner wanted it removed, or something like that).

Re:Now if we can

[fyngyrz]

The problem is that displays of crosses on the right of way of the road, which is government owned land, and the display of religious artifacts such as monuments to the ten commandments amount to an apparent endorsement, by the government, of religion, said religion almost always being Christianity. For example, I do not recall a single instance of seeing Shiva in a house of legislature, a voodoo altar at an accident site, or a monument to Ayn Rand on a courthouse lawn. When we talk about the US government's sponsorship of religion, It is Christianity first, last, and always.

Now, if some farmer wants to put up crosses in his field, or a church wants to put up religious monuments on church property, or any private citizen wants to erect a shrine to whomever, these are all examples of free expression by the citizens and as such, they are what the constitution seems to be worded to protect. It would be very difficult, I think, to read the first amendment as anything but encouraging the citizen and discouraging the government with regard to religious expression.

Remember the times: This country was founded by people who had been ruthlessly suppressed by the British government because the religion they followed was not that of the state. In 1789, when James Madison introduced the first tentative bill of rights, feelings were very strong that one religious sect or another must not gain religious control of the people through the mechanism of the government.

Madison's suggestion regarding religion read as follows:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

That was whittled down to this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This final version of this idea prevents the establishment of a national religion, and also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-exclusive basis, or so the courts have said until very recently.

Now, there are state constitutions that read slightly differently; however, the supreme court has interpreted the due process clause of the 14th amendment to mean that states may not override this particular section of the bill of rights (the 1st amendment is part of the bill of rights.)

So this means that states shouldn't be putting religious symbols on road right of ways, either, nor should they be erecting monuments to any particular religion's artifacts, creeds, or personalities.

Remember: The bill of rights assigns rights to the people. It takes them away from the government. So you can't really argue that telling the government it can't erect religious artifacts suppressed the speech of the people based on the 1st amendment. It suppresses the ability of the government to tacitly or directly sponsor religion, and that is clearly what the intent of the framers was, not to mention the authors of the bill of rights. The problem, as always, is that when a government expresses a preference for a religion, those who do not follow that religion either are, or feel they are, being marginalized. This is a situation that it is very important to avoid, specifically so that no citizen's expression of religion is likely to be curtailed by concerns about how the government might react to that expression.

Finally, as the government's support of religion is almost exclusively Christian — crosses at the roadside, the ten commandments, Christmas displays, creches, etc. — it is clear that the current situation serves to discommode anyone who isn't a Christian. Therefore it would seem obvious, at least to me, that we have arrived at precisely the birthing of religious sponsorship the 1st amendment was designed to prevent us from getting to.

Y

Re:Now if we can

[multiplexo]

I'm willing to give up some of my freedoms and rights for a while

Newsflash fuckhead, I'm not willing to give up my freedom and rights for a while, not one little bit. Anyone who has studied history or has a grain of common sense or who isn't some inbred Fox news watching fucktard such as yourself would know and understand that once you give up your freedom and rights, even when you're told it's for a 'little while', it's hard to get them back. People such as yourself have no right to live in a free country. I'd be perfectly happy to take away some of your freedoms and rights for 'a while' and deport your dumb Republican ass to North Korea, oh, did I mention that my definition of 'for a while' is the rest of your life?

Re:Now if we can

[Atanamis]

The problem is that displays of crosses on the right of way of the road, which is government owned land, and the display of religious artifacts such as monuments to the ten commandments amount to an apparent endorsement, by the government, of religion, said religion almost always being Christianity. For example, I do not recall a single instance of seeing Shiva in a house of legislature, a voodoo altar at an accident site, or a monument to Ayn Rand on a courthouse lawn. When we talk about the US government's sponsorship of religion, It is Christianity first, last, and always.

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time equating decorating preferences for public spaces with someone's "freedom of religion". I have no problem with my local community deciding to put a voodoo altar in front of its courthouse. While I might personally vote against it because I dislike voodoo altars, I firmly believe that my community has the right to decorate its public spaces in any way it chooses. If I dislike it, I will campaign for a change of decorators, not try to circumvent the will of my community in court based on "freedom of religion".

Freedom of religion doesn't mean you don't have to see decorations you dislike. It means that you are not forced to engage in someone else's religion or prevented from engaging in your own religion (so long as it does not directly harm others). Funding or religious groups should only be provided using the same criteria used for other community groups (such as allowing local clubs to use community centers or school classrooms). We should never discriminate against someone based on their religion, but there is a difference between religious freedom and preventing a community from decorating their courthouse as they see fit.

Re:Now if we can

[fyngyrz]

Until the farmer decides to light them on fire. Then it's a hate crime.

It seems to me that any reasonable reading of the constitution supports the erecting of a (cross | flag | other symbol or structure) that you paid for on your own land, and subsequently lighting it afire or otherwise treating it harshly (or coddling it), as constitutionally protected free expression. You don't want to let a fire get out of control, is all, because then you're risking your neighbor's property, which has its own protections. At that point, the government not only has the duty to put out your fire, but the duty to bill you for the job. After all, why should the people have to pay for your inability to plan through their taxes?

Now, erecting a cross (much less lighting it afire) on someone else's land might get you shot, and I don't have much of a problem with that, either. You really shouldn't mess with other people's property. Two kinds of property are available to you. First, there is property you own; here, anything you do that doesn't physically affect others (like pollute the aquifer, for instance) should be available to you. Second, there is property you share, such as public property. Here, I think you need to refrain from any destructive act unless you have the agreement of the other owner(s) of the property, unless you own the item being destroyed (eg, a flag you are burning) and you can ensure that what you are doing does not compromise the property itself, or any other unrelated property, of course.

As for "hate speech", that idea is a terribly insidious infection of our principles, and as such deserves to be quashed. There is no "right not to be offended", and in fact, that idea contradicts the first amendment in such a way as to be a huge detriment to the liberty to speak freely. It is an insidious way for political correctness to serve as the ultimate arbiter of the things one can express. That's bad enough; but that's not the only negative.

One of the things that I value about freedom of speech is the ability of the person who has opinions that are significantly disjoint from mine to let me know that this is the case, such that I can avoid that person in my private life insofar as that I feel such action is practical, and likewise, to use this knowledge to arbitrate my selections for public office, if and when I feel I need to make such a choice. If you say to the racist or the religionist or the secessionist or the sexually repressed that they may not speak of (fill in the blank), then it becomes more difficult for me as a private citizen to recognize these people and avoid association or inadvertent support of them. I wholly support the right of all citizens to speak as they will, of that which they feel most strongly, in any way they please, and I would deny any level of government any degree of exerting control over such speech. No matter who is being hated or loved, no matter what words are called into service regardless of how palatable they may or may not be, no matter what figure, historical or imaginary, is named, no matter what vile imprecations may be put forth. I value everyone's right to speak far above the insidious idea that some speech might be uncomfortable for some people and as such, should be suppressed.

I do support the idea of appropriate venue, however. It seems to me that it is critical that when one speaks to the public, that the property involved either be owned by the speaker, or that the owner is well aware of what purpose their land is about to be used and has given permission, endorsement, or a formal statement of disassociation. This prevents the views of the speaker from being mistakenly associated with the landowner's views.

Government-owned property (really, we're saying, "property owned by the people") should always be a venue for free speech by the people, to the government, and often, for the people, to the people, but not, of course, for the government to the people. Governmen

Re:Now if we can

[MrCopilot]

I have mod points, and I struggled with whether to mod you down or respond. I think countering your opinion is the better response.

I'm willing to give up some of my freedoms and rights for a while. I have no problem with it. Also the none of my civil rights have been broken.

Some? For a while?
Surely you have seen this before
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

How can you give up inalienable rights? Which ones, and for how long? You don't know nor are you allowed to know when or which rights the government is stepping all over. If you give them the power, they WILL use it (and abuse it!)

I don't know why everyone feels the government will be listening to EVERY phone call that gets made anywhere in America. Its just not possible to monitor them all. They monitor incoming international calls from certain people and outgoing international calls to certain people. They aren't listening to you talking to your grandma and could care less about that.

So you are comfortable with a small handful of Government Heads selecting which calls/emails/IMs/Mail get monitored. What if my grandma is running for office or works at a university or is a broadcaster with differing views from the current administration. Is it still just as unlikely? (Considering she died 2 years ago, This would be some trick.)

Also the ACLU standing up and demanding that all prisoners of war, regardless of what they did be released if the evidence against them is not made public.

You mean due process, Speedy trial, the right to face your accuser and evidence against you, access to a lawyer, that stuff? Without these things you are just kidnapping people from their native lands and holding them indefinately. If you want to prosecute them, do so. Under the Laws of the United States and the Geneva Convention you are not allowed to detain people indefinately and treat them inhumanely. ACLU is an acronym for American Civil Liberties Union. They fight for OUR civil rights, and they do a bit more than protecting the one concerning Seperation of Church and State.

The ACLU has a hard enough time in the current atmosphere without chuckleheads like you volunteering to give up their rights.

BTW the easiest way to give up your rights is to emigrate. I hear Sudan is temperate this time of year.

Re:Now if we can

[LouisZepher]

"...it was on public property and the owner wanted it removed..."

I assume you meant "private" property, as with public property, well, the public would be the owner, and if the public wanted it removed, a simple town-wide vote would better make such a decision. My two cents: I'm not Christian (Pagan, actually, but that's not the point), but I'm not "offended" seeing Christian symbolism in a predominatly Christian region. Take for example, the "controversy" surrounding the creche. Back in my home town, there'd be a nativity set-up on the lawn of the town library. I never really had any problems with it being there save for one: who paid for it? If the set-up, off-season storage, maintenance, etc is paid-for by the town's churches (thus paid-for by the parishoners) rather than taxes, I wouldn't say a word about it. That's my view. I don't care if it's on a library lawn, town park, city hall, what-have-you, so long as I'm not paying for it. It doesn't represent my beliefs, so why should it come out of my pay-check? On the other hand, the fir tree that would be decorated with simple garlands and lights that stands year-round (though, obviously not decorated off-season) as well as wreath-laterns along the main street did more-or-less come from the town treasury. In such a case, I'm fine with it. Wreaths and trees used as decoration for the winter season was originally a Pagan custom, so in a way, it represents both my beliefs as well as the Christian majority of the town. A tad hypocritcal? Maybe, but the way I see it, if you're going to use public money, and public property, then represent all portions of the public, or use neutral decor.

On another hand entirely, I personally don't care about religious songs at a Christmas Pagent held in a public school if performance isn't mandatory. If it was like: "Hey kids, we're hosting a Christmas Pagent, so if you want to sing about some beared middle-easterner that had some wild ideas, feel free to sign up, but you don't have to..." It's fine, and since it's a *Christmas* Pagent, I don't see how anyone that shows up could feel "offended" by it. (Unless, of course, the administration adamantly refuses to permit/fund a secular performance for non-Christians...)

Re:Now if we can

[krell]

Do you really think that if a private citizen leaves something alongside the road, that it is a government endorsement???? I don't care if it as Jewish, Christian, Muslim grave crescent, does not matter to me.

Re:Now if we can

[fyngyrz]

You are entirely missing the point.

Religious "decorations", as you call them, amount to a tacit endorsement of the religion they represent, by the government, and that is a bad thing on every level.

I firmly believe that my community has the right to decorate its public spaces in any way it chooses

Then again, you have missed the point. The ideas that underlie the constitution are designed to protect the individual first, not power-wielding groups such as your local, state and federal governments. Your courthouse is intended to be a venue for justice for all; not justice for Voodooists. So no matter what your religious symbol(s) your community might prefer to erect in front of the building, none are appropriate. Every citizen that walks up to that building must feel that they will get an equal and fair hearing in court, equal and fair treatment when it comes to property, matters of record, and matters of disagreement with other citizens.

If the lawn is littered with voodoo artifacts, and a Christian is to face a Voodooist in court, what do you think the message to the participants is? If the Christian is asked to swear on a pile of chicken bones, what is the message then? If one faces a judge, arguing the merits of keeping one's hardware store open on Sunday, and the ten commandments are on a plaque right behind the judge's head, what is the message then?

Religion does not belong in government at any level, in any form. No matter how much the majority might want it to be there. Because it will crush the freedom of the minority, and avoiding that is exactly the rationale that was used to found this country.

You have the freedom to express yourself on your own land and your own time. Public property is owned by everyone, not just by "the majority." That is where the error creeps into your outlook. The implication is that any citizen can say anything on such land unfettered by the preconceptions of other citizens; but that the land itself cannot be used to buttress the ideas of any one, or any group, of citizens because in so doing, it eliminates the former ability. Hence, no statues, no plaques, no symbols, no belief-based agitprop of any kind.

Government — by definition, everyone's servant, not the servant of the majority — belongs squarely in the land of facts, it has no legitimate role endorsing the religious views of any particular group, no matter how large a majority they might command. For example, a statue of a serving public figure, with name, date and office, is appropriate. It is a statement of fact, of record, of history. Statements of precisely why the edifice exists ("justice for all", the blind figure of justice, tax payments accepted at this window, recycle your batteries here, etc.) also are appropriate. A statue of Bon Dieu, on the other hand, is a statement of fractional belief and does not belong there, even if your community as a whole supports the idea.

It all comes down to apparent endorsement. If I see a flag on your porch, I assume you are a patriot. If I see a cross on your lawn, I assume you are a Christian. If I see a marijuana leaf sticker on your car, I assume you are pro-marijuana.

If I see these same things on your courthouse, why would I assume anything different? They are, in the most basic sense, endorsements of one set of views over another. It is critical that such endorsements not be undertaken by any level of government, lest others become the targets of government repression or coercion based on those ideas.

The bottom line? You can't have "justice for all" when you only have "endorsement for some."

Re:Now if we can

[fyngyrz]

Do you really think that if a private citizen leaves something alongside the road, that it is a government endorsement?

I think if the private citizen simply leaves something alongside the road without government approval, that citizen is littering and should be punished.

If the government supports that citizen leaving something alongside the road, then the government is endorsing that action, and consequently, any meanings that come along with it.

In that case, we need to examine what kind of message is being passed. If the message is religious, then it is inappropriate, the government is out of line, and the "something" should be immediately removed at the expense of the person who put it there in the first place.

Re:Now if we can

[Krojack]

I agree with you... What ever happened to "a government of the people, by the people and for the people"?

In my state back in 2004 there was a vote to make marriage between a man and a women and it passed like 80%. However some people didn't like this and took it to court and had it thrown out. Why bother voting anymore when a hand full of people get to impose what they want even though the majority of the people don't want it?

I believe that what people vote should come above anything else even the courts (unless there is is error or fixing in the vote that could change the outcome and can be proven) and can not be overturned unless by another vote from the people.

BTW I sure started some arguement here.. rather funny. If some of these people got their way back during WW2 then America would have been in some trouble.

Re:Now if we can

[Doctor Faustus]

If you're opposed to the Bill of Rights and would prefer the British system, just say so directly. If you're looking for actual rational of why the U.S. isn't that way, read The Federalist Papers (way before WW II), not just what a bunch of people on Slashdot have to say.

Re:Now if we can

[Bloody Troll]

What part of establishment of religion don't you understand?

What part of or prohibiting the free exercise thereof don't you understand?

Re:Now if we can

[Copid]

In my state back in 2004 there was a vote to make marriage between a man and a women and it passed like 80%. However some people didn't like this and took it to court and had it thrown out. Why bother voting anymore when a hand full of people get to impose what they want even though the majority of the people don't want it?

Perhaps to protect minority groups from abusive majority groups who get whipped up into a frenzy over nonsense like "protecting marriage" whenever some politicians want to get out the vote? Think of how great these sorts of protections will be if you're ever in the minority.

I believe that what people vote should come above anything else even the courts (unless there is is error or fixing in the vote that could change the outcome and can be proven) and can not be overturned unless by another vote from the people.

That doesn't work so well when the majority of people aren't black and happen to think that blacks should be slaves. Or when the majority of people aren't Jewish and think that something really should be done about the "Jewish Problem." Or when the majority of people arne't involved in interracial relationships and think that such activities are against What Nature Intended and should be outlawed.

Seriously, is not being able to dump on people who are different from you cramping your style that badly?

Re:Now if we can

[Copid]

Until the farmer decides to light them on fire. Then it's a hate crime.

Well, it is if the farmer lights them on fire on somebody else's lawn...

Re:Now if we can

[Copid]

Sorry, but you are fundamentally wrong. When a government official on government property expresses their love for their creator or prays in the name of "Jesus" - that's freedom of speech! It is neither an establishment of religion nor a government endorsement or sponsorship of religion!

I think that there's a very fine line to walk. If you're using your office specifically to promote a particular religion, you're abusing your power. If you want to prostelytize, feel free, but don't do it with government resources, and don't even try to imply that the government is behind you on it. Don't abuse your office. That's all that's being asked.

They have consistently alienated Christians by seeking to demonize their religion as a threat to our society.

It's amazing to me that so many people buy into this "ACLU has an anti-Christian agenda" crap. The ACLU defends Christian speech and rights on a regular basis. I doubt that the typical ACLU-bashers ever mention those cases, though. The perceived anti-Christian bias may be due to two simple facts interacting with one another:

1) The ACLU's job is to protect the rights of individuals against abuse of power by the government.
2) The government is run, from top to bottom in every branch, by Christians.

I'm not saying that fact #2 is a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that when there is a case of government sponsored religion violating the Constitution, it's almost certainly going to be in a pro-Christian way. When somebody else is in power, you can bet that the ACLU will be all over them. Until then, American Christians need to get over their bizarre persecution complex and live with the fact that the Constitution limits their power.

Re:Now if we can

[timminator]

To summarize, the Anti-Christ Lawyer Union -- and I can freely call it that under the first amendment -- dropped its challenge over the Patriot Act because it didn't have anything to do with your favorite special interest of ramming (however subtle) athiesm down the majority's throat. This has never been a partisan issue.

Re:Now if we can

[timminator]

Search and replace "athiest" for "religious" in all your musings and see if you still like your historical revisionist version of America.

Re:Now if we can

[fyngyrz]

Search and replace "athiest" for "religious" in all your musings and see if you still like your [historically accurate assessment of constitutional intention]

Yes, I still like it just fine. It is not the government's business to deal out religious viewpoints, and that certainly includes atheism. They don't have the right to tell you to believe, and they don't have the right to tell you what not to believe. It's not their domain. No matter which side you come at it from. That domain belongs to the individual citizen. Not the country, not the party, not the community. Understand now?

I wasn't attacking religion. Or lack of it. Try to get a grip.

Re:Now if we can

[timminator]

There is a fundamental difference between the original intent of being free to choose your religion (or lack thereof) and using the government as a bully tool to "freely" exterminate the last vestiges of religion, first on "government-owned property" and then anywhere in the public eye. This is completely antithetical to the very existence of this great nation.

Re:Now if we can

[sydbarrett74]

>>Remember: The bill of rights assigns rights to the people. Not to be pedantic, but a little correction is in order. Rights cannot be assigned. They are inalienable and unabridgeable. A person *possesses* rights upon entering this world, simply because he or she exists. No other entity in the Universe can ever take away one's rights. One can only either be repress a right's expression or use, or acknowledge a right and its use/expression. Privileges, on the other hand, can be granted or rescinded at will by an authority. This is why felons should be able to vote. Voting is a right, not a privilege, and therefore a government is in violation of the Constitution (and more fundamentally, Natural Law), when it suppresses one's right to such. As heinous as one's action's may be, they do not alter the fact that the perpetrator is a sentient being with God-given rights.

Re:Now if we can

[Copid]

I think we agree here, as long as we agree to the simple act of expressing one's belief or the traditional prayer that's offered before each session of Congress doesn't translate to some warped idea of proselytizing.

I suppose that really depends on how it's done. Can Muslims offer a prayer before Congress opens? Buddhists? If not, I think it's pretty clear that the government is saying something along the lines of We're all for Christianity, but keep the other stuff out. That's walking pretty close to pushing one religion over the others, don't you think?

As for abusing office, I'm of the opinion that every single member of Congress is already guilty to a number of various offenses, probably all money related. Which I hope points out the obvious, that abuse of power isn't limited to religion.

No, definitely not. But that doesn't mean that government endorsement of religion isn't an abuse of power.

Nobody's buying anything. The history of the ACLU speaks volumes against any meager efforts they made to defend our religious freedoms. Do you just turn a blind eye when the ACLU uses extortion against small towns to force them to concede to such extremes as stripping religious symbols from their community logos? That may be your idea of America and protecting our civil liberties, but it's certainly not mine!

Really, have you actually looked at the long list of cases that the ACLU has taken up, or are you just picking up snippets of facts from conservative blogs? I agree that the ACLU goes overboard sometimes, but those cases are *very much* the exception and not the norm. In fact, most of those ridiculous sounding cases fall apart on further inspection. What you refer to as "meager efforts" is simply an a result of the fact that Christians are *very* rarely discriminated against by the government. It's like asking why civil rights organizations rarely stood up for white people in the Jim Crow era. There just weren't any serious cases when they had to.

Please, *real* Islamic fascists that use _violence_ to hijack governments and break the will of the people are a much more valid and credible threat than your imagined Christian fascists.

I'm not sure how that follows from what I pointed out. Do you really think that there are that many cases of the government violating the religious rights of Christians that the ACLU is ignoring? Or does the fact that the Christian majority in the US isn't violent excuse the fact that they're sometimes insensitive to people with other beliefs?

Call me crazy, but I thought the Consitution was designed to limit the power of the government not the people.

When the people are the government, yes you're crazy. If 55% of Californians wanted to reinstitute slavery and passed a ballot initiative, would the Supreme Court be wrong in striking it down?

And it's very contradictive of you to claim that Christians run the government "top to bottom" yet fear losing "their power" to a Christian influenced Constitution.

How so? The government has to follow the Constitution and it frequently wants to violate it in silly ways. The Constitution doesn't say, "It's OK for the government to establish religion as long as it's Abrahamic," or, "Establishment of religion is great as long as you're not violent about it." Does the fact that the government can't glorify your particular religion over the others really make life that hard? Can't the government just stay neutral on the topic?

Of course the reality is that the various branches of our government are in constant need of balance. Some are more right leaning where others are more left leaning.

Over the course of history, that's certainly true. One thing that doesn't change (and shouldn't) is the fact that the judiciary's job is

Re:Now if we can

[fyngyrz]

Your idea of rights as natural law is not so much pedantic as ridiculous. Natural law isn't something you can apply to the domain of rights. Rights arise from an exercise of power; to actually have a right, one has to either be able to enforce it oneself, or else have it enforced by a power outside oneself, or else have it respected by the power(s) outside oneself. Once they arise, they need to be codified through a process that strains what the idea means through a social filter that accounts for how the relevant society will see them. Finally, some continuous force must apply for them to be even remotely meaningful.

For a specific example, in the US, some rights are defined by the constitution, which in turn was written by a power group. Further changes to these rights are made by other power groups (more recent congress, constitutional conventions, etc.) It may make you happy to think that rights devolve from nothing, but they in fact devolve from reason and from power and sadly, from expediency.

For another specific example, in North Korea, most of these "rights" are nonexistent; the idea that a citizen has the right to speak freely is outright absurd. And you can't apply our idea of rights to North Korea; they are not us, and we are not them. If you think you have the "right" to say what rights North Koreans have, then you are simply trying to exercise power over them, a power they might in fact disagree with. Or not; but the point is, you just think your way is better than their way. Wars begin upon such acts of hubris.

When you imagine "rights" as natural law, you can no longer determine what you're looking at. In one society, the right to buy land may be fundamental. In another, the right to receive land by royal decree may be fundamental. In one society, the right to have first sex with one's children may be fundamental. In another, the right to be free of sexual advances from one's parents may be just as fundamental. In another, the right to eat one's parents when they die may be fundamental. In another, the right to have their corpses remain unmasticated may be fundamental. This proves that rights are socially relative, which in turn proves that they are not "natural."

Sure, it would be nice if we could actually define "human rights" so that it would means something outside of political rhetoric and academia, but the fact is, we cannot, and for very practical reasons.

Heck, here in the USA, we can't even hold onto the rights we were assigned by our own constitution. On the one hand, we've got politicians trying to usurp those rights in favor of not trusting the citizens; and on the other, we've got a whole bunch of citizens accommodated to the idea that the government exists to protect them from themselves -- and they seem to like it that way.

The bottom line is that rights are, and always will be, an intellectual construct. Nature favors the strong; not the high-minded. The luxury of being high-minded is only afforded to the strong. This is why rights only arise as a consequence of power.

Re:Now if we can

[Copid]

Okay, let me refresh your memory. You were insinuating that Christians are a threat to our freedom. I'm not sure what world you live in when you suggest that Christians are insensitive to other people's beliefs when Christians have been exceedingly tolerant and respectful of other's beliefs. You must be thinking about some crazy cult that claims to be Christian, but is completely intolerant of other people's lifestyles or beliefs. Allow me to be the first to inform you that they're not _real_ Christians and probably spend their time misquoting the Holy Bible! :)

So it would be OK for a Wiccan to perform an opening prayer at a Congressional session? Saying that Christians are a threat to freedom is a definite exaggeration of my position. Saying that the Christians who are in charge of the goverment cross the line of separation of church and state and go so far as to endorse their own religion over those of others would be more accurate. Of course, No True Scotsman...errr...Christian would ever do such a thing, so I suppose the whole argument is moot, no?

I'm not thinking of a crazy cult blowing people up. I'm thinking of people putting up the 10 Commandments in a courthouse to the exclusion of other historical laws. I'm thinking of the myriad organizations who want organized prayer in public schools. I'm thinking of the push to get creationist teachings into public schools. I'm thinking of the people who want to ban un-Christian books from public libraries. They're not dangerous violent extremists, but they're out there, they have politicians who pander to them, and when the government wrongly takes up their cause against minority interests, the ACLU is there to protect them.

In Vermont the opposite is happening, judges are the ones being ridiculously soft on rapist and pediphiles by enabling them to continue their heinous acts literally months after their sentence.

I'm not sure what case(s) you're referring to here. I doubt it's a "cruel and unusual punishment" case. Are you sure it's not just a case of judges enforcing the laws that were given to them? That's what they normally do for a living.

So, you believe that the ACLU is being fair when they specifically target Christianity over all other religions, fine. You think that judges should have the final say on our most pressing social issues, fine.

NO! Are you reading what I'm writing? I'm saying they *don't* target Christianity over other religions. I'm saying that they target whatever religion is being foisted on the people by their government. It just happens that Christians are the ones in charge right now. If Muslims or Jews or Buddhists are ever in charge, you'll be hearing from those groups that the ACLU hates them. It's simply nonsense.

"We're all for Christianity, but keep the other stuff out." You're mischaracterizing the Christian religion as one of intolerance and I'm afraid the only evidence you'll find points to extreme isolated examples, like someone blowing up abortion clinics and claiming to be Christian.

So when President Bush said (as Governor of Texas at the time), that the military should not allow Wiccan ceremonies because they're not a real religion and don't deserve the same constitutional protections as other religions, that was a fringe belief in line with blowing up abortion clinics? You get all the freedom of religion you want as long as the government agrees that your religion is OK?

In reality, the majority of Christians are more tolerant than both deism and atheism combined. How do you think America became the melting pot that it is today? It's because America has been a Christian nation that not only has tolerated, but encouraged multiculturalism for centuries.

I think that's a bit of a whitewashing of the centur

Re:Now if we can

[fyngyrz]

using the government as a bully tool to "freely" exterminate the last vestiges of religion, first on "government-owned property" and then anywhere in the public eye.

I wasn't suggesting that religion should be exterminated "anywhere in the public eye." If you'd actually read what I posted, you would be aware that I specifically said that religious display, speech, etc. by the people to the government should never be compromised; I also specifically said that religious display, speech etc. by the people to each other should never be compromised. What I am trying to say is only that the government should never, ever support or even acknowledge religion, that this is a subject best left to the people.

Let me reiterate: I am 100% for absolute religious freedom of expression among the people and by the people, to the government. On the other hand, I am 100% against the use of religion by the government to control other people, no matter how directly or how subtly. I want that to be impossible.

In other words, I feel that we should never allow any religion to become any component of a political force. Why? Because we can't have the Catholics forcing the Muslims not to bow towards Mecca. We can't have the Voodooists forcing the Born-again Christians to sacrifice chickens. We can't have the atheists forcing everyone else to take down all religious shrines on private property. We can't have the Baptists forcing Hindus to "dunk." We can't have Christians forcing people to swear "on the bible."

Religion does not belong in government, because religion in government has repeatedly and dependably changed from simple acknowledgment of the idea of higher beings into the exercise of forcing such acknowledgment in the style of the day onto everyone else. Sometimes it is a subtle message — the ten commandments over the head of judge, for instance — that implies "all non-Christians who enter here are second class citizens." Sometimes it is blatant, crushing use of force: You can't open your liquor store on Sunday by law, even if that one last day would make the difference between your business being a success, or not.

In order to preserve the idea that everyone is free to worship, or not, in the manner that they see fit outside of government, and that they be able in private life and business to act according to their beliefs, we need to prevent religion from gaining any foothold whatsoever in government. To the degree that we fail to do that, we will continuous experience problems that arise from people being marginalized by government exercise of power with regard to their religious outlooks.

I am not trying to restrict your freedom to worship. Not in private, and not in public -- I repeat that everyone should be free to say anything they like, on any subject whatsoever, including religious, to their fellow citizens and to their government.

All I am suggesting is that the government should be forbidden from saying (or doing) anything religious towards the public or in its internal operations. Why? Because inevitably, what is worship to one group is blasphemy to another. That is OK when you can say "well, that's your opinion, I'll live my religious life as I please." It is not OK when you have to say "That's the law, I must comply or be jailed" or "the judge has that Koran on his desk, I'd better get rid of my expert woman lawyer."

I am not fighting against religious rights. I am fighting for them. I am not in the least offended by seeing anything from a bowing Muslim in a public park to a huge edifice of a privately-owned church with stained glass, bells, chapels, a nunnery, etc. You should have the right to think, and say, whatever you want. You should have the right to build whatever you want on property you own yourself, or in concert with a group of completely like-minded individuals. Giving the government a position in any of this erodes your rights, and everyone else's rights too. Religious matters cannot be decided by majority vote. Not yours, not mine, not anyones. Trying to do so leads to trouble.

Re:Now if we can

[Copid]

I think your Wiccan challenge misses the point. Besides, treating all religion equally regardless of violence or popularity is a very unrealistic and simplistic approach to a very real and complex problem.

So can I assume that you think it's OK for a President or Unitary Executive or whatever Bush wants to call himself now to declare your religion to be "not a real religion" and strip any 1st Amendment protections from it? How far does that go, exactly? My point is that the government treats Christianity as the one special religion, Judaisim as a reasonably acceptable alternative, and everything else as nothing particularly important, and my examples of the government doing just that miss the point?!

I'm not sure where violence comes into this. That's not really the ACLU's purview, and there's no allowance for violence in the Constitution. Violence in religion is a law enforcement problem, and I would expect anybody wrapping themselves up in Constitutional protection over religious violence to be laughed out of court and into jail. Please correct me if I've missed an important example.

I believe I said that you were "insinuating." It's not an exaggeration of your position it's a criticism. And now you are insinuating that Christians are more capable of "crossing the line" than Secularists, but the line cuts both ways! Nevermind, that I think you're grossly misinterpreting what Thomas Jefferson meant by Seperation of Church and State.

I hate it when people insinuate something in written debate and then deny it when caught, but I sincerely wasn't trying to do that. I think that you may have captured what I meant, but your sentence has two meanings. I agree with you that Christians are "more capable" of crossing the line, but not in the sense that they're more predisposed to do so. By "more capable" I mean they control every branch of government at every level. I think that other religious groups are just as capable of being abusive toward minority groups. I just think that they don't actually do so in the US because they don't have any power to do so. It's no conspiracy. It's not some sort of evil predisposition. It's just the simple fact that Christians happen to be running the place these days. In countries where another religion is in charge, you see the abuses running in other directions.

As for Jefferson, try reading Madison instead. Madison was instrumental in the Constitution's treatment of religion, and his works are quite clear. Jefferson wasn't the only one involved (although arguments could certainly be made about his position as well).

I was only expressing how I feel about the ACLU. I'm glad that you mentioned Muslims, because I seriously doubt that the ACLU will ever challenge Muslims. For one, if they attacked Muslims or offended them in anyway they risk being murdered by their violent Muslim counterparts!

I seriously doubt that. The ACLU has historically not had any problem offending violent terrorist groups (e.g. white supremacist groups who threatened and killed civil rights workers). Fortunately, the religion in charge is fairly benign and can be fought in the courts with only minimal worry about nutty folks getting violent.

I agree. It's fair to fault me for not mentioning that our freedoms didn't come at a high cost of life and personal sacrifice. But, I have no idea what meddling or benefits you speak of since you offer no specifics.

Specific exmaple: David Kuo's new book (remember, Kuo was Deputy Director of Bush's Faith Based Initiative...not exactly an ACLU shill) points out how the office of Faith Based Initiatives often gave rejected non-Christian religious groups for no reason other than their being non-Christian. You yourself admit that Bush thinks it's OK for Christian prayer groups and ceremonies to use US military property, but not Wiccan groups. My point is, the government shou

Re:Now if we can

[mrchaotica]

Damnit. Yes, I meant "private;" sorry.

Re:Now if we can

[Copid]

No, but it's clear that you're assuming the worst of religion! The preferential treatment you speak of is called heritage! It's obvious that your idea of Utopia is obviously a godless one. That's fine, but I think your expectations are unrealistic.

Well, welcome to the 21st century when the question is no longer "What sect of Christian are you?" but "What is your religion of choice?" Heritage is great, but what we're talking about is preferential treatment. I've given examples of high government officials advocating the removal of protections from one specific religion and government organizations designed to equitably support charitable faith-based organizations denying claims solely due to groups being non-Christian. Perhaps I'm assuming the worst, but this isn't fantasy. These are documented cases of honest abuse of government power, not just conspiracy theories.

I'm not asking for government to push atheism. I don't even think that a godless future is a good future. I just think that the government should get out of the business of favoring one religion over the others, and that since it's clearly not possible to elect representatives who can act equitably, we are forced to look to protection from private advocacy groups like the ACLU. There's a big step between "I acknowledge that the Founding Fathers were predominantly Christian" to "Your religion isn't a real religion and shouldn't be treated the same way we treat real religions like mine."

You still haven't really answered my question. Is it OK for an executive to simply declare a religion "not real" and advocate that it not receive treatment commensurate with his own preferred religion? Does the Constitution only apply to freedom of Christianity? Simply put, is Mr. Bush wrong? Likewise, is it acceptable for a government program designed to fund faith based charities deny funding to non-Christian groups for no reason other then non-Christianity? If you answered no to either one, how then is it a problem when private advocacy organizations step up to fight those types of abuses when elected officials have clearly failed to do so?

Perhaps you missed the question mark. I was fishing for your opinion of what freedom-of-speech means to you. You see, I hate it when someone superimposes their own characterization of who they're debating by putting words in their mouth. I'm sure the accuser is just as guilty, but at least I called it. *Why not* then just debate our imaginary opponents? :P

To me, freedom of speech is freedom to say anything at all, whether popular or not with very few restrictions. The current restrictions involving libel, incitement to violence, fraud, etc. are all quite reasonable. My point about speech was simply that the test of whether or not rules protecting freedoms really matter is whether or not the majority only applies them when convenient to them. "We'll have freedom of speech when we agree with the speech, but not when we don't like the speech" the same hypocritical garbage as, "We'll forbid the government from favoring one religion unless they're favoring our religion." If we apply the rules like that, why having the rules at all?

Perhaps you're arguing that because there are exceptions to free speech, there should be exceptions to the establishment clause. If so, that's sensible. We don't allow speech that incites violence. We don't allow disclosure of classified information. We don't allow libel. Fair enough. Religions can't perform human sacrifice. You can't steal stuff just because your religion says you should. But these are cases of a compelling state interest. The examples I give are really just arbitrary favoritsm and a blatant disregard for responsible treatment of religion in a pluralistic society.

Well, I think you've done a fine job of exaggerating the dangers and negatives of religion throughout your examples too.

My examples we

Re:Now if we can

[Copid]

This has been an exhaustingly long discussion. I admire your endurance, especially when looking at this in retrospect it becomes clear to me that I haven't always been fully engaged.

I've been spending a lot of time waiting for long builds to complete. :) Of course, it's probably best to let it trail off. This is probably the last I'll post on the topic.

Honestly, I've been dismissive, because I don't have the time to check the validity of your claims. There's so many lies out there that are pushed as truth that it would be impossible to verify or debunk each one without it becoming a full time job. I'm not arguing that the cases weren't accurately documented, I'm only skeptical of the way they're being characterized.

Understandable. To save you the trouble of digging through Kuo's book, the Washington Post has relevant excerpts here. Note that this was an example of systematic bias that just tends to creep in when one group is in charge. Probably nothing too inherently malicious, but definitely something in need of correction. As for (then) Governor Bush's remarks, the expanded quote is, "I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made." The context is, he was asked about it in an interview with ABC News in June of 1999 in response to Senator Thurmond's push to have the military reverse its stance on accomodating Wiccan ceremonies. I suppose it's just as valid to point out that Senator Thurmand was... well... pushing to have those accomodations removed essentially because they weren't Christian. The example is the same and the actor is different.

However, I think it's all in fairness since you dismissed my example of the ACLU using extortion, when the practice has been admitted by an ex-ACLU lawyer as one of the main reasons they left the organization. Don't take my word for it, lookup "Rees Lloyd" and PERA (H.R.2679).

Not surprisingly, I strongly disagree with the idea behind HR 2679. I don't disagree with you that the ACLU frequently barks up the wrong tree, but HR 2769 is simply silly. It essentially says that some amendments are OK for the government to violate. The burden of paying for a violation of the Constitution should *always* be paid by the organization that violates the Constitution. I shouldn't have to pay legal fees to defend my Constitutional rights if I'm in the right. If I'm wrong, that's a totally different matter, but that's not what PERA addresses in its current form. The solution to not paying the plantiff's fees in these cases is not to be found in violation of the Constitution. Remember, it takes more than an accusation to get legal fees paid. It takes a finding in favor of the plaintiff--a finding made by a person who amounts to a professional Constitutional analyst. If you're right and it's actually important enough for you to want legislation to protect you, fight the claim in court. If it's not that important for you to have a picture of Jesus in your school hallway, maybe it's better just to remove it. Of course, you rarely hear complaints about the legal fee structure when a group like the ADF wins a case and demands fees to pay their lawyers.

It's true that many people are upset at religion because they're naive enough to believe that we wouldn't be at war in the first place if religion never existed.

Yes, I happen to think that those people are nuts and have no serious perspective. We might have fewer laws on the books that have no rational social benefit other than pleasing a particular diety, but IMO, wars are generally factional and all about power. Religion is just a good excuse. Atheistic societies would just come up with a different excuse.

I believe the answer was a

Re:Declare Victory and Go Home

[Krojack]

But the ACLU will no doubt monitor that situation on a case-by-case basis. [If they can get hold of the confidential detention records.]

<sarcasm>THATS AN INVASION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES!!! NO MONITORING OF ANYTHING ALLOWED!!</sarcasm>

Re:Please fix your country

[AusIV]

Our next presidential election is November, 2008, but we can take a big step towards fixing things if we take enough congressional seats away from Republicans. The way things are now, republicans can pass anything they want through congress and get it approved at the presidency. If Democrats get some control back in congress and/or the senate, we'll start seeing more of what our country was founded on: compromise.

Re:Please fix your country

[Skater]

No, but if you like puppies, you have to vote for this guy. (A real campaign ad, by the way. Sometimes I wonder about my decision to move to Maryland.)

so ... they got to you ...

[Apoklypse]

so they even finally got to the mighty ACLU ... Fuehrer Bush is winning ...

Re:"Reauthorized"

[Gryle]

It's all part of his brilliant strategery!

What next ...

[Midnight Thunder]

The ACLU will continue to monitor how the government applies the broad Section 215 power and we will challenge unconstitutional demands on a case-by-case basis

That's easy, they could just change the contitution while their at it. The people in power seem to be destroying so much that was good in the US government. The problem with current system is that there are too few parties, so it is too easy for one party to enact dubious laws, whether its democrats or republicans.

They don't even use the powers they have

[MikeRT]

Ever heard of a letter of marque and reprisal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque)? Most Americans have no idea what it is, but it's a little power that Congress has that allows anyone they designate (and they could write it out to all of humanity) to hunt down and deal with (or bring back) an enemy of the US. Commonly used for pirates, the "terrorists of the 17th and 18th centuries," this little power would be wonderfully applicable today as it would allow private bounty hunters, Muslims looking to get rich, etc. to have a safe ticket to whacking anyone who crosses us.

But instead we have "professionals" like the former head of the FBI counter-terrorism group who had virtually no experience with fighting terrorism or counter-insurgency operations when he signed up. Yes, once again, a government monopoly on using force really helps.

Anyone want to bet that the ACLU would have gone nuts if Congress had issued a LMR for Bin Laden and any of his associates "dead or alive" on 9-11?

Re:They don't even use the powers they have

[Enderandrew]

During the 9/11 commission, I heard senators ask Rice out-right why we didn't hire someone to just kill bin Laden and Saddam years ago. Rice responded that hasn't been American policy in years, and that sovereign nations don't assassinate leaders.

Re:They don't even use the powers they have

[fyngyrz]

...sovereign nations don't assassinate leaders.

No. They just drop bombs on random citizens.

The ban on assassinating leaders is just one more way that line animals and citizens take the brunt for the decisions made by those who do not have to sully their hands with the direct consequences of war, and as such, I think it serves as a condemnation of the system, not a point of honor.

If a person is "commander in chief" (or some kind of intermediate officer) of the armed forces, then he is a legitimate, and high priority, military target. If a senator votes on funding the military, then they are legitimate military targets as well. In fact, as far as I am concerned, if you go so far as to put a sticker on your car that says "I support our troops", then you are a legitimate military target.

Re:They don't even use the powers they have

[The Cydonian]

That's interesting, coz Bill Clinton did mention in that (in)famous FOX interview that the CIA was actively trying to kill Bin Laden:

CLINTON: No, no. I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill him.

Besides, US forces did kill Zarqawi anyway.

Re:They don't even use the powers they have

[Enderandrew]

And yet when Sudan tried to hand Bin Laden over, Clinton refused saying we didn't have evidence to convict him.

Re:I forget

[eln]

It's the one that protects every American's right to give assault rifles to bears, actually. Or maybe it's the one that protects our right to keep our arms uncovered. Something like that.

Re:Please fix your country

[corbettw]

If Democrats get some control back in congress and/or the senate, we'll start seeing more of what our country was founded on: compromise.

Really? I thought our country was founded on revolution. Silly me.

Bush League America

[Philip K Dickhead]

Roll-over
Play dead

Soon, you won't be only playing

This time's for keeps

All America get the treatment

They showed the world before

Remember the Congo of Lumumba?

Iran of Mossadegh?

Of course not, dear. But we're bringing it all back home for you.

"Before your pride causes you to harden your heart and further close your ears, and before your ignorance provokes laughter, search the Christian Scriptures. Search even the histories of other nations that sat in the same positions of wealth, power, and authority that these white Americans now hold...and see what God did to them. If God's unchanging laws of justice caught up with every one of the slave empires of the past, how dare you think White America can escape the harvest of unjust seeds planted by her white forefathers against our black forefathers here in the land of slavery!"
-- Malcolm X

Re:Bush League America

[inKubus]

"I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.... "
--Martin L. King, 1964 Nobel Prize for Peach acceptance speech.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[Rob the Bold]

To "Authorize" is to invest with authority. As in, "Bob authorized his broker to make trades for him". To reauthorize is to authorize again.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[mrchaotica]

You know, like wanting to prosecute Jose Padilla as a terrorist, holding this american citizen in jail for three years without counsel then dropping all terror related charges and finally settling on a charge of aiding terrorists in a civil, not military, court.

You mean they sued him? Meaning that "aiding terrorists" is not a criminal offense? Or did you mean to say that they charged him in a civilian, but criminal (rather than civil), court? (I'm not implying you're wrong; I just don't know and want to find out.)

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[Amazing Quantum Man]

My sig seems to be an appropriate response.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[Rob the Bold]

Thanks ACLU. Thanks for increasing government expenditures and taking money out of my pocket.

Couldn't you use this argument to discontinue the wasteful and inefficient practice of holding elections?

Re:Please fix your country

[mrchaotica]

Democrats, or any other party. Don't forget that -- some of us (me not included, sadly) live in places where a third-party candidate might have a decent chance, and we shouldn't discourage them.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[Ranger]

There was a sunset provision in the Patriot Act which required it to be reauthorized through a vote in both houses.

I know, I know, the first one to invoke the Nazi comparison loses, but I just read an interesting historical tidbit that Hitler's Enabling Act also required it to be reauthorized after four years.

Re:Please fix your country

[ewhac]

I was wondering when you Americans are going to fix your country. [ ... ]

...Wha? Sorry, could you repeat that? We were too busy trying to figure out Lost...

Seriously, I don't think enough is going to change until electoral participation becomes as broadly embraced and popular a pastime as following the exploits of disasterous voids of character like Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton.

Schwab

You know...

[Sir Unimaginative]

"Its all find and dandy that the ACLU is trying to protect my civil liberties but when they are pushing to have a cross on the side of a road where someone has died be removed or pushing to have a stone ten commandments be removed, how are these civil liberties away from anyone?"

There's something going on if you can't tell the difference between different types of public land.

Roads are public in the COMMON sense - a cross memorialising someone who died on a particular stretch doesn't actually impose on anything besides things like "Hey, keep in mind some crap driver (maybe on something) killed a person here. Remember them, and, you know, heads up.". I would CERTAINLY remind my local ACLU chapter they have bigger fish to fry if they were going after any of these.

Courthouses are public in the sense of PUBLIC SECTOR. As in Government. This should go without saying, but I get the sensation it bears repeating here. Putting a stone tablature of the Commandments is problematic for a reason; namely that propping them in the rotunda of your local International House of Law acts as an implicit "We (the law) enforce this in these parts" (Which someone who actually cares about freedom of religion or right of consent SHOULD take issue with, or at least with the left half and possibly #7) and at worst serves as a state endorsement of religion (While not as bad as actually erecting a state religious sect, it's ALSO covered under 1st Amendment concerns).

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[smooth wombat]

What happened is that he stepped off a plane from Pakistan and was arrested at O'Hare airport. He was held incommunicado and without charges for three years by the government on the grounds that he was an enemy combatant. During that time defense attorneys filed briefs on his behalf (how they found out I'm not quite clear) claiming that holding an american citizen in a military jail without charges is a violation of the persons Constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment. CNN link

For three years the government argued that he was actually on a scouting mission to set off a dirty bomb somewhere in the U.S yet failed to charge him with any criminal activity.

After those three years, and after spending who knows how much money trying to defend their case, they dropped all charges against him, released him from military jail and sent him to the civilian court system where they finally charged him, along with four others, with "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons in a foreign country ... for the purpose of opposing existing governments and civilian factions and establishing Islamic states under Sharia (Islamic law), and material support for terrorism," according to the indictment. CNN link

My point was not whether the guy was guilty or not, but rather that government didnt' charge him with anything, simply held the guy for three years, and then spent money defending its actions against lawsuits filed by not only his attorney, but the ACLU and other organizations, then finally relented because the courts were starting to rule against its position. In other words, just like the crux of this article, they knew they couldn't win and so changed their position to make it seem like they had a victory but only after spending taxpayer dollars doing so.

I could just have easily used the issue of no-bid contracts by Halliburton and its subsidiaries which are costing the taxpayers millions, if not billions, of dollars in cost overruns, missing equipment, unsubstantiated work and other related matters. In fact, Bunnatine ("Bunny") Greenhouse, the top official at the US Army Corps of Engineers in charge of awarding government contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, was demoted because she spoke out about the abuses of the bidding contract. Asia Times Online link and International Herald Tribune link.

I was only tyring to come up with other cases in which the U.S. government spent tons of money defending their actions and finally dropped the case which is similar to what the ACLU supposedly did to the taxpaer. Also, that the government doesn't need the ACLUs help in wasting taxpayer dollars considering that the Republican-led House, Senate and White House are doing very well on their own.

Re:ACLU's heavy Democratic Party Tilt

[pboulang]

The Anonymous Coward. It's not about content. It's about learning to use HTML.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[jamstar7]

Reauthorized means, passed through congress again. :P I think it's significant that congress was dumb enough to let it get by again without more of a fuss. But then, i suppose this isn't a subject that anybody could raise without getting tarred and feathered.

They weren't stupid, they were trying to hold onto their jobs. Vote against PATRIOT Act and in the next election, your opposition will campaign on it because you obviously 'are against keeping us SAFE', and in some cases 'want the terrists to WIN'.

Remember how they got the Federal ID law passed? They tailgated it on the back end of an appropriation bill reputedly to supply body armor to the troops in Iraq. You couldn't vote against the rider without voting for the appropriation. Would YOU want to face re-election when the opposition says 'Hey, he voted AGAINST body armor for our troops!!!'?

What really needs to happen is stopping the practice of putting riders on bills at the last minute. You can submarine all KINDS of nasty shit with the current system. Problem is, I don't see this happening. Ever.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[HiThere]

There are people who stay in government all their lives and remain honorable. I can name one who hasn't quite died yet, and one who shows great promise. They just don't wield the kind of power that control over vast amounts of campaign dollars provides.

That said, that's two politicians that I know anything about that appear honorable, as opposed to more than 50 that I know about as much about that I would class as "better rendered harmless".

Ob-Quote:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Mission re-accomplished!

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[udderly]

They just don't wield the kind of power that control over vast amounts of campaign dollars provides.

But that's the point really. When organizations or people give to a politician's campaign, they *do* expect to get a return on their investment. And they usually get it. By the time that they get to any real position of power, most politicians are bought and paid for many times over. People who cannot be bought will not be given money, and will not get a great deal of power.

If greed could be eliminated, democracy would work. However, unlike many pie-in-the-sky humanist theorists believe, greed is part of the human condition and will not be eliminated through education. Having them more educated just makes them more effective greedy people.

Re:I forget . . .well, let me refresh your memory

[moeinvt]

"I'm not American"

Thank $deity for small favors.

" . . . remind me which one the Second Amendment is again . . ."

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

". . .is it the one which enshrines the right of every citizen to carry automatic assault rifles?"

Since the musket was the state of the art military rifle at the time, I truly believe that the INTENT of the authors was that any citizen could keep and bear military arms equivalent to that of a soldier.

However, the NRA, and the vast majority of people who want to own firearms are willing to live with the Federal Firearms Acts of 1938 and 1968, and the National Instanct Checks System established ~1996. Sorry to shatter your sensationalized Hollywood perspective, but the average person can't just go purchase an "automatic assault rifle".

I doubt that you'd know an assault rifle from a salt shaker anyway.

When did the Patriot Act become un-bad?

[beaverfever]

Over the past weeks, maybe months, I've heard many debates between candidates in the upcoming federal elections. Invariably, at some point the Republican candidate throws in "and s/he voted against/opposed the Patriot Act!", to which the Democrat doesn't argue against the Patriot Act or any part of the Patriot Act, but rather denies ever opposing it and voices their support of the Patriot Act.

How did the Republicans manage to spin support of the Patriot Act into something politically mandatory? What happened to the Democrats supposedly growing balls? US politics are still 6 of one, half dozen the other.

Re:When did the Patriot Act become un-bad?

[CAIMLAS]

I think it's more that the Democrats (the party as a whole, not the individual candidates) are seeing how the Patriot Act will be beneficial to them, as a party, come post-election (2006 and 2008). And the Military Commission Act.

Re:I forget . . .well, let me refresh your memory

[ProfBooty]

Also the government pretty much knows everyone who has aquired one legally who posseses the appropriate fire arms license for an automatic weapon.

Re:ACLU's heavy Democratic Party Tilt

[antv]

The ACLU never really had a case. It's been virtually silent about the far more draconian measures the Europeans are using to fight terrorism, particularly the French.

ACLU operates in USA only. Civil liberties violations in Europe should be handled by European counterparts of ACLU.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[SoulRider]

Your joking right? You are complaining about an organization wasting millions of dollars a year when the current administration wastes billions of dollars a month without even a second glance? Oh right, they are a liberal organization so they have to be hated, conservatives can fuck up this country all they want but a liberal organization that will sooner or later indirectly protect your civil rights is evil. What a dimwit.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[dwpro]

What, you thought that you actually had a choice? Get real.
Like the old saw goes, power corrupts..

Perhaps most if not all can be corrupted, but there are varying degrees of corruption, and your resignation to defeatist pragmatism is a waste of existence. Do something more productive. Study. Vote. Tell others. End sentences with prepositions, during.

Re:ACLU's heavy Democratic Party Tilt

[JhohannaVH]

Thank you for posting this!!!! I wish I had mod points, because this is gonna get buried. Nice to see there's *some* sense still out here in /. land. I'm beginning to wonder. The ACLU has done more to destroy American Liberty than they *ever* tried to save. *sniffle* Sometimes I'm glad my grandparents are dead.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[pjt33]

What really needs to happen is stopping the practice of putting riders on bills at the last minute.

Why not s/ at the last minute//?

Not to nitpick, but ...

[JazzLad]

... I'm pretty sure Satan would not be entitled. Osama, Adolph, George W, yes.

-
Modding down because you disagree is cowardice. Disagree? Post!

Re:Not to nitpick, but ...

[pjp6259]

Dick Cheneny is an edge case.

Re:Now if we can only forget what krojack shat.

[Krojack]

I saw this coming.. Just like a liberal to though out the racism word.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[wealthychef]

They weren't stupid, they were trying to hold onto their jobs. Vote against PATRIOT Act and in the next election, your opposition will campaign on it

I am so tired of this miserable excuse for crappy behavior from our politicians. "Boo hoo, I had to save my career!" That would be understandable if they were plumbers or lawn cutters. But their JOB is to SERVE the American people and act in our interest. What is the point of them holding their jobs when they don't do it? Oh, I know, they need to stay in office, to prevent their opponent from doing an even worse job, right? Bullshit. When are we going to start asking these creeps to actually put principle above selfishness? Stop voting for Democrats or Republicans or whatever due to party allegiance. Start voting for brave, good people. Yes, there will be more turnover. So what? They all have fat, LIFELONG guaranteed pensions after they leave office. Their DUTY is to SERVE the American people, I repeat!

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[udderly]

Perhaps most if not all can be corrupted, but there are varying degrees of corruption, and your resignation to defeatist pragmatism is a waste of existence. Do something more productive. Study. Vote. Tell others.

Actually, I'm not a defeatist or a pragmatist; I actually believe that there is a solution. It's just not a political one. In my mind, if there is nothing that is more of a waste of time than trying change the political situation.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[rgaginol]

So the Bush government has been doing a fantastic job taking money out of your pocket so far, potenitally a trillion dollars for the iraq war http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/, but a few million for your own civil liberties is too much to pay?

Remember, just in case maths wasn't your strong point, a trillion is a million-million, so in perspective, the civil liberties case cost about 0.000001% of the war in iraq. Or maybe if it was a few million, 0.000003% of the war in iraq. Starting to get the picture that this cost you bugger all

Maybe if I put it another way, if there are 275 million americans, and the case cost 3 million, then the cost to you personally is $0.012. Maybe that's a lot of money to you, but most people can round that one down to nothing. Contrast that with the war in iraq, which has cost each person $3636.

Can't fix the candidates...

[Junta]

The people that end up getting into office/holding onto their positions are those who vote in ways that look the best when distilled to 30 second TV commercials. It's natural selection when your selection pressure is being preferred by millions of mostly brainwashed sheep. It's nice to say they should be doing their job, but ultimately even if they all did miraculously get sane with respect to this, it would be a short lived term as it would immediately be devastated by the TV savvy competitors who can sway the sheep voters beyond all sane reality.

The only way to change it in the US republic is to educate the American public en masse and, most importantly, *make them care beyond their laziness*, no amount of fixing up your ideal candidates will succeed as a long term strategy until you fix that problem. Alternatively, get people to stop saying *GO VOTE* unconditionally. The media and most people say to be a productive citizen in a democracy, the logical thing is to vote, no matter what other circumstances you have or even if you know much one way or another, or even if you aren't particularly opinionated about the candidates. The media will lay guilt-trips on the voters by citing voting percentages and such, but that by itself just leads to more mindless voting from guilty-feeling voters. The creed should be to vote only if you care enough to actually know shit about the candidates, and if you can't be bothered to seek data beyond what the media spoonfeeds you, don't bother voting because you obviously don't care enough. It's important to get educated on the issues and vote, but one shouldn't feel they should vote if they opt out of the first half of that.

In today's society, candidates have a venue to put out detailed information on their voting histories and explanations and stances on complex issues on the internet without buying up impractical amounts of TV time, and that paired with a voting public comprised of a majority caring enough to research would lead to something sane.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[Chmcginn]

Perhaps it's about time for a Bureau of Sabotage?

Re:"Reauthorized"

[sumdumass]

are against keeping us SAFE

I'm not sure it is this hard or needs to be that obvious . A politician won't actually have to say that. They can get buy with just saying "he/they voted against it" and most americans will draw the conclusion themselves.

The majority of Americans don't see the patriot act as harmful and have some naive trust in the politician not overstepping their bounds unless it "is to catch a terrorist". This is a big reason the ACLU dropped this law suite too. It was hurting the chances of some politicians who associate with the ACLU in elections. It is that easy to draw the line for most.

Remember how they got the Federal ID law passed? They tailgated it on the back end of an appropriation bill reputedly to supply body armor to the troops in Iraq. You couldn't vote against the rider without voting for the appropriation. Would YOU want to face re-election when the opposition says 'Hey, he voted AGAINST body armor for our troops!!!'?

If the congress person was really concerned about it, they could have done something. First, they could have dropped a motion to reconsider and adopted a rule that would have separated the federal ID regulation from the attached bill. They could have done this before the bills reading and scheduled times for the vote. Of course they would have to request a reading instead of the summery that is typically read before a vote.

The second thing they could have done was amended the portion of the bill pertaining to the federal ID and either made it "voluntary" or turned it into a study to see the feasibility. This would be done by point of inquiry, requesting a reading and offering the amendment during the reading of the relevant sections.

It is a little more difficult then that but not much. You need enough votes for the changes to happen.

What really needs to happen is stopping the practice of putting riders on bills at the last minute. You can submarine all KINDS of nasty shit with the current system. Problem is, I don't see this happening. Ever.

Exactly, and this is also a reason the president needs a line item veto. But if it is too much to stop riders, then at least expect the congress critters to read the bills, be aware of what is in them and offer amendments, rules, whatever to counter them. In the case of the ID, I suspect that those against it weren't really against it. If it mattered that much to them, they could have done something. My guess is that a lot of politicians were of the notion that they could do this as an excuse and claim different later. After all "we don't want troops going without body armer".

That or they are the typical types of PHB's that are clueless about the operations and whats actually going on but take credit for their inferiors accomplishments. In this case, they wouldn't have known something needed to be done and I question if they deserve your vote to begin with. But even with this, my point stands. If it really mattered to the elected officials, they could easily defeat riders and at minimum put honesty back into their votes. My guess is that want this excuse because if it was seperated, they would need another excuse for why they voted for it.

Re:"Reauthorized"

[sumdumass]

I am so tired of this miserable excuse for crappy behavior from our politicians. "Boo hoo, I had to save my career!" That would be understandable if they were plumbers or lawn cutters. But their JOB is to SERVE the American people and act in our interest.

this is probably why it happens. The job of elected officials is to represent the people not serve them. A public servant is some one hired to serve the public. The whole idea of elected officials serving is the reason they pander to us in one breath and then do the opposite in the next. And "we the people" are just as dumb for expecting something from the government and the elected officials. We have in essence turned them into plumbers and lawn cutter because we expect them to serve us.

What is the point of them holding their jobs when they don't do it? Oh, I know, they need to stay in office, to prevent their opponent from doing an even worse job, right? Bullshit.

I think we have different ideas of what their jobs are but i do agree. They aren't doing it with the expectation of being reelected on excuses or promises of serving.

When are we going to start asking these creeps to actually put principle above selfishness? Stop voting for Democrats or Republicans or whatever due to party allegiance. Start voting for brave, good people. Yes, there will be more turnover. So what? They all have fat, LIFELONG guaranteed pensions after they leave office. Their DUTY is to SERVE the American people, I repeat!

Sure, stop voting along party lines. Stop registering people to vote too. I'm not saying this with tongue in cheek either. One of the biggest restrictions on getting valid third party candidates involved is the registration and matching funds requirements of getting so many percentage of register voters to either sign up or vote for them. And if there is turnover- good!

But the role of an elected official has and always with be to represent. Not serve. You should never expect anything but trouble if you expect your government to serve. Why, because you cannot serve everyone to their satisfaction without failing to serve someone else. This whole notion of elected officials being public servants is one that came from a love affair with socialism. A person hired by the government is a public servant a person elected is a representation of the majority of voters. they are there to represent not serve.

well that's a lot of help.

[ScourgeOfGod]

I shall now sing about brave sir robin in honor of the aclu.

Results-driven judges = badness.

[Kadin2048]

As I've said elsewhere, Roe vs. Wade is a prime example of why it's a really, really bad idea to accept bad jurisprudence just because it creates a good outcome in the short term.

Roe rests on a rather silly argument. Rather than using any number of very good justifications for enabling abortion -- such as the equal protection clause, or better yet, just tossing it back to the legislature until public pressure forced the creation of a real "Right to Privacy" amendment -- the USSC created a legal fiction. Beginning with Griswold vs Connecticut, they constructed a 'phantom right,' using what's now called the "penumbra argument." Basically they said that the right to privacy is unwritten but assumed, and that it's necessary in order for the functional implementation of other enumerated rights. It's a plausible enough argument, but certainly not airtight. Compared to the logic underlying most other high court decisions, it's got flaming hoops of assumptions to jump through. It's the Evel Knievel of opinions: on one hand there's where you are, and on the other side is the result you want, and then -- holy shit, look at it go -- it stretches between the two.

The justices voting for the majority, being very smart and well-read people, (in my opinion) voted the way they did less because they were actually convinced of the correctness of the penumbra argument on strict jurisprudential grounds, than because they thought that to allow abortion was the Right Thing To Do at the time, and they figured out a way to make it happen. There is some merit to this approach -- public opinion at the time was in favor and if you looked at trends over the past decade or two, it looked as if society was on a straight, predictable path towards social liberalization. If the court had ruled otherwise, many would have felt that the results were unjust. (And they would be partially correct: the Court would have been just, but it would have been wrong; fixing the relationship between justice and rightness being the proper domain of the Legislature.)

However, by acting on a results-focused, rather than principled or jurisprudential approach, the Court gave society a number of real rights -- things that average, everyday people count on, like the ability to get contraception or an abortion without consulting a judge -- but rested them on shaky, unstable foundations.

Now, all that needs to happen for these real-world abilities to disappear, is for the jurisprudential foundation to be undermined. And now, there is little chance of a national "Right to Privacy" being passed, as there might have been if Roe or Griswold had been decided differently and there had been a public outcry of 'injustice.' It might have taken longer to get the results that people wanted, but the ultimate right would have been more secure as a result, if it had come in the form of a law or Constitutional Amendment instead of a Court opinion.

Results-focused or social-utility "jurisprudence" is almost always a cop-out, a trading of short-term gains for long-term instability and unintended consequences. That we have begun to rely on them more and more is either a sign that the Legislative branch of government is not doing its job and forcing the Judicial to step in, or that the Judicial branch is overstepping. (Which one you think it is, is infinitely debatable.)

Stop calling it the patriot act!

[Frantactical Fruke]

Its proper abbreviation is USAPATRIOT act. It has nothing to do with patriotism since it erodes American values and the international standing of the USA abroad. A better way of pronouncing it would be

U SAP AT RIOT act.

Or maybe that's just sour grapes, since I'm one of those pesky foreigners who get spied on by the NSA and may at any time be whisked away to a secret detention camp by the CIA, if my opinions displease them.

Re:So this is how the ACLU Says:

[hcob$]

That's now all been taken care of by the Supreme Court. They can't hold an American Citizen indefinitely without at least having the ability to petition the courts as to their status.

Re:ACLU's heavy Democratic Party Tilt

[Alchemar]

I was wondering what logic you used do determine that the American Civil Liberty Union is not doing it's job because it is silent about what the French are doing

"It's been virtually silent about the far more draconian measures the Europeans are using to fight terrorism, particularly the French."

I agree that the US govermnet had no business raiding a Religious compound for "stockpiling" guns. I still haven't found any laws on the maximum number of guns a person or organization is allowed to own. I think the ACLU should have been involved because almost every amendment in the Bill of Rights was broken during that raid. Maybe they knew it was a battle they couldn't win, maybe no one was left to file a complaint; but what does this have to do with Europe, particularly the French?

he has a point on Wicca

[krell]

"So when President Bush said (as Governor of Texas at the time), that the military should not allow Wiccan ceremonies because they're not a real religion"

He has a point on Wicca. Regardless of the point of whether or not ALL religions are fake, if there ever was a fake religion, Wicca is one. It was made up rather recently, just like Scientology. It certainly does not belong in the same category as any of the actual, valid, real cultural spiritual traditions.

"Just like freedom of speech is all about protecting the unpopular types of speech that the government might otherwise want to stomp on"

Ahem... it is not. It is about protecting speech, period. No Constitutional preference is given to "unpopular" speech.

Re:he has a point on Wicca

[Copid]

He has a point on Wicca. Regardless of the point of whether or not ALL religions are fake, if there ever was a fake religion, Wicca is one. It was made up rather recently, just like Scientology. It certainly does not belong in the same category as any of the actual, valid, real cultural spiritual traditions.

Well, I'm glad Krell is here to sort that out for us. I was under the impression that all religions were made up like Scientology was at one point or another. They can't all be right, so logically most of them are completely wrong (even allowing that there is one religion that is actually true). The government has no business deciding which ones are silly and which ones are legitimate. I think that the critereon that the courts typically use makes more sense than how new the religion is or how crazy the beliefs are. Courts have typically asked, "Does this religion occupy the same place in this person's life as Christianity does in a Christian's life or Judaism does in a Jew's life?" If so, it's a religion like all the others. That's about as far as the government should be able to go. The day the government has the power to say, "Eh. Your religion sucks," is the day the 1st Amendment becomes meaningless.

Ahem... it is not. It is about protecting speech, period. No Constitutional preference is given to "unpopular" speech.

What I meant by that is that popular speech never needs to be protected. It's unpopular speech that tends to be repressed and needs the Constitution to protect it. Speech that the government agrees with or that makes the majority of the people happy never really ends up in court. The same is true for religions. Why do people think that the 1st Amendment should not have exceptions for unpopular speech, but exceptions for unpopular religions are perfectly OK?

Re:he has a point on Wicca

[krell]

" I was under the impression that all religions were made up like Scientology was at one point or another."

I already mentioned the "all religions are fake" issue.

"What I meant by that is that popular speech never needs to be protected"

Yes it does. Just because it is "popular" does not mean you won't get someone trying to censor it.

Re:he has a point on Wicca

[Copid]

I already mentioned the "all religions are fake" issue.

I'm sure you did...somewhere. So what are your criteria for deciding whether a religion is good enough to be protected? I personally am not big on the if(religion == Abrahamic) { ok; } else { fake; } test, but it seems more and more like it's just me these days.

Yes it does. Just because it is "popular" does not mean you won't get someone trying to censor it.

I suppose that's logically true but rarely true in reality. Note that I'm not against protecting popular speech either. I'm just bringing up a common (and possibly cliche) point that it's idiotic to say that suppressing free speech as long as it's unpopular is OK, just as it's silly to dump on a religion because it's unpopular because it generally DEFEATS THE WHOLE PURPOSE of having protections written into the Constitution.

Causes of corruption.

[alakest]

It isn't necessarially Power that corrupts - it's unaccountability that corrupts.

There are people who are in powerful positions that are uncorrupt because they know if they abuse their power it will be known widely and that there will be repercussions for what they have done. Doctors and EMTs or firemen for example, police for example. They have the power to heal or rescue or the power to kill and, while there are abuses, these professions are mostly abuse free (compared to what they could do).

On the other hand depending on the situation you can get lousy service at a retail store, or lousy service from billing at a cellphone company from a representative who has very little power. Why? Often they're never going to have to answer for their behavior. If they don't care if they're fired, either because the wages are too low, or because they can get another job easily, they have little incentive.

Just look at situations that are infamously considered ripe for corruption. They are often cases where there is a secrecy element, the transaction is complex, cases where there's no way for one party to prove bad behavior, or where there is such a backlog of other instances of violations that the one in question is unlikely to be reviewed. Manufacturers or producers who don't have spell out how something is made or what's in it can compromise on what they deliver. Contracts with sub-contractors, or complicated stock transactions are tool for corruptions. If you have no idea about engines or cars then dealing with a mechanic is fraught with the possibility of being duped. Traffic officers give out many questionable traffic tickets, but how many people have the time to show up in court and defend themselves? What all these examples share is that there is a significant lack of transparancy as an element.

The more the tools of avoiding accountability are refined in a particular situation the more corruption.

One may use power to insulate oneself from accountability, but the determining factor is level of accountability inherant in the situation.

Bill Gates has a heap of "Power", but he'd have to expend a lot of it if he decided to haul off and punch someone in a public place on a whim without suffering a lot of subsequent inconvenience and questioning. This actually happened to Patton, a famous general, in WWII - he slapped a regular soldier and wound up spending a lot of time apologizing and effectively got kicked upstairs. What he did was very transparent and there was a president that insisted he be accountable.

Who knows what happens in the murky world of espionage? What mechanisims do we have to hold intelligence services accountable? How would we know of injustice if people are held with out a hearing? I'm glad the ACLU makes the effort to hold our government to account because it's unaccountability that corrupts. "The best disinfectant is sunshine." - Louis Brandeis

Circular problem without habeas corpus

[benhocking]

First of all, I do appreciate that you keep to facts and logic. Now, let me poke a little hole in them. :) (Of course, IANAL.)

Without habeas corpus, how can I prove that I am NOT an enemy combatant? How can I prove that I AM a US citizen?

Basically, it is impossible to deny habeas corpus to anyone without denying it to everyone (possibly short of profiling a la race/gender).