Slashdot Mirror
2006's Bill of Wrongs
Jamie continued the never ending flow of year-end recap stories, this one is the Bill of Wrongs which lists the 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of the year, according to Slate. Several of these aren't news to Slashdot readers, but it's still worth a read.
I was please that he did not get the death peanalty primarily because he so obviously WANTED to get the death penalty. The man wanted to die, and I'm glad he was not given his wish.
San Francisco Photographers
Banning trans-fats in New York, banning smoking in Seattle. This has been the year of banning activities in the name of public health. Talk about violating civil liberties! (And, natch, in every single case the ACLU was behind it 100%.)
Comment of the year
"Bush sucks".
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Yes, "the government" tried to execute someone. Everyone in the entire government was in on it. They all wanted to slay him mercilessly. But wait.. The jury decided against it. Hrmm. And the jury is technically part of "the government". Remember, the three parts of the US government? Yeah, one of them being judicial? Apparently "the government" decided not to execute him after all. Because once you are selected for a jury you are in the government, being paid by the government, performing a government role. So, let's get a little more specific, shall we Slate? It wasn't "The Government" that tried to execute him. It was overzealous prosecutors riding a power-trip straight to hell.
Way to misrepresent the facts. The prisoners were deemed potentially to be the so-called vicious killers. Given the attacks on the USA, can you really expect us not to be at least a little sensitive to the possibility? So we found out many of them weren't. That is why we released them. And, what do you expect, we should yell at the top of our lungs that they were innocent? Nobody really cares. The USA is out for blood after 9/11. If we find people to be innocent we release them. There's really no reason to go out of our way to release them any way *but* quietly.
This point at least has some reasonable balance to it. There's no doubt the Bush administration is having serious trouble with their information intelligence. Whether their motives are pure or not we cannot say. Do you have proof they are injuring civil liberties out of mere selfish political drive? I don't see it anywhere if you do.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Aside from that, please name the serious wrongs missing from the list and the petty wrongs that are added to it. Which "wrongs" do you feel on that list are petty (and why), and which serious wrongs do you feel are not on that list?
The stance that the liberties asserted in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights somehow only apply to citizens is flatly at-odds with those documents. Nowhere does it say anything to the effect of "for US Citizens only". Furthermore, these documents go so far as to say that our rights are inherent, by virtue of us being human - not because some government authority (US or otherwise) grants us those rights. Try going back to Civics class, and leave your xenophobia at the door this time.
I for one, am happy to be a European right now - although the Blair Government is currently contemplating putting people predispositioned to crime in jail before they actually commit a crime. Nice....
Anyway, some people in Washington may need a reminder of what they claim the USA is about:
O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Seastead this.
let me fix this:
Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the alleged terrorists, huh?
Yes.
"Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the terrorists, huh?"
Actually, yes, that is the point, and the fact that so many Americans don't understand this is precisely why they will eventually have no civil liberties at all. Because the moment you decide that it's "some men are created equal" rather than "all men are created equal," the only thing left is to decide who the privileged "some" will be... and history tells us that it will always end up being the richest and most powerful, who invariably get that way by being the most despotic.
Human rights for one requires the value of human rights for all. Otherwise, all rights are just granted by whatever dictator happens to be in charge at the moment.
But how do you know if a restaurant serves transfats? The only way to protect consumers other than the outright ban would be to force all the restaurants to post the nutrition information of all their dishes (like the fast food chains are supposed to do). I would think that would be a more significant burden on the restaurants than the ban.
Check out the Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, Minority Office. This is the official view of congressional Democrats of what the administration has been doing wrong. They're the minority office, so they can't do much except update their web site.
On Tuesday, they become the Majority Office. Congressman Waxman becomes committee chair. Investigations will start shortly thereafter. We're going to see plenty of Administration officials being asked hard questions. Under oath. On TV. That's how Waxman works.
"As set forth in House Rule X, clause 4, the Committee on Government Reform may, at any time, conduct investigations of any matter regardless of whether another standing committee has jurisdiction over the matter."
Although I would agree that this is pretty much a Bush bashing article in its tone, I'm not sure if you can pick and choose your civil liberties defense depending upon which party you normally support. Your civil liberties are rights that can erode quickly without constant and vigorous vigilance.
I'm typically non-religious conservative/libertarian in my mindset, so I don't get into the Bush hating as much as the Moveon.org crowd; but I also see our rights shrinking across the board in the name of "fighting terrorism" and "protecting intellectual property"... I don't see these as good things.
It looks to me like fear and greed are overly dominating our rights to: travel unhindered, make free use of the products we buy, speak our minds, protest against perceived government and corporate wrongs, address real grievances in court, associate freely with whomever(adults) we wish in whatever manner we wish, etc.
I know it's harder to judge harshly the political party you normally support. When it comes to civil liberties, though, there are no political parties. There are the guys supporting them, and then there are the bad guys.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
"I haven't heard of the ACLU jumping in to defend anyone's rights in this case."
Or the American Center for Law and Justice, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cato Institute, Greenpeace, the local Rotary club, the 700 Club, Sam's Club, Met Life, or the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things.
When pressure came from Human Rights Watch the US government's response was to pass a "Prisoner rape elimination act" the chief result of which was to commission a study by one Mark Fleisher, who concludes that, get this:
So the way your government retreats from its threat of having some ethnic gang make you its bitch and infect you with Hepatitis C if not AIDS while sexually torturing you because you're a technologist who got out of line, is to claim that you aren't being raped, you are experiencing "sexual awakening".This should have topped the list and of course, since American technologists don't count (just look at the H-1b and outsourcing riots trashing their ability to support families) it didn't appear anywhere
Seastead this.
How in the world does your "civil liberty" to eat trans-fats or stick a cancer stick in your puss compare with being tortured or having habeas corpus revoked? If this ranks as one of the more serious problems you have with the ACLU, then they must be a remarkable group.
I'm sorry, I just don't see these as civil liberty issues. Of course, there are things the ACLU fights for that I also think don't qualify, but still, to claim silence on such petty issues is the same as support, is like saying that you obviously supported Kenneth Kaunda since you never spoke against him.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I have felt bad for the Duke Lacrosse program and its players from the start, if only because I recognized the case as a probable "Tawana Brawley" incident early on. For those who don't know. Tawana Brawley was a teenager in Wappingers Falls, NY who made wild rape accusations a generation ago. The owners of the gas station that was a focus of her accusations were eventually vindated, but lost their business in the process.
The appearance is now real, but that doesn't make the Duke lacross players who were charged victims of an attack on civil liberties. They are victims of what a false accusation of a sex crime. Such accusations are serious, not particularly uncommon, and often hinge on "she said, he said" evidence rather than the testimony of third parties. Actually, if you take out the unfortunate press coverage, which transformed what should have been a quiet investigation into the death of a Lacross program, the firing of a coach, and the transformation of an entire team of lacross players into persona non grata in the schools they tried to transfer to, the system actually worked pretty close to the way it should. At this point the only problem is that the prosecution has been taken too far (something that is not all that uncommon).
It must be admitted, however, that there is one huge difference here from other cases. Paying strippers to perform at a party created an impression of wanton sexuality and out of control behavior that made the accusations extremely plausible. Unless you feel that bringing strippers to parties is a "civil liberty", this case comes closer to being a candidate for the Darwin awards than anything else.
At this point, there is just about nobody associated with the case that one can't feel bad for. I think that's particularly true of the prosecutor who, having been stuck between a rock and a hard place the entire time, now faces disbarment. For what its worth, the Tawana Brawley case wound up in about the same place, with the prosecutor in that case ultimately accused of being a racist and rapist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley).
Look at number three on the list for an attack on civil liberties that makes the Duke case look like a little blip on the radar.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
That reminds me of this guy the featured on the Public Radio show "This American Life." He was convicted of a murder he did not commit, so during the penalty faze of his trial he did everything he could to get the death penalty. His logic, if he was wrongly convicted to life in prison, nobody would give a s**t and he would rot in jail forever. If he was wrongly sentenced to death, some liberal lawyer would take up his case and exonerate him. The amazing thing is the plan worked. He convinced the jury to fry him and he found a liberal lawyer to overturn his conviction.
San Francisco Photographers
What a stupid fucking argument. Who said said that such violations happen only in the USA? Nobody did. Saying 'XYZ is worse than us' when the article is about the US means jack shit. The fact that you're somehow proud that you're beating North Korea for human rights is very telling. You should compare yourself to the best, not the worst, if you want to prove your excellence.
If you were a true patriot you'd be looking for ways to improve your country, not waving the flag and shouting 'BUT WE'RE STILL BEATING CUBA, YEEEEAHHHH!'
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
But how do you know if a restaurant serves transfats?
This is a good point. I think the government's role should be the unbiased publication of factual research data (I support government funded research for everyone's quality of life), in simple layman's terms, of what impact a given activity can have on your health. Then you decide. If you decide to participate in an activity that is harmful, then along with all the claimed rights you have, you also have to accept the responsibilities.
Of course we have to ensure the government reports get as much (or more) press as the corporate advertising trying to convince you otherwise, similar to how the tobacco industry has to run ads showing details of the harmfulness of smoking.
No level of government should be deciding that legal products be banned due to health issues that may arise. They should provide facts. By the same token, people should not be able to live totally destructive lifestyles and expect the taxpayers to come in later and pick up the bill.
Too bad the founding fathers didn't add a Bill of Responsibilities along with the Bill of Rights.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/commercial/11064le
From the article:
In my country, the majority of people do not smoke. Smoking is known to cause many health problems, and we've long since debunked the myth that passive smoking is harmless. So is banning smoking in a public place -- something that directly prevents harm to the health of the majority, at the expense of some convenience for the minority -- really an infringement of freedom?
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
There are lots of rights and freedoms, and by default we should defend them all for everyone. But sometimes they come into conflict. Sometimes resolving that conflict is difficult, particularly when it involves an important principle (such as a right to privacy) clashing with a very practical need (such as the right to travel safely, even if it means your fellow passengers have to be searched/background checked/whatever).
But sometimes, the decision is very easy for most people. Should the freedom of movement of a tried and convicted murderer outweigh the right of his neighbours not to be killed, or should we throw him in prison until he's no longer a danger to others? I believe the decision in that case would be near unanimous anywhere.
There are no right answers on these ethical issues, no black and white, always shades of grey. But you're wrong that the argument can be used to ban anything, at least if you mean used effectively. Some things are worth spending money on, even though it means compelling everyone to contribute. If a strong majority really did not agree with this (rather than just whinging about paying taxes, while at the same time being happy to use facilities funded through taxation) then chances are that we would long since have reverted to a completely private, insurance-based, very multi-class society.
For an argument about cost-saving to be effective, there has to be a clear moral case that the consequences are justified. In the case of smokers, as long as they were genuinely aware of the consequences and capable of making a reasoned decision independently, I don't see that there's much moral argument for putting their interests ahead of others who are given no choice about the smoker's actions, yet who suffer in health and potentially financial terms as a consequence.
If you want a more difficult argument with smokers, try the case of an older person, who smoked in their youth before the dangers were fully understood, but who has long since given up and who now gets lung cancer. But for current smokers, it seems to me that banning them from doing so (at least when non-smokers are nearby) can be easily justified in health grounds, and the financial argument is compelling (given that the public money you aren't spending treating smokers can then be spent on helping others who may not have had any choice about their misfortune).
(Footnote: The financial argument here assumes, of course, that the net cost of smoking to the health service is positive. This may or may not be a valid assumption, given that smokers tend to die younger and therefore not need increasing amounts of more expensive treatment in their old age. I've seen good arguments, backed by real statistics, on both sides of this argument. I'm not going to get into it again here, since my point is that the financial argument cannot be used automatically to justify arbitrary bans as the parent claimed, and smoking merely serves as a convenient example for discussion.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Have you even bothered looking at the evidence? Try this factsheet on passive smoking for example -- yours for the price of Googling "second hand smoking evidence" and reading the second hit. (For those who are curious but can't be bothered to follow the link: it's by an anti-smoking lobby group, but cites numerous scientific papers from diverse sources to back up its specific criticisms.) If you don't buy that one, go ahead and follow a few more links from the same Google search. There's no shortage of studies, and no shortage of campaign groups happy to highlight them for you.
In contrast, the only link I found among the first few hits that actually sided (somewhat) with the smoking lobby groups argued that one specific study (which wasn't really a new study, but rather an attempt to combine data from existing research in a new way -- a warning sign of something on dubious scientific/statistical ground anyway) could be interpreted at best to find a level of damage that was only slightly above noise. That same web page then suggests that we should ignore statistics, and that only a rise of 100% or more in the damage observed is significant enough to concern us because... well, because. Not exactly as compelling as "We conducted a formal study, and in households where both parents smoked, there was a >70% increase in childhood respiratory problems", is it? (That's one of the results in the factsheet I mentioned earlier.)
Seriously, this isn't rocket science: the often-devastating effects of smoking to the smoker are well-documented, and at best those around the smoker are still breathing in most of the same stuff after the smoker exhales it, just at a lower concentration (though possibly not much lower, depending on where you are). How can anyone with the slightest shred of understanding of basic science possibly assume that passive smoking is harmless?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Come on, you mean to tell me that an American publication, Slate, listing ten violations, all of which refer to the US, under the headline 'Bill Of Wrongs' (playing off the American Bill Of Rights) actually meant this as an overview of worldwide violations instead of an introspective American analysis?
I'm not saying that these are all worse than what's going on worldwide, just that the grandparent's knee-jerk rant was irrelevant considering the fact that the article very clearly focuses on the US.
Or whatever. It's New Years Eve, I don't want to get worked up about some damn Internet article. I love all you crazy Slashdotters, keep up the good work.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'm sorry, but your attempt to distract me from my country's evil by pointing out that some other country is worse has been a failure. You are painfully nieve in the ways of debate young operagost, and are not yet ready for the position at the right hand of the president being his PR flak.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Only in bars.
So by your logic I should be able to go into a public place (a bar) and inhale some noxious chemical, one that is a known poison and carcinogen, and blow it in your face while you are trying to eat?
So are you suggesting that such stupidity as the design of the U.S.'s death penalty should be punishable by death? ;-) I agree that the death penalty's current execution, no pun intended, fails as a crime deterrent. If anything, those sentenced to death become martyrs. Life without parole, I think, would be very, very boring, dreary, and would help to instill feelings of hopelessness. Besides, if you're innocent, life without parole gives a much longer timeframe for evidence to be found to clear your name, and if you're guilty, you have more time to think about what you did. Let me see, did I leave out anything?
history tells us that it will always end up being the richest and most powerful, who invariably get that way by being the most despotic.
Not invariably - a lot of rich people are rich because their parents were rich, not because they're self-made. It doesn't really change the point, though, as generally speaking people tend to look out for themselves and their own, and so if in a position to influence or even buy a law, will generally do so in such a way as to best suit themselves. They may not even do so consciously, perhaps believing that they're doing all that they can to help everyone, blind to the fact that they're mostly helping themselves.
Human rights for one requires the value of human rights for all. Otherwise, all rights are just granted by whatever dictator happens to be in charge at the moment.
I couldn't agree more, with the comment that it's not only dictators who strip away rights, or decide that they should apply selectively; both Blair and Bush are doing a fine job of that too. The real problem though is that the majority allows it to happen, as they believe their own rights to be being protected or even enhanced (eg "the right to be safe from terrorist attack")
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Funny how every single item is related to the Bush Administration.....
This is more of a very slanted editorial than news. I do admit that the Bush Administation has made some big mistakes, but it is curious to note that every single item is Bush-related.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Um, you're not really supposed to pimp for mod points for your own post, Mr. "anonymous coward". Geez, man, do you need the stroke that bad?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're basically arguing here from the assumption that a free market solves most or all problems, something that a reasonable person could easily disagree with.
... the government? What reasonable person says, hey, there's a problem, I think the government should solve that. They do such a great job at everything else they try. Seriously.
As opposed to
The reason that the Republicans don't turn on him publicly is that they have some semblance of respect for the office of the presidency
Yeah, I took note of that respect during the Clinton years. Good job.
Can you imagine for a second the crap that would be put in our food and mislabeled or deceptively labeled? It's already pretty bad WITH the FDA stopping much of it, and without them, it would be a field day of cost-cutting at the expense of the health and safety of the consumer.
Don't think for a second that your freedom of choice will protect you, because your freedom of choice doesn't mean anything if there is no agency enforcing the availability of accurate and detailed information so you can make an informed choice.
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
Ah but nothing is stopping you from patronizing a place that bans smoking, or of starting one yourself. What I find ironic is that you say this at the same tyme you use your sig, "Throughout human history, the greatest threat to life and liberty has been not terrorism, but the power of the state." Smoking bans in public or mandated by the government represents one of those government powers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
public place (a bar)
Unless it is owned by the govt, it is private property - not a public place.
And it's easy to get bogged down on defining when a fertilized ovum becomes a person. What I find interesting is that the closer you look at the right-to-life movement, you start seeing trends. People in this movement are the same ones giving alarmist, erroneous "information" that condoms don't protect against disease, and so on. The abortion thing is the biggest item, but it is still one item on a continuum, and the continuum is their agenda. They oppose sex-ed, condom availability, and so on. They don't mix messages, and you won't see this in an anti-abortion spot, but if you look at both movements you see that they are the same movement.
They want a world where sex outside of marriage is outright dangerous because they think that "sin" is dangerous and should have consequences. This is why right-wing groups (not all of them, to be fair) object to the Day After pill and the HPV vaccine--they want "Jezebels" to pay for their sins, so other women won't be Jezebels. They don't want a world where women can have casual sex with no consequences. The abortion crusade is only the most marketable element of this larger agenda.
I think it means Libertarian, so to answer your question...yes.
To the ones about "Jezebels"...yeah, they don't want women having casual sex, but it's not JUST women that they mean. I'm fairly sure the rules are "no sex before marriage for anyone" not "no sex before marriage if you're female." They don't want guys having sex before marriage either. Don't try to slant it so much. And you know what, there are consequences to your actions. The cause of pregnancy is sex. If you don't want that effect, avoid the cause. It's a simple matter of cause and effect. Maybe people need to grow some logic. I'm totally against the "no sex ed" thing though. If they want people to be careful, they have to give sex ed. No sex ed is why people think "you can't get pregnant your first time" and all that bologna. I think sex outside a committed, long-term relationship (I refuse to say "marriage" as there are a slew of people who are discriminated against and cannot be married to the people they love under the current laws [except in Massachusettes, Vermont, and New Jersey!]) isn't really right, but if people want to be hoes, that's their perogative. And no, "ho" does not just refer to women, so I'm not being a misogynist. Men can easily be (and often are) hoes. If you're in a long-term relationship and comfortable with the fact that a child could result if you take off your pants, then you are ready to have sex. If you cannot accept responsibility for your actions, you should not be having sex. Seriously people, it's not hard to keep it in your pants and keep your skirt to your knees.
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
"if people want to be hoes, that's their perogative. And no, "ho" does not just refer to women, so I'm not being a misogynist. Men can easily be (and often are) hoes. If you're in a long-term relationship and comfortable with the fact that a child could result if you take off your pants, then you are ready to have sex."
What a crock of shit. What happens if I don't want to be emotionally handcuffed to one person, I'm supposed to jerk off for the rest of my life? The term whore (or "ho" if you must) means doing something you don't like with your body for payment, ie: we all spend time "whoring". In the modern world, unwanted children come from a lack of intelligence, lack of education, lack of access to birth control or some combination of all three, they do not come from "sleeping around" even though sleeping with "someone" is normally a pre-requisite.
"Seriously people, it's not hard to keep it in your pants and keep your skirt to your knees."
Adults are pre-programmed to have sex in the same way they are pre-programmed to seek food and water but with a lower priority, adults can get all sorts of diseases from all three activities, they also don't react well when denied access to any of the activities ( again sex has a lower and more variable priority ).
Disclaimer: I caught the end of the "free love" orgy in the 70's, was married for 20yrs (90% happily), 2 adult kids (both now living with their lovers), got "snipped" but it felt like being "bricked", divorced the unfaithful alcoholic that is possesing my wife's body, had a long "midlife crisis" to the tune of "you and me baby are nothin' but mammals", and will soon be celebrating the 5th "anniversary" of my monogomous relationship with a new love (albeit seperated by 1km). I have no idea what will happen to my sex life in my remaining years, perhaps I will just get bored with sex and post two minute rants on slashdot instead.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Wait, PETA's not a Terrorist group? Since when?
...I got nothing.
I personally find the most disturbing event of the year, at least over the long term, to be the martial law legislation signed back in October.
Allowing any President to declare martial law that easily seems a very dangerous step to me.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)