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.
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
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
Actually, we did not release most of the people who were released from Guantanamo Bay, we shipped them to other countries for "rendition" and those countries let them go. Furthermore, that court hasn't even been built, we haven't "found out" anything either way. Innocent until proven guilty is a great idea, shame the Republicans only believe in it when DeLay is getting hammered by their worldview.
Do you have proof they are injuring civil liberties out of mere selfish political drive?
What would that proof mean to you? That it's OK to "injure civil liberties" as long as you're not being selfish about it?
Not enough people are active enough to contribute to the voice of the country.
The voice of the country is perfectly healthy these days as long as you toe the party lines. Suggest after 9/11 that the pentagon was a valid military target, and even though it would have been the act of war that could have justified everything that followed, you end up getting death threats because that's not the politically expedient thing to suggest while the administration twists and grasps for any other excuse to go to war. In the years following that, over and over the same thing: if you don't say we're winning and things are going great, you're "aiding and abetting the enemy", grounds for a capital offense of treason, I believe. The only difference is that later, the threat was to use the power of government to execute you, rather than the suggestion that someone might break into your house at night and stab you in your sleep.
Since this is about "activist courts" I'll throw in the observation that Bush's "signing statements" have been every bit as activist as the justices he decries. "Legislating from the White House" has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, which specifically gives him the power to veto bills he does not like. The rest, he has sworn to faithfully execute.
The rest of your post is the same pointless parroting "it couldn't have happened if the people didn't want it to". This, of course, can excuse anything from murder to p2p filesharing. The fact that we are "a nation of laws, not of men" is lost on you, Bush, and the rest of the die-hard Republicans. I'll believe that the "people wanted it to happen" when the Republicans obey the legally defined constitutional amendment process and set the laws of our nation to permit these things.
Until then, we're going to be stuck listening to the same blowhards that have been spouting off the last 5 years. They'll be begging the Democrats not to impeach Bush over "partisan bickering" and it will probably work. These masses will hear about how changing presidents mid-war will be a sign of weakness (just like any other company, if a person quitting mid project or getting hit by a bus kills the company, you were doing it wrong), and they'll believe it. These masses will be told that the people complaining about Joseph Padilla, Maher Arar, international wiretaps, domestic call tracking, torture, and so on and so forth... they all want the terrorists to win and Americans to die, and they'll buy it.
And so the world turns...
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.