Slashdot Mirror
Parts of the Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
BlueBlade writes "According to this CBS story, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause."
Seriously, why did this take so long?
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Ron Paul voted against it in the first place and has tried to restore civil rights at every chance since then.
... until now.
Most other politicians voted for it without reading it, or were swept up in panic and kneejerk reactions, and now tiptoe around the issue. Ron Paul is adamant in requiring habeas corpus, warrants, and everything else that America has stood for
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Great...now how will anyone be able to use this ruling if they don't know they've been searched in the first place? You need legal standing to sue, and that means being able to prove you've been searched, which act will be either 1) impossible or 2) illegal under the same Act.
Those who anthropomorphize science and/or nature already believe in an intelligent designer.
At what point can we expect an AdBlock Plus, Ron Paul edition? Because, I'm wanting one.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Because the government and the law are like a barge instead of a speedboat. Just be glad that it CAN still happen (contrary to what the cynics say).
I have a feeling that in some way we will see a repeat of the Indian Removal act with this. Congress and the President will say: The justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it.
I am by no means an expert on the constitution or politics but everything I've read about the Patriot Act seems to go against what I was taught in school. This sounds like a first step back towards where this country was intended to be.
It's about damn time we don't give up our principles for security. Glad to see someone in the three branches of government finally standing up for whats right. I don't want security in my country if it gives my government a blank check to do whatever it pleases. We all know what could happen down the road if governments get too much control and decide they could do what they like.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/27/myanmar.protests/index.html
That could very well be in our future if we write blank checks for terrorism prevention. Lets keep our own house in order so when we go to clean up someone elses house we don't look like fools.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Judge Aiken's opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. "A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised."
I'll bet W is wondering where in the constitution it says "Extraconsitutional Authority is prohibited"
This comment is powered by the energy generated by dynamos attached to the spinning graves of J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthey, Richard Nixon...
It has nothing to do with being a liberal. A lot of republicans voted for it and a lot of democrats did too. Hell, media darlings Hillary Clinton voted for it twice (original and renewal) and Barack Obama voted for the renewal of it.
The patriot act is just unconstitutional. Watch this video for a better understanding for where the country is heading (skip into 2:35 of the first video):
Part 1:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8
Part 2:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GXzUL9KkgvA
Part 3:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=35yhSifZ5jI
Part 4:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRukPp9Tq5k
Profile:
http://youtube.com/user/FutureFreedomF
Changing viewpoints isn't such a bad thing when new information concludes that your current viewpoint is wrong. What really bothers me is how the current American administration marches forward with their "principles" despite a vast quantity of evidence that suggests they are wrong.
That's corruption without a lack of a spine... and it is even more dangerous.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
What amazes me, frankly, is that this has happened at all. From what I've seen in my short life, most people who rise to positions of authority in the U.S. Government are totally unwilling to trade their position and prestige for Constitutional principle. Although I am unfamiliar with her situation, I suspect that this particular judge will rise no higher in the ranks of the Federal Government (which may not be her wish, anyway).
As an aside, I am really tired of hearing about all of the cool stuff around health care and civil rights coming out of Oregon. I'm from New York, and damn it, they're making us "East Coast Liberals" look like a bunch of featherweights who never get anything done.
C-x C-c
It has nothing to do with being a 'liberal' or a 'conservative'. They're all taking away your rights, and finally there's one judge with the balls to try to give them back to you.
My blog
I'm stunned. I had no idea the American system was still capable of curing these problems anymore.
I was well on the way to staying in Germany permanently due to the issues I've had with the US government over the last few years. Big victories like this one cause me to stop and reflect, however, and several more actions of this nature will make living in America seem appealing again.
Most of those are pretty bad, and I don't agree with all of his ideology, but I'm a practical guy. The country has gotten out of whack with the PATRIOT Act and other laws designed to erode your liberty under the guise of 'fighting terrorism.' I'm also not sure if all of those things are true, but I've heard them all.
There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD, and I'm not trying to start a flamewar, so mod me down if you like mods, but metamods need to pay attention, too, because you aren't supposed to mod based on your political opinion.
My blog
I think the ruling in this case was much more apropos than the privacy concerns in the past - privacy is one of those rights that seems to have very little force in the face of all kinds of laws. For example, many abortion proponents including R.B. Ginsberg have expressed that the ruling in RvW was regrettable because it was based on privacy rather than a more logical and constitutional standard. Still, this current case will likely hit the supreme court in one way or another, and by the time it gets seen there, will Bush still be in office; will the Patriot Act still be in effect, or will Congress have eliminated it by then?
"Can he/they honestly refuse to not enforce the law?"
If he can expect no recourse from Congress, he can safely ignore whatever the judiciary says. And in this case, with an election so close, my bet is on Congress leaving him alone. Whichever party wins, they know it would be bad if another terrorist attack occurred on their watch, so even if the Patriot Act is ineffective and actually counterproductive, they will want everything at their disposal to maintain their image.
It will be the responsibility of the losing party to bring down the Patriot Act after the election... only to reinstate it under another name before the following election.
Copulating nincompoops for Ron Paul!
:)
* Opposes federal funding for stem cell research
I.e., not a ban, just no money. Since Ron Paul also would like to abolish the IRS, this makes sense, no?
* Pro-tax cuts, nearly all of which go to the rich
Pro-no-IRS. How much would a 100% tax cut affect the poor?
* Anti-U.N.
From a pragmatic standpoint, the US pays for what percentage of the UN budget and gets how much say in return?
* Favors cutting gas taxes (go figure)
Favors cutting all taxes.
* Against corporate accountability
You're going to have to expound upon that one.
* Glorifies Ronald Reagan
No comment.
* Supports corporate efforts to ship US jobs to China
Is this a slam on the free market? If not, more details needed.
* Attacks gun control and D.C. self-rule
"D.C. self rule" trumps the Constitution, specifically Amendment #2? News to me...
* Anti-union
Well, we've been saying he's pretty sharp for an old guy.
* Opposes hate crime legislation
Supports rule of law, versus thoughtcrime.
* Supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
In other words, if not making passes at the CO, a homosexual private doesn't have much to worry about.
* Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt
Because grand societal experiments involving innocent babies backed up with the force of federal law is such a good idea...
* Voted to allow bigoted Alabama judge to post Ten Commandments in courtroom
Nevermind US history...
* Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools
Because enforced atheism is the only true religion.
* Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without "Under God"
What does he think about "In God We Trust"?
* And so on and so forth.
Sounds like the right man for the job!
Too many Americans are spineless and corrupt, changing their viewpoints everytime the wind blows, instead of standing on principles.
there - fixed that for ya.
America is more than just its Constitution. America is its people. A patriot is more loyal to the people than to a piece of paper. The people, on the whole, are only semi-literate anyway, so no piece of paper can bring order to them. What brings order isn't paper, but a great leader. We don't like Hitler, Stalin and Mao not because they were great leaders, but because they led countries other than America. Great leaders thrive in warrior cultures. Now there is a choice before us: Do we go forward with the warrior culture of Great Leader Bush, putting Rudy or Mitt or Fred in his place - leaders who even the semi-literate can understand - or do we retreat into "Constitutional" leadership which is hobbled, nuanced, afraid of battle - and beyond what the American people as a whole can comprehend and unite behind?
For decades polls have shown the American people would not support the Bill of Rights if it were up for a vote today. Finally we have a government that's done something about that. It takes a judge to get in the way, to confuse things.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I expect Bush will say something like "The judge's ruling shows that the constitution is unpatriotic and therefore needs to be changed."
My blog
When they began talking about the unPatriot Act, I called BS immediately. This administration and Congress have wiped their collective asses with the Constitution and they should be indicted for treason.
Fine, I'll give the legislators a bone here about passing this legislation while everyone was reeling from 9/11, but I still can't believe that our leaders who are voted to protect the Constitution VOTED FOR IT AGAIN! Amazing!
This piece of garbage is not about 'protecting freedom' - it's all about control and falls in line with Daddy Bush's vision of the New World Order. The largest obstacle to this was the American Constitution. Take away those rights, and it's easy to become dictator. I'm glad SOMEONE in power woke the fuck up and saw that the unPatriot Act pretty much canceled out every major right the Constitution guarantees US citizens!
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
It's called NoScript. Unless it's explicitly authorized it cannot be done. However, there's a safely stored whitelist of scripts that are permitted, which we all hold dear.
Wouldn't it be great if we could charge all those who signed the bill into law with attempted treason?
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
This is my personal favorite. It explains that the expansion of governmental power has been going on for quite some time, sighting specific examples and laws.
Latewire
The difference between a murder and a murder conducted as a hate crime is that in the latter, the murder has an additional purpose in that it's perpetrated to serve as a warning toward members of the attacked group. I.e.: A hate crime committed against a homosexual is supposed to serve as a warning to other homosexuals in the community. A hate crime committed toward an African American, is supposed to serve as a warning to other African Americans -- think of a lynching, where the body is left hanging for public display. Thus, there actually is a difference in murdering an individual, and also hoping that said murder will serve as a "Fags go home", or "Know your place nigger" warning statement. Not to throw a word around that is often used incorrectly, but it's a form of terrorism against those communities -- not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime. (That's using the definition of terrorism as an act that is supposed to instill fear and intimidation into a group of individuals)
Will the 4th amendment hold up in today's court system? I doubt the people writing these law have read the constitution. Or they think that no one will notice. The lawyers will notice, that's why their paid.
And, although the media primarily focused on the religion aspects, that isn't what bothered most people. The problem was the reckless misappropriation of government funds and the clandestine procedures. If they have funded it some other way and gone through normal channels I'm not sure it would have been such a big issue.
True. However, the courts already make a sharp distinction between expressive speech and expressive action; burning a cross on a lawn, for example, is intended to cause real harm of the sort you describe, and has no external speech value (unless it's in a Madonna music video...;)). The problem with hate crime legislation per se is that it serves to dissolve the distinction between prohibited acts and prohibited motivations; I don't have much problem with "Hate Crime Legislation" that has a discrete evidentiary burden for a criminalized act intended and normally understood to intimidate a community of persons. However, the difficulty of crafting such legislation finely enough to avoid the criminalization of attitudes and intents that are distasteful but not terroristic is such that I am skeptical any body of legislators (being human and thus subject to the passions and hysterias of the crowd) can successfully do so in all but the most obvious and clear-cut types of behaviors.
I personally think government should solemnly give up the notion it can make people better and concentrate on preventing people from harming each other with overt acts. The protection of communities, including disadvantaged ones, comes from them being assured that they are secure in their persons from harm, and that only comes from the Rule of Law being clear and acting to quash destructive behaviors and acts by applying that rule. Suppressing ideologies for their own sake is never very successful.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Given that Obama entered the Senate in 2005, he must have used a time machine to go back and vote for the war in 2002 and the Patriot Act in 2001. Since he didn't go a bit further back and shoot Hitler, he's objectively pro-Hitler. Well, he's just lost my vote.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Your brain is not a computer.
The people who talk the most about it are the ones with the most to hide.
It's called protective coloration. The pedophile is the loudest "advocate" of protecting children. The person who would line his pockets and those of his cronies at the public expense is the most ostentatiously dogmatic about the duty to serve the country.
True service to a cause is substantive, not symbolic. A real patriot doesn't spend a lot of effort being symbolically patriotic in an attention grabbing way; indeed he acts patriotically without even being aware he is doing so. It is second nature.
It is as Prince Feisal said in Lawrance of Arabia: "With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me, it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Okay, I like Ron Paul. I don't know who he is, so figure he is the candidate most likely to be beaten by the Democrats. As an onlooker Canadian who has seen 7 years of Bush, a dramatic political change is really needed by our friends to the South.
In case anyone wants to read the opinion, it's here
Very good point. I was being snarky and misplaced my fact sense; if the monument was paid for by tax dollars, then it indeed does cross a line. Not making excuses for Ron Paul (because we should have an expectation that our leaders be on top of their game), but politicians often take stands on issues without being informed of the minutiae of the situation, not necessarily because they're are careless, but sometimes because they have more important issues to concentrate their detailing on. I find it extremely hard to believe that R. Paul would support the monument if he was aware that tax dollars were appropriated to purchase it, and find it more likely he just didn't pay the correct amount of attention to the situation. However, I could be wrong, in which case this is a good example of him not being consistent with his stated principles.
On second thought, he might have had more trouble with the issue because of federalism concerns, as IIRC the federal courts got involved. If that is the case, he'd still be wrong (as the 14th Amendment and incorporation doctrine would make such an establishment clause violation a clear federal matter), but it would make more sense in viewing his principles.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
The first result for Googling "Ron Paul on the issues" is this page, a summary of his voting record. (Note the 0% rating from NARAL and the 76% rating from the Christian Coalition.) You can also see his weird ideas that children are being forbidden to pray in school and that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in a courtroom over here, which is pretty bog-standard Religious Right nonsense.
You could find this stuff out for yourself. The fact that this isn't common knowledge speaks more about the willing suspension of disbelief by the internet-libertarian crowd than about Ron Paul's status as magical savior.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
If you look at his voting record, you'll see that his record on supporting the war is mixed at best, and that he has supported the Patriot Act's reauthorization.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
We tried that with Reagan. It didn't work out well.
Background: The Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) changed the FISA (enacted in 1978) from authorizing the use of electronic surveillance where the PRIMARY purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence to authorizing the same for merely SUBSTANTIAL purposes. This effectively gave the federal government the authority to conduct domestic criminal investigations under the watch of the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - staffed by 10 district judges). The application for surveillance under the FISA must be certified as "substantially for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence" by a executive official (such as the director of the FBI). The FISC can only overrule this authority if the certification is "clearly erroneous." This standard of review is extremely high. Rarely are the decisions of people in-the-know "clearly erroneous," and therefore, rarely could the court make this determination, overruling the authority to engage in surveillance. Facts of the Case: This case involved some of the FBI's surveillance activities related to the Madrid train bombings (March 11, 2004 - bombs exploded in Madrid killing 191 and injuring 1600). Here, a fingerprint was found on a plastic bag holding one of the explosives. The FBI ran this fingerprint through their database and didn't get a perfect match. They then queried the system for the 20 best matches. The fourth best match discovered was Mayfield, an Oregon resident, a lawyer, and a Muslim. The fact that he was a Muslim notably influenced the FBI's interest. Despite the fact that the Spanish authorities examined the fingerprint and the supposed match and subsequently determined that there in fact was no match, the FBI's interest continued. The FBI, through the FISA court's approval, electronically spied on Mayfield and his family, entered into his house when he was away, and followed him, his wife, and his children. Eventually a search warrant was issued and many of the family's possessions were seized (computers, kids' homework, etc). Mayfield was arrested and held from May 6, 2004 through May 20, 2004. He was released because the Spanish authorities found the man who matched the fingerprint (Algerian, Ouhane Daoud). Mayfield contested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA, claiming that, on its face, it violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on illegal searches and seizures. Summary (ignoring issues of standing, ripeness, etc): The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. For a surveillance warrant to issue, law enforcement officials typically need to prove probable cause. This would generally require the demonstration of some set of facts that would implicate an individual in a crime. Under the original FISA, electronic surveillance could have been conducted upon demonstrating that the PRIMARY purpose of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act amendment virtually removes any safeguard that surveillance would be conducted for the primary purpose of domestic law enforcement. The District Court concluded that because there is no check to prevent the domestic surveillance of a US citizen, this amendment to FISA is unconstitutional on its face. The primary problem was the certification and standard of review. Executive officials are, in effect, members of law enforcement for the purpose of certifying FISA applications. Their primary goal is to engage in these activities to support their investigations. To require their findings to only be overruled if they are "clearly erroneous" gives them too much leverage. Furthermore, the government doesn't have to stipulate that foreign intelligence gathering is their primary purpose. The governm
He cited the Bible in a court decision which declared gay couples "presumptively unfit to have custody of minor children", and referred to gay sex as an "inherent evil and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it". That smacks of bigotry to me, but perhaps you have another interpretation.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
that this judge is going to end up on a plain to some country where torture is legal. Enemy Combatant == Enemies of the Dicta... err I mean President
I am the penguin that codes in the night.
The Bill of Rights was drafted by Madison in 1789. The French Revolution began that year, but the Reign of Terror didn't start until 1793. It seems a little odd that Jefferson could have foreseen how the Revolution overseas would turn out and been influenced to push for a Bill of Rights because of it, rather than arguments which had begun well before the French stormed the Bastille.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
He also deserve kudos for co-sponsoring legislation with reps on both sides of the aisle to encourage (via favorable tax laws) employee-owned corporations. He said (and I agree) that common ownership is a better protection of workers and a better incentive for work than unions and minimum wage laws (though in some circumstances I will concede that those are necessary).
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Actually, I'd be curious to see (in the long shot alternate universe that R. Paul wins the party nomination) how the dems would approach handling him. He's consistent, old-school conservative which is something they haven't debated against in a very long time, and he was against the Iraq War from the beginning, which makes him more anti-war than everyone on the Dem's side except Obama and Kucinich, nerfing their biggest soft-support issue.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
I don't think it's a bigoted act at all, it's a monument- not a suppression or dismissal of other views. Now, if they purchased monuments with all other views, and smashed them at the feat of this monument, now that would be bigoted. I fail to see how declaring one's views is a bigoted act.
Besides you using the word improperly, our country was founded as a Christian country. I'm not saying that all non-Christians should get out, but a respect for the past should be at least be attempted, in my opinion. Please don't respond with soemthing like, well we used to be in the slave trade, maybe we should have a monument to that! because that's obviously not the point i'm trying to make.
While you might not believe in God or the 10 commandments, or some other event/story, a great amount of people do and did, including the founders of this country.
I encourage other views to be shared and all, but your logic would ban nearly every piece of art from the public world. Oh god, what would museums look like?
Cool. So the US has now caught up to East Germany circa 1989 ?
Almost.
Need Mercedes parts ?
An example, it's illegal to drive drunk (surprise! :-) ) in many countries, but in the US the police can't stop to check unless you do anything else illegal. Where I live, in Sweden the police has the right to stop you to check if you are driving drunk regardless. And the legal limit is 0.02% - which explains why there exists light beer in Sweden. (It's light in alcohol - not calories).
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The issue in this case was not a small wall hanging obtained with personal funds. In this case it was a large monument obtained using several thousand dollars of state funds. I think that Alabama judge is a horses' ass, but I can't fault Dr. Paul's logic on that: "the Supreme Court is supreme only over other federal courts - not over the other branches of government".
If it's a state judge doing something on state land with state money, Paul says that the federal government has no jurisdiction.
You can't take the sky from me...
Then it changed back.
Despite Democratic sluggishness in Congress, we can hope. The past several years have been an object lesson in the FDR quote "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."
Loose lips lose spit.
A display of the second amendment is offensive to some that oppose firearm access.
Since when does government concern itself with not offending others?
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
I voted for Ron Paul against the first Bush. Still I don't really want to read about it endlessly as people hijack the main topic for their internecine political wars.
It it really too hard to hide a topic tree?
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up.
That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.
I'm a Paul supporter, also, and I'm sure you're trying to help. But, seriously, support from conspiratorialists helps Ron Paul about as much as support from the Communist party helps David Kucinich.
I haven't decanted enough of these rants to make a formalized argument, but seeing as that doesn't stop 90% of the posters here, I'm going to go ahead with my disorganized thoughts on this.
After our industrial revolution, it was somewhat inevitable that we would become dependent on foreign oil for our sustained economic health as a nation. We had some oil, but needed more, so we went to the Middle East. We began to make deals, secure pieces, and at a certain point prepared for war to defend that resource. The signs of a really poorly thought-out system were there in the 70's with the OPEC crises, and they did not go away when the media attention did.
We as a nation pumped incredible sums of money, weapons, and influnce into an unstable region. The inhabitants of that region did not always benefit from that input. They still lived in poverty, and their leadership was made ever more unstable by power grabs from various internal and external groups, seeking the resources we were injecting into that region. We were the carrot and the stick, and we made an ass out of those we would try to ride into our new prosperity. We are now being kicked, forcefully, by that donkey, who's been ridden long enough and has not been fed and cared for properly. No more free rides, no more carrot, no more stick. We walk from here.
I hate GWB and/or those that surround and influence him. I think he of all people should know how awful this corruption has gotten, having seen it from the inside for so long, and should have worked to "throw the thieves from the temple" to use his preferred parlance. He didn't, and it's frustrating and demoralizing. But the problem began long before he or his father stepped into political theater.
Wacko libertarians don't agree with all of that, but some of it's a lot more reasonable than you make it sound.
Hate crime legislation is a bad idea: If the punishment for a crime isn't adequate to deter it (to the extent that additional punishment can effectively do so), then the maximum penalty should be increased globally, not just for "hate crimes". If those committing hate crimes have a higher level of recidivism, sentencing guidelines should take that into account -- but judges should have the freedom to take the facts of the case into account in sentencing; that's what they're paid for.
Ron Paul's position on taxation is somewhat more nuanced than you suggest, but his general gist is that the government should provide less services (hey, he's a Libertarian!), thus need less money... so why would you have it collect more money than it should need? He's agreed to support the FairTax (a national consumption tax) conditionally on the income tax being repealed, and that's a Damned Good Thing.
Disallowing same-sex partners from adopting sucks (though my understanding of Ron Paul's position is that he believes that sort of legislation should be done on a state level, so I'd be very surprised if he sponsored national legislation on the subject), but I'll take a "traditional family values" type who simply votes to keep the federal government out of the question (as opposed to voting to answer it the wrong way and preempt the states' ability to answer it otherwise) over someone who votes to increase federal powers (which is pretty nearly everyone else). (That's the same position he takes on abortion and lots of other sticky social subjects -- his personal position is contrary to mine, but his actual voting record is in favor of keeping the federal government out of the issue, rather than forcing his personal position on everyone).
"There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up. Hillary and Barrack both voted for the PATRIOT Act and the war. So did Fred Thompson and Mit Romney. These are facts, not FUD,"
If these are facts, how about some citations and references? Credible sources would make this assertion even more interesting.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
"News for nerds. Stuff that matters." That means we can talk about stuff other than technology, assuming it interests nerds and that it matters.
what's sad is this will not stop this administration.
they do what they want, when they want, how they want
The scary thing is that this, for the most part, makes a great deal of sense. The American people, on the whole, are semi-literate. Even the ones who can and do read often do so in the most shallow of ways. Clearly these semi-literates value a strong leader, such as Bush or, yes, the more notorious examples listed. Hitler may have been concentrated evil in a fleshy bottle, but he was indisputably a "strong leader", as were Stalin and Mao. The "choice" presented is real. I don't think we need leaders that the modern American people can "comprehend"; we need to raise the average American's level of comprehension instead, and proceed from there.
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)
"I'm not saying that all non-Christians should get out, but..."
Dear Christ, save me from your followers. You know, I was born and raised here in the States, in Ohio to be specific, the son of an immigrant and, worse, as a heathen practitioner of one of those Godless Eastern religions—in other words, as a (gasp) non-Christian. In this respect my spiritual beliefs are similar to those of many of our Founding Fathers. That's right! They weren't all Bible-thumping Jesus-worshipping fundamentalists! You unbelievable jerk.
You probably don't understand, either, why all those Negroes are gittin' so uppity about O'Reilly's compliment—gee whillikers, it was a compliment! Right? Yes? Fuck you, and I hope your closed-minded values die along with your generation.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
not only was the victim attacked, but the community was as well, hence the additional penalty of committing the crime.
Unfortunately, what we seem to have lost sight of is that murder is the ultimate crime. That should be as bad as it gets (in terms of punishment). Now it seems like murder is bad but threatening the community, now you've gone too far. Actually, the murder part was too far. After that, nothing else matters.
This was a decision by a district court judge. It still can be appealed. Don't hold your breath for this ruling to be upheld. Just look at the makeup of the current Supreme Court...
Assuming you aren't a felon, you CAN purchase them. Full auto. Machine guns. The real deal. All it will cost you is a $200 tax stamp and (usually) a background check (which entails a delay of variable length). Well, and the cost of the gun itself.
Mind you, nobody (at all) can MAKE new ones for ownership by the general public in the US - but that isn't what you asked about. Because nobody can make new ones (this has been the case since 1986), the existing ones are getting more and more expensive - in fact, the $200 tax stamp is chump change compared to the cost of the gun itself - it's not uncommon to see cheap nasty full auto guns (that are in the $500 or less range w/o the full auto serial number) go for $5,000 or more.
Your state may limit things above and beyond this - but since you mentioned Second Amendment, I'm limiting my comment to the Federal situation.
Uh, it's Eminent Domain, and it means nothing of the sort.
Whereas the Patriot Act was a legislative act in contradiction with current interpretations of the Constitution, RvW IS an interpretation of the constitution. RvW is a judicial decision about what the Constitution says, not a legislative decision.
McCain/Feingold doesn't prohibit the speech, only limit the funding sources of the speech. While this COULD be construed to have a chilling effect, until someone with standing takes it to a court we'll not know what our judicial system thinks.
The intimidation factor that you credit the effectiveness of hate crimes to can only exsist if the underlying law against murder is not properly enforced. A "hate crime" can't serve as a warning if the perpetrator can't repeat the offence.
That's right, money solves all the problems here. No need to correct the flaws that caused the government to screw up in the first place.
Also, you're missing the entire point. It's not the fingerprint matching or mistaken arrest that are at issue here, it's the searching without a warrant part.
Somehow, I'm guessing your ability to read is not enough to raise your interpretation of the Constitution above 200 years of professional judicial interpretations.
But there are all kinds of conduct that are fine by themselves but become criminal when certain words are spoken.
* If you and your friend pull out a phone book and circle someone's name, no problem. If you first say that you want to kill them, then circling the name satisfies the elements of conspiracy to commit murder.
* If your business raises prices at the same time as your competitor, no problem. If you discuss raising prices with your competitor first, then you're criminally liable for an antitrust violation.
This example is probably the most analogous to hate crime laws:
* If you run someone over in the street, you're probably liable for negligent homicide or manslaughter. But if you lean out your window and shout "This is for sleeping with my wife!" right before you hit the person, you're going to face charges of first or second degree murder.
I'm curious what you think of that last example. Is it punishing you for your speech? For your motivation? It doesn't purport to; in theory, your speech is evidence of your act, which is "killing someone with premeditation" as opposed to "killing someone negligently." Similarly, hate crimes use speech as evidence of the act, which is "selecting a victim and killing him for his race or sexual orientation" as opposed to "selecting a victim and killing him for reasons unrelated to his race or sexual orientation." Neither purports to punish the speech directly.
When the people can't that's EXACTLY when the politicians should stand on principles, even if only to protect the people from themselves and their own government.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
--So why is everyone jumping *only* on the Patriot Act, in a time of war?
A time of war?
You have got to be kidding me. We are NOT, and have never been in a state of war at any time since 9/11. Congress has never declared war upon anyone, so to say that we are in a state of war is inaccurate and disingenuous.
I do not dispute that Imminent Domain and the other issues you raise are serious, but please be honest and don't refer to our illegal military actions as a "war" to do so just gives fuel to the idiots on both sides of the debate.
Let Microsoft know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship
Seriously, stop it.
Imminent Domain = A Rock Band
Eminent Domain = The Government right to take possession of your land for PUBLIC purposes (i.e. highways, bridges, etc...) and they are required to compensate you for it. No mayor can take you land and "give it to a fatcat" to build a larger home. Hell, it's all clearly written out in the 5th Amendment. The CONSTITUTION, in other words.
The concern I have over hate crime legislation is that I think that it is somewhat inconsistant with the idea of equal protection under the law. Because different groups often have different organizing factors, there will exist some groups who derive additional protections beyond what is granted to others. I believe that this sort of thing thus undermines one of the most basic pillars of just law.
Primary examples might include groups where ethnicity and religion are tightly connected (for example some Native Americans wishing to return to their roots, Jews, Hindus -- who are overwhelmingly of a couple of limited ethnicities, Yoruba practitioners, and the like). Laws which protect a group against one set of attacking motivations may become intractibly entangled with other ones. Similarly, if these are narrowly interpreted, it allows groups to be deprived of the protections they are supposedly offered.
Similarly there are religious groups which tend to be geared at homosexuals. If religious hate crimes are enforced differently than ones on sexual orientation, this causes protections to be either stronger or weaker than for others.
In short, I think that the appropriate response is not to add hate crime legislation but rather have an additional charge of terrorism for people who seek to intimidate other lawful groups through such crimes. This would be obviously limited to actions and/or speech intended and likely to cause imminant lawless action. But let us leave protected criteria out of it because this sort of thing effectively undermines a basic principle of the rule of law.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
No, really, look up "Liberty House" where the Conservatives are trying to take away a Supreme Court Judge's home to install a museum complaining about the act. What, they didn't mention this on CNN? (And no, never heard of the rock band.) (See why I complain? Time for term limits.)
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Here's a distinction: in the case of the homicide-by-car, the speech is direct evidence of premeditation for the act. The motivation itself (vengeance upon a person who slept with one's spouse) is secondary, if not completely irrelevant. Likewise, if a person runs down a member of a different race with a car and precedes the act with a hurled racial epithet, I'd take that as legitimate evidence of premeditation, warranting the greater charge, and could care less that the specific motivation that cause the premeditation was racism instead of vengeance. The elevated charge is based simply upon the legitimate interest of punishing more harshly those who, for whatever reason, would consciously consider murder, as opposed to those that are simply reckless, negligent, insane, or intemperate.
The same holds true for your other examples; in each case the statement made indicates a premeditation to commit an illegal act, and it is this element that is aggravating, not the content of the speech that indicates the motivation for the premeditation.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
It shouldn't worry about offending people, but it should worry about appearing like it's trying to establish a state-approved or sponsored religion
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Considering that sentencing is usually cumulative, yeah, it does matter. x sentence for the murder + x sentence for hate crime > x sentence for murder. As the GP said, really two crimes were committed. One was terrorism, the other was murder. They aren't the same, and there's no reason not to sentence for both of them.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
Who was it that did the "Art of War"? Tsin-shu? Whoever: the best way to win a war is for your enemy not to KNOW you're at war.
It's not like a good old-fashioned war. There's not an Al-qaida insignia on their fighter planes so you can tell the good guys from bad. And who would believe that these people, most living in squalid conditions would have the might to do anything of the kind?
It's because they live in that poverty and unhappiness they've become programmed to kill. They're moving into London in huge numbers. The local 'bobbies' will steer clear of their areas, where sharia law prevails. At some point, all they need to do is vote, and it'll be called Londonistan. (See the book of the same name.)
We weren't at war when they attacked the Cole. We weren't at war when they through the Klinghoff out of his wheelchair during the hijacking of that cruise ship. We weren't at war when they killed a couple hundred Marines in Lebanon. Similarly we weren't at war when Saddam filled an airliner with bodies from the morgue and bid it fly into a cruiser...so we shot it down. (Yet, not at war; Saddam was a slick operator. He didn't NEED the six month's notice we were coming for "weapons of mass destruction" for him to ferry it to Syria.)
So they take the towers down. 3,000-or-so Americans died...about twice Pearl Harbor. We're still not "at war"?
The Lacawana 6? The Fort Bliss Cell? The British Bombings? Nope, still not at war, though large numbers of people are dying for no good reason at all. Like Bali.
Let's be clear: we're at war. You're at StarBucks, but we're at war.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Monica, Bill, Dress...
Without the Lewinsky thing, I think Gore would have easily won the election.
The court did *not* allow the unconstitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War. Congress excersized its Constitutional authority to properly suspend it when the courts looked like they were going to rule against Lincoln (which they later did). Congress later suspended Habeas a second time in insurrection immediately following the Civil War as is their right under the Constitution. These were legal because they were done in accordance with the Constitution, Article 1.
:-)
Similarly, several clauses of the Constitution (including the 4th amendment) are written in such a way as to demand a reading in context with the times. For example, what is unreasonable in a time of peace (regarding search and siezure) might not be unreasonable in a time of war. THis doesn't mean that the parameters have changed so much as the balance expressed in the Constitution represents factors outside the document itself. (Words like "unreasonable," "cruel," or "unusual" do not seem to represent a static state at the framing of the Constitution but rather general principles of balance.)
Interestingly, the issue here is one of the issuance of search warrants. In typical war-time martial law (where habeas is temporarily suspended by Congress), this would not be an issue. However, since this is not a temporary war-time measure, since we are not faced with an invasion or insurrection (required for the suspension of habeas), and since this is clearly a question of the ability of Congress to let the Executive trample over the basic measures which prevents a dictatorship from arising in our great republic.
Kudos to this court.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Wow, you misread the one statement I explicitly put in there so you would know where I stand.
Had you kept reading the statement, instead of going off like an idiot (and getting other idiots to agree with you) that can't finish reading a sentence before going off the deep end, You'd see that there are perfectly acceptable compromises that can and should be made. One such compromise that can be made is, yes, our country was founded by Christians, and people who hold those beliefs want to celebrate it. Can't they do that? You're being just as bigoted as you think i am, only you try to look righteous doing it. A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.
I don't care where you were born or what religion you practice. I can't even consider myself a Christian, yet I've studied many religions that fall under it. If you can't respect the ideas and views of such a large group of people, why are you surprised that "they" don't respect yours? And the Ten Commandments have transcended religion, they are symbol of morality and a just way of life, referenced throughout literature and culture. I agree with the 10 commandments, and i don't need to be a Christian to do that. You're putting your own "bible thumping" spin on the argument which i never brought in. Congrats, you made a straw man, and you beat the shit out of it. That must make you feel good.
I'm sorry you came to the conclusion i was a racist or some other bullshit like that, all I believe i asked for was to show the same amount of respect for the history of a nation as you would like toward your own views. You used the fucking word wrong, that monument in no way condemns any other viewpoint (let alone all others) which is, by definition, what a bigot does.
Sun Tzu wrote the Art Of War. Also I think in all of your mentions of being at un-war, you forgot to mention Vietnam! The largest "police action" our military has ever endured. I'm so pleased that there has finally been a light through the clouds with the Patriot Act's unfair legislation. I'm just surprised that it took so damn long for anything to happen.
support from conspiratorialists helps Ron Paul about as much as support from the Communist party helps David Kucinich.
Yeah, everyone knows it's Dennis Kucinich who the Communists are throwing their money at.
I'm not suggesting that people and politicians don't abuse and stretch the limits of powers provided them, but that's not what Eminent Domain is about. You can argue those specific case because they're improperly using the law, but the law itself is a fairly sound and rational law and has been a part of common law for centuries.
As for conservatives being the bad guys here, George Bush recently signed an XO re-affirming that Eminent Domain should only be used sparingly and for public services and as a last resort option (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html).
As for your friends in Seattle I'm curious who fined them. After all, a private enterprise like a radio station does not answer to the constitution, they can fine and fire whomever they like for violating the terms of an employment contract.
> Similarly we weren't at war when Saddam filled an airliner
> with bodies from the morgue and bid it fly into a cruiser.
That was an Iranian plane, so Saddam could have had nothing to do with it. Their mistake was flying over the cruiser on a night when we busy were smashing the Iranian Navy. Ours was not being perfect in target discrimination.
OTOH, that, no doubt, made them all martyrs, and so fast-tracked them into the Shiite version of Heaven.
If you're going to suggest that our government is violating the constitutions by "...encroachments upon Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..." then I suggest you find some actual incidents of this happening instead of oblique references to rulings and laws that you understand little about, much less can't even spell correctly.
Here are some suggestions:
This XO gives the Secretary of the Treasury the right to seize the funds of any person they suspect is "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq". No warrant or oversight required. Pretty scary stuff if you even thought about protesting the war.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
How about the FISA amendments that Congress recently passed, allowing the federal government to electronically wiretap anyone they believe is communicating with someone outside of the U.S. Effectively legalizing the previously illegal TSP and providing the government an easy way to justify surveillance on anyone they'd like.
The judicial branch has done an admirable job of upholding its role throughout this whole so-called "war on terror." Cases such as Hamdi, Rasul, and Hamdan have generally represented a court attempting to find some level of applicability in the judicial models of the past for the current approach (I actually agree with the Scalia/Stevens dissent in Hamdi, but if you read the Souter/Ginsberg concurring opinion, you can see how difficult these issues were for the Justices).
Under the Roberts court, things haven't been worse either (not including Hamdan in that reference because Roberts recused himself from that case, having been on the appellate board). I would note that what has been published about the role of the FISC and the warrantless wiretapping indicates that they are doing their job too and remarkably restraining executive power.
In short the court has done as good a job as possible in its limited role. We are still a nation of laws, despite the attempts by some people to undermine that.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Trying to, like... enforce the constitution. How dare they legislate from the bench!
> look up "Liberty House" where the Conservatives are
> trying to take away a Supreme Court Judge's home to
> install a museum complaining about the act.
(1) Decision, not act.
(2) How will a museum increase the tax base?
The point of the decision was that neither the Federal nor that state's Constitutions defined what a "public purpose" was and was NOT, so anything that would increase the tax base could apply (whether slum/blight clearance, or taking middle class land on the theory that new tenants and owners would generate more revenue than the old). The original idea that I heard was to turn the justice's property into a hotel/convention center.
Yes yes -- that's all a fine argument. But it is a different argument than that hate crimes are a bad idea because they "punish speech."
You need to pass a bill to put the ten commandments up ? Strange.
Right...but I'm not talking about the Conservatives being the bad guy (although that seems to be the default anymore, doesn't it? Thanks, George.)
I'm saying that it in fact, did happen. I know it's not part of the Constitution, but it happened and no one seemed to lift an eyebrow.
Understand that Republicans aren't very good at being Conservatives...I'm as unhappy with them as the nutroots are with Hillary. My suggestion is both 20 year term limits to *any* elected position (so it's no longer a career-to-the-death) and to institute removal of useless parts of the government. See also: Department of Education. Know how many people they educate? None. No how useful they are? Not. Yet, we pay all the time, and they complain that there are "cuts" if on a given year they get a 6% increase, not a 9% increase.
Many, many weird things are afoot; if your awareness level extends only to CNN, you're gonna miss it. I'm not talking about conspiracy theory...actual statments from Hugo Chavez and Iran's President talking about "How nice it would be to destroy America" while the college kids keep voting Democratic so they can get "free" healthcare.
And if we make it another decade without a world war, I'll be shocked. Important things are being ignored, frivolous things (like Paris Hilton, etal) are on the forefront. It's just a crazy, crazy time.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Wait; has there been two? The one I saw, with my own eyes was on during the time we weren't fighting him. It was done in such a time that the main news outfits could broadcast it in the western hemisphere. I remember at the time thinking....why are these bodies floating? And "Why are they all naked and stiff?" It was a splendid charade; he was known for such parlor tricks...
But Iran did one, too? (Cause this was day-time, and I remember the tie-in; Iran was very quiet for a long time, after the hostages came back. Now, because they made the president of a superpower (Jimmy Carter) beg for the hostages back, Hammas enjoys millions of dollars and supporters. Thanks, Jimmy. [Nice guy, HORRIBLE president.]
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Yeah, Vietnam was another of those hoaky wars. I just learned the other day that the Tet Offensive wasn't a defeat...but rather a very, very bloody win, but Chronkite didn't see it that way, so we were all told it was a disaster.
:> (Talking about Johnson's investment in the war industry.)
I know a guy that was there, during Tet; there was nothing 'nice' about that war. Brutal, ends-meet-needs kind of fighting and the VietCong were harsh, too!
Maybe they can shine that same light on all the *other* wrong legislation, too?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
You need to pass a bill to fund courtroom construction. Subsequent use of said courtroom to display religious symbols is an end run around the Constitutional restriction at best.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
I understand your point when the crime in question is a murder, but what if the victim isn't murdered, but 'merely' assaulted? In this scenario, the punishment for general assault would not take into account the intent to terrorize the community. With hate crime legislation in place, the threat to the community is additionally punished.
Agreed, but I think they are both rooted in the question of what exactly we want to regulate in terms of hate crime legislation. Hate speech is actually Constitutionally protected in this country (in fact the governing precedent on free speech regulation is a hate speech case). I do think though that there is a (valid) concern that hate crime law may have a chilling effect on hate speech, but I wouldn't base m case against hate crime legislation against it.
Now, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (Clinton-era, 1998) is a bad idea because it regulates purely expressive speech if that speech can be interpretted to be "expert advice" to terrorist groups. The Bush Adminitration tried to argue that providing a hyperlink to a Hamas web site constituted expert advice in at least one case.
Under my reading of Brandenburg v. Ohio (IANAL), expressive speech can only be criminalized when it is intended and likely to cause imminant lawless action. Saying that "We must someday overthrow the US government" for example does not qualify, unless it is accompanied by concrete steps to accomplish this, for example, by raising and training an army. Similar saying "Bush is evil and someone should assassinate him" would not be a crime by itself unless it was a part of an attempt to imminantly accomplish this.
In the US we enjoy probably unparalleled protections of Free Speech. Phrases like "Kill the niggers" and "Send the Jews back to Israel" are Constitutionally protected even when made by an individual in an organization which seeks to eventually accomplish these aims (see Brandenburg, majority opinion, footnote 1-- note that this case was about a speech at a KKK march). What would not be legal would be to say this and at the same time hand out weapons in preparation to go out and murder a bunch of Affrican Americans, Jews, etc. Similarly I don't see how burning a cross on your own lawn could get you in any more trouble than fire code violations (doing it on someone else's lawn would be another matter).
However, I cannot think of any other country which draws such a strong line protecting free speech. Interestingly, one of the cases I point to in terms of *why* hate speech laws are a problem is that of the Weimar republic. It is fairly well documented that when the National Socialist party was censored, they enjoyed some of their strongest growth. In essence chilling hate speech only removes it from the public eye and hence denies the public the right of rebuttal. Thus can such dangerous ideas spread their poison.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You seem to be doing OK to me, maybe standards *are* declining.
Who the fuck are you talking to? I am not the author of the post to which you replied. Christ, talk about strawmen.
And yes, I appreciate that our culture is rife with references to God, Christ, the Bible, Christian ritual, and believe it or not I agree that we're richer for it, too. Acceptance of these views doesn't, however, necessitate the dismissal of all other religious and spiritual icons as meaningless and therefore culturally worthless. No need to endow the symbols of Christianity with special status as shibboleths of American culture, as you seem so ready to do.
And no, you asshole—America's founding fathers, by and large, were not followers of your fucking religion, no matter how often you lie to yourself otherwise.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
A threat is a warning that something will happen in the future. If the warning is in the form of a crime, the severity of the crime is irrelevant. If I lynch somebody suspected of being a homosexual because I think he's a homosexual, other homosexuals would be threatened that I would lynch them next -UNLESS- I am apprehended and appropriately punished for the lynching.
If instead of lynching, I merely physically assaulted (committed a battery, for you IAAL's or IAALS's out there) the victim, the threat is the same - other people of that specific demographic will feel threatened that they will be my next victim. Just as in the murder example supra, that threat will not have affect if I am apprehended and appropriately punished.
In either case, if I am punished for the physical offense (lynching, battery), the "hate" factor of the crime is irrelevant.
Turns out you can't describe a complex issue in "yes" or "no" terms. Or a gigantic, sprawling clusterfuck in "up" and "down" votes, for that matter. Who knew?
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
The "Patriot" Act was written mostly by the Bush Administration and thrust at Congress in the wake of September 11, 2001 when everyone in Congress wanted to be seen as taking immediate decisive action.
I have friends abroad who live in nations where human rights have not always been the most important thing in the mind of their dictator -- ur -- government (Yeah, that's it, government!). I told my friends to watch what we did as a nation of laws with an overriding Constitution that protects us.
Within one year I was sending out e-mails to my friends apologizing for my assumption that lawmakers would actually read laws they were enacting before voting on them and actually take their oath to protect the Constitution seriously.
Several people in this forum have espoused the theories of one candidate or another and several have suggested one person or another is reprehensible for having passed the Patriot Act, having supported the War, having done this or done that. I say they're all scoundrels for having supported and allowed the passage of a clearly unconstitutional law proposed by a suspect administration (one that was never elected) and having not immediately, upon finding out what was in it, revoked it with a veto-proof majority. The President and Vice-President should have been impeached for having proposed the "Patriot" Act, as it clearly violates the Constitution as well as the intent of the framers of that document and every member of Congress ought to have gone home for some honest soul-searching as to why, exactly, they took the oath to "honor, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I realize this is a bit of a rant but they're all liars there in Washington, DC. Some lie just a bit more convincingly.
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
After the 2004 election and even the year 2000 election you can see where changing an oppinion is polticial suicide as it appears your indecisive and have no principles. Flip flop Kerry killed his image.
Mitt Rodney was ahead in alot of polls for hte republican nomination and now that has changed as his opponents accused him of being a flip flopper. Now he is on the bottom of the polls.
American voters are idiots and love sound bites. So yes if any democrat who wanted to oppose the patriot act while voting for it in 2003 would not have a career left after 2008.
http://saveie6.com/
The murder part is too far, but it's still possible to go further. I'd prefer to just toss on an assault charge for every member of [group] that is supposed to be threatened by the act. Lynch a black person, and you get a murder charge for the victim, and an assault charge for every black person that lives in the same community. After all, serial killers get multiple murder charges, shouldn't one be enough by your standards?
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
Obviously you're just a government plant who has been sent here to discredit anyone who speaks ill of the regime. ;)
That "founded as a christian country" line keeps getting trotted out by the christians, but it has no basis in fact. I submit below a rebuttal that I cribbed from a forum (perhaps this very one) but, unfortunately cannot credit the author since I didn't copy down his name.
Some people today assert that the United States government came from Christian foundations. They argue that our political system represents a Christian ideal form of government and that Jefferson, Madison, et al, had simply expressed Christian values while framing the Constitution. If this proved true, then we should have a wealth of evidence to support it, yet just the opposite proves the case.
Although, indeed, many of America's colonial statesmen practiced Christianity, our most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking. The ideas of the Great Enlightenment that began in Europe had begun to sever the chains of monarchical theocracy. These heretical European ideas spread throughout early America. Instead of relying on faith, people began to use reason and science as their guide. The humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, had greatly influenced our Founding Fathers and Isaac Newton's mechanical and mathematical foundations served as a grounding post for their scientific reasoning.
A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."
The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.
The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."
George Washington
Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."
Thomas Jefferson
Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the
God is imaginary
"200 years of professional judicial interpretations"
Funny how 200 years of professional judicial interpretations has produced wildly different interpretations thru the years. Do you really think that all judges see the 4th ammendment the same way? How about any two random judges?
It's pathetic when people appeal to a higher power instead of an actual argument.
Silly me, if I had just had the foresight to use google before posting this, I would have found this page:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
My apologies for clogging up the forum and thanks to Jim Walker for his essay!
God is imaginary
From wikipedia (I know, I know, but these are pretty easily verifiable facts and you can go look them up yourself)
Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States CIA program to arm Islamic mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979-1989. The Program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution. Along with similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia and other nations, the opponents to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan collectively trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. Somewhere between $3-$20 billion in US funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.
Here is the Senate's page breaking down the original USAPATRIOT act vote. Here is the same data for the House of Representatives.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
I understand that you are joking, but you emphasize something that bothers me. -- Namely that the People have a "leader" in our republic. I understand that we have representatives, and a president who is "leader" of law enforcement and military; but I don't see a leader of the People anywhere in our system, and I believe that we need to stop seeking "leaders". The *People* are more than capable of leading themselves.
Non-US citizens may not have "bill of rights protection", but they do have the rights. That's the whole point: people have these God-given, inalienable rights by the fact that they are people. The US government may use its might-makes-right philosophy and ignore their rights, but they still have them. That just makes the US government wrong, and a violator of people's natural rights.
There are no terrorists. Al Qaeda is and has been working for the CIA and the NSA. And Ron Paul is the only guy on the roster who sees that and is willing to clear it up.
That is not what Ron Paul says. He does not believe there is any conspiracy with the US government behind the terrorist attacks, just that our government's incompetence made it easier for them.
I agree saying Ron Paul believes in or talks about there being a conspiracy of the CIA/NSA hiring al Qaeda harms him. However the US did help in the creation of al Qaeda. Al Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. And the US supported the mujahideen.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As a white male, if another white male is assaulted due to a personal issue between the assailant and the victim, I am not threatened. A normal assault punishment is applied as society's method of saying "hey, it's wrong to assault people."
But if the victim is assaulted because he is white, there is the crime of the assault, and the added threat that additional assaults will take place. Thus, the need for a punishment that addresses this additional threat and in theory, defuses it.
Not sure if this is the best example, but it's my first relevant find regarding a court ruling on threats: One who attempts to threaten violence and put another in fear should not be exempt from prosecution simply because "only a fortuity, not intended by the defendant," prevented the completion of the criminal threat, Chief Justice Ronald George said.
Quick correction for you: cigarette taxes are a tax on smokers, i.e., the stupid, not the poor (although there may be some coincidental overlap).
Free expression is the right of private citizens, not government officials acting in their official capacity.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
do you even read entire responses before you reply?
apparently the "reply to this" feature was fucking up, because i'm not replying to the correct posts at all....
Good point. I hadn't thought the issue all the way through from that perspective.
I'm going to have to let this one bounce around for a while. Part of my reasoning stems from the fact that violent threats and intimidation have existed since the beginning, and consequently should have already been addressed by the anglo-saxon common law (Magna Carta, et. seq.) and as our judicial history has not given us a clear classification of hate crimes, the past 800 years have not shown that extra punishment is necessary for an offense motivated by a desire to intimidate.
IANAL, but I am in my last semester of law school. I'd look into it in depth, but my senior paper is already quite neglected...
"Opposes allowing same-sex partners to adopt" ...well, if that's true, I guess I'll concede that no one is 100% right.
"Opposes restoring the Pledge of Allegiance to the version without Under God'" and then "Co-sponsored Constitutional amendment pushing coerced prayer in public schools" Are you sure he did BOTH? They seem to be opposing views being expressed.
Yea these two votes surprised me too. I'd think he'd be for striking "under god" from the pledge and for allowing same sex couples to adopt.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Well said.
The guy who runs over a black person and shouts "Yeee-HAW! One less nigger!" is as guilty as the one who shouts "That will teach you to jaywalk" or "Nothing like the crunch of bone on your windshield" in my book - all these expressions give a reason to presume intention on the driver's part. I don't support that the first guy should face harsher charges than the other two.
Currently, in my country, there's a push to make a new law that makes "femicide" (the murder of a woman by her male former or current husband/partner/whatever) a crime with greater penalties than common murder. It sickens me, because of the fact that the word "femicidio" doesn't exist, that properly persecuting murder will result in proper punishment, and that I don't like discrimination. Suppose I have a son and a daughter, both get married, and both are murdered by their spouses. Why should the woman get less punishment for her crime, or why should the man get more punishment? But well, that's what politicians do - the answer is always "more laws" and "let's create a committee to study the problem", not enforce current laws properly.
My rant, I'm finished :)
if I burn a cross on my own lawn, is that expressive speech? How is that different from burning a flag? Is there any reason why this should be categorically banned even, for example, when not connected to the KKK (the burning cross was originally a Hightland Scottish call to arms). However, this doesn't mean that it couldn't cause problems as relates to fire codes and the like.
Burning a cross on someone else's lawn without their consent, however, is a very different matter. In my book it could well be an assault of some form or another (IANAL, though). Similarly, if I say, to an African American, "Get out of town, nigger, or I'll come back with my shotgun!" then I have issued a threat for bodily harm. I don't think one could hide behind freedom of speech in either case even if, in another context, the expressive action or words might be protected.
As for hate crime legislation, I don't think it blurs this distinction. It *can* have a chilling effect on hate speech and thus deprive the public of a chance to rebutt and hence kill dangerous ideas. However, more troubling is the fact that hate crime legislation is fundamentally asymmetric-- i.e. some groups of people will always have more or less protection than others and hence equal protection under the law is compromosed. Instead I think we should be taking the above examples and generalizing them without regard to the targets. I.e. make an attempt to intimidate people via violent crime carry an extra penalty. Note that this could also be useful in certain cases against organized crime.
A crime is a crime. However, intent and motivation are factors. (For example, the difference between first and second degree murder has to do with thought processes that went on before the crime.) Just as premeditation can make a crime more severe, I see no reason why "crime as intimidation" can't carry an extra penalty. This changes it from a question of motivation by hate to a question of whether it was intended to send a message to other people.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Cigarette taxes are a tax on the addicted, a quality that has precious little to do with intelligence, but tends to very strongly correlate with economic status. It is taking money by taking advantage of a habit that has partially compromised the person's free will and choice; damn scummy, if you ask me. Further, the tax cuts into a larger proportional quantity of a poor smoker's income than a rich person, since it is a consumption tax.
While I agree that free expression is primarily a freedom of private citizens, public officials are not stripped of all rights to expression, even in the context of their official roles and capacities. The dividing lines can be dicey, especially with religious expression.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
First, this was a search that wasn't under the standard set of protocols. Typically, the FBI would have to procure a warrant from a judge in an open court. There are a number of procedural checks in such a case. One of these checks is that the judge examines whether or not there is probable cause. In this case, the judge would have likely required more. That being said, however, this was under the FISA. What was under attack was the procedures by which the FBI was given permission to engage in this surveillance. There weren't adequate procedures in place to ensure that the search wasn't "unreasonable". In order for a proper warrant to issue, a court must determine probable cause. This court is unable to do so. Therefore, this court cannot constitutionally grant search warrants rendering it, in itself, unconstitutional as amended by the Patriot Act.
I am? My god. Their corruption knows no bounds!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
what if the victim isn't murdered, but 'merely' assaulted? In this scenario, the punishment for general assault would not take into account the intent to terrorize the community. With hate crime legislation in place, the threat to the community is additionally punished.
You don't mean a hate crime law for this. Accounting for motivation for sentencing can handle this. A premeditated murder has a heavier sentence than negligent homicide.
FslconShould there be a Law?
The constitution explicitly bans the establishment of a state religion -- and that's for a purpose. It seems fine when when you agree with the state religion, but it really sucks when the slippery slope gets so steep that you're persecuted for not believing in the same god as the (current) government does. Imagine if Utah had a $100/day head tax for non-Mormons, and the surrounding states retaliated with a $100/day tax for being Mormon. Imagine it then going downhill from there... There are many times in history when people were Killing each other over which religious sect held sway (from the later roman empire, to the British wars of succession to modern-day Iraq).
Many of the framers of the constitution were (children of) religious refugees.
They weren't anti-religious. Quite to the contrary -- you have to have a very strong faith to pull up stakes and move to a wild continent rather than just silently put up with the current political fad in religiousity. The point of the separation of church and state was that they wanted to be able to partake in their own brand of devout religion, independent of the (often fake) piosity of the current President/Governor.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
And who's fault is it but theirs that they became addicted in the first place?
Maybe they should be!
Absolutely not. The lines should be clear: as far as their official roles and capacities go, their behavior should be indistinguishable from that of an atheist's (excepting, of course, any sort of "evangelical atheism" -- that should be disallowed too). If people want to express themselves religiously at work, then they should join the clergy instead of becoming public servants!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"Hate crime" legislation is superfluous, abused, and probably poorly written (since otherwise it wouldn't be so frequently abused). Everything that should be covered by "hate crime" law is already covered by "criminal threatening" and ordinary criminal law. "Hate crime" laws are just the result of legislators trying to look like they're doing something worthwhile.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Very well stated. I completely agree with you on your real life example, too. Female criminals can be just as vicious as male criminals, so I see no reason at all for treating a woman who murders her husband any different than a man who murders his wife. In my opinion, murder, specifically the act of deliberately, intentionally, taking the life of another person for one's own selfish ends, is one of the worst crimes imaginable, regardless of what excuses the murderer might use to sanction his or her act; I am not an opponent of capital punishment, however, provided proof of the crime (which I feel should be limited solely to first degree murder) has been solidly, unmistakably, and unquestionably proven (very difficult, I'll admit, but it is possible). I would also argue that anyone who commits a crime, then pins the blame on an innocent and ensures that they are executed for the crime are guilty of both murders; in some cases, I feel it's better to simply let God be the final judge.
If you find this device perplexing, I've taken the liberty of using it myself, and have found the case in question, Ex parte H. H. , which states in part: The decision also mentions: You are, of course, not obligated to believe your lyin' eyes.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
our country was founded as a Christian country
BS!!! The USA was founded as secular nation. You can even is it in the country's two most important documents. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson only wrote "God" once, where he wrote "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". "Lord appears nowhere in it. In the Constitution of the USA "God" never appears and "Lord" is only used once, where they wrote the date it was signed: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names." TJ even wrote that religion was a private matter and that's where it should stay. Fact is is many of the early settlers came to America to escape persecution. Some then started persecuting the "Others" themselves. So at least some of the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure the government couldn't persecute others or used to do so.
"Jefferson wrote voluminously to prove that Christianity was not part of the law of the land and that religion or irreligion was purely a private matter, not cognizable by the state."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hate crime laws are just a convenient end run around the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The only time most hate crime laws even come into play is when somebody in a "protected group" is the victim. Heterosexual white men would get no protection from those laws.
The murder is the crime. The hate, or "warning statement" if we take your point of view, is just motive. Remember any message a bigot hoped to transmit would be protected speech under any other circumstance.
What if a white guy was walking around a black neighborhood with a sign that read the same message. I hate bigots. If I ran over him in my car screaming "DIE, BIGOT, DIE!!" would that be a hate crime? What if the people in the neighborhood killed him or beat him, would that be one?
At least in the US it's not as crazy as in the UK where it's up to the victim's perception whether the crime was a hate crime or not.
I wasn't appealing to a higher power. You claimed to re-interpret the Constitution based solely on the merit of being able to read. I was simply pointing out that the people who have been previously interpreting it (and doing a mostly darn good job in my opinion) have a lot more experience and expertise, and your "I think the Constitution means something different" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight.
Yeah, but it explicitly bans congress from favoring a religion, it's at the federal level. That's Ron's point: Not that it's a good idea for an Alabama judge to plant his religious convictions on the lawn of the state courthouse, but that it isn't anyone's business except for the state of Alabama and its citizens.The constitution explicitly bans the establishment of a state religion --
Personally, I pity the Hindu that has to walk past another religion's commandments on his way into a courthouse, but apparently, it's not the federal government's mandate to get involved in state courthouses' exterior decorating. I don't really have an opinion on this, but I have heard Ron Paul's logic, and it makes perfect sense. Of course, I also saw that infamous "better know a district" segment with a Georgia peach who could barely think of three things you shouldn't get caught doing, which Colbert generously counted as three of the ten commandments he asked that elected dumbass to enumerate, so I have absolutely no confidence in the state of Alabama nor its citizens, considering the fools they have representing them. But I think airing that was more significant than overreaching the powers of the federal government into intervening against it. You can't force progress on people, you have to educate them. Apparently thine founding fathers understood as much.
So, in conclusion: Please listen or read Ron Paul's actual opinions rather than trying to divine them from one of his votes on a bill relating to your pet issue, he's consistent on his logic, not on special interests. In fact if you look at his record one some issues, it first looks quite inconsistent, if you don't look for what he objected on specifically in each bill, rather than what push-button issue the bill can be labeled with.
You can't take the sky from me...
Well you called out Conservatives specifically, so it seemed to be an easy connection that you were blaming conservatives for that particular problem.
So some lawyers made a compelling argument that a museum was an important enough public work to justify invoking Eminent Domain and it passed Judicial muster. One instance, and you think this is on the same severity of civil-rights violation as the Patriot Act? We're not paying enough attention to all of the museums that are being built because we're all too absorbed by this silly federal legislation that violates what have traditionally been our basic civil rights? Sorry, I'm not convinced. The gross violations laid in the Patriot Act are the most
I assure you, my awareness goes beyond CNN (maybe my earlier link to a very real and very subtle civil rights violation didn't convey that?). I understand that Iran doesn't like us and Venezuela doesn't like us. I also understand that their leaders while cruel and bloodthirsty and from our perspective immoral they are not un-intelligent. There is little for America as a whole to fear from Chavez and Ahmadinejad. I don't know what "college kids voting for free healthcare" has to do with any of this, but I would bet money that single-payer healthcare (not free) or the lack thereof will save or lose a thousand times the number of American lives that the global terrorist threat will be responsible for during the next 20 years.
You've somehow been duped into thinking that the extreme fundamentalist Islamics can convert the world to their point of view and take over America if the government isn't unconstitutionally spying on it's own citizens. You think that Roe v Wade violates the individual States ability to make laws for themselves, when in truth RvW was ultimately an interpretation of the constitution, just like your right to bear arms (another "decision made for the states" that is not in the constitution). You believe that the money spent on the Department of Education is a more important threat to your well being than a power-mad government that has, in it's seven years in office, not made one correct decision when it mattered. You believe that the McCain/Feingold act, one of the most lauded and influential pieces of campaign finance reform legislation to ever see the light of day, is a bad thing.
Here is the bottom line: The Patriot Act makes noone safer.
If you're not angry about the Patriot Act, you're not paying attention.
Actually, if you actually check the voting record, he abstained on the hate crimes bill, he did not vote against it. By the way, intent is considered in every murder trial and is legislated in the laws for drug possession and soliciting minors to name just a few.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Interesting how the emmanint domain slipped past you; it's been a year or two now. But not to fear; I'm not posturing.
:)
Row v. Wade, even by the people who took part in the fight (That'd be Mr/Ms Roe and Mr/Mrs Wade.:) have both said it was a crappy decision. There's no mention of offspring, nor killing it, in the document. It's not so much that I think abortion is death (what else is it) but that some men in black robes decided the issue, all by themselves. They're NOT to make law, that's the legislative branch. But there, they did. Same with Eminent Domain and the shackling of free speech.
They're only supposed to say "yes" or "no", not "This is how it's going to be...". The purity of the process, and the INjustice runs rampant. It's nuts. Speaking of which, we've had a couple of MenInBlack that actually were. (See "Men in Black", I think it was Mark Levin for the details.)
Oh- and Chaves and the President of Iran are working to cut off oil. That's a big deal; keep watching it. It's the same thing Saddam did. With these two cutting off oil (and potentially attacking neighbors) anyone not LIVING on a farm could get reall hungry, real quick. It's how we stopped the charge of Hitler's Panzers, ya know...oil is life now, sad to say.
There's just so much broken with us right now. So many voices shouting absurd things, things that even contradict *themselves*. Like, urgently mistrusting the government, but submitting to universal healthcare run by it. No! They really, really don't want that. They complain that the Republicans are controlling their lives, "get out of my bedroom!" and all that. But soon the Democrats are going to literally decide wheter you live or die. Wanna wait 7 weeks to mend a broken arm? It's that way in Canada. My point is: why would someone want this, when they don't trust the government?
And the last of the racial bigots are scrambling; I thought the bigotted white folks would be the last to evolve, but Sharpton and Jesse are doing *nothing* to care for the black man. In fact, I've heard kinder words to that segment of the population coming from the Right for decades. Yet who's called the racist? O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and the rest. Anyone who actually listens knows the truth.
And everyone is so afraid of lawyers that 'the right thing' isn't getting done. Administrators give up and declare "zero tolerance" (which means zero wisdom) and kids putting Army Men on their hats to celebrate a military thing last week were told the men had guns, and that's the same as the kids having REAL guns, and it would have to be stopped. Nuts!
I long for the days of two parties with two methods of solving problems. People could argue, but there wasn't the name-calling and the media tie-ins to continue slinging the mud. And now that the Left has bought the Democrats, I don't expect any sanity from that side, until they lose big. But maybe this'll be the year.
Nice chat, dude; clean, honest, and fair; sorry if I rambled; just got home from work.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
1. From 1907 to 1913
Panama Canal from the early 1900s to 1914 when the canal opened.
2. From 1920 to 1940
United States occupation of Nicaragua from 1909 to 1933
3. From 1954 to 1959
Second Indochina War, also called the Vietnam War, from 1954 to 1975.
From 1976 to 1982
From 1984 to 1988
Ford and Kissinger Gave Green Light to Indonesia's Invasion of East Timor, 1975 from 1975 to 1999.
Should there be a Law?
We had some oil, but needed more, so we went to the Middle East.
Actually the US gets doesn't get as much oil from the Middle East as many think. Of the top 4 suppliers of oil Canada is the biggest supplier, Mexico is second, Saudi Arabia is third, with Venezuela fourth. Here's a list of the 15 top suppliers the US gets oil from. Three are Middle Eastern and another 5 in Africa. However because oil is traded on a world market the US feels anything that affects the world supply of oil.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Thanks for the links. I've been opposed to Bush's tax cuts since he proposed them, and especially opposed to the blooming deficit, but now I have to do some research to do on this curve, the cuts, and the tax receipts.
Personally I'd get rid of all personal income tax at the federal level. The only income tax at the federal level I'd have is one on corporations. Stockholders want limited liability they pay for it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't care if this interests nerds or not, it fucking matters.
They should have protection. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not rules for the people, but rules for the government. They do not say that we are allowed to have guns and practice whatever religion we want, they say that the government must allow us to do so. They are restrictions placed on the government by the people. These restrictions dictate how the government treats people, whether they be citizens or not. It is wrong to just detain a "supposed" terrorist. You need to prove they're a terrorist. Gather a bunch of evidence and let a jury decide or something, but do NOT let the government detain him just because.
Slashdot, though frequently used as such, is not an appropriate forum for this type of political venom Rosie.
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
I don't know what red-state rural farm you live on, but here in New York I've seen hate-crime legislation used to prosecute minorities accused of targeting heterosexual white men for being white. As it should.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
I'm not re-interpreting anything. It is my interpretation. You seem to believe that there is a 'standard' interpretation somewhere. There isn't. There are a bunch of judges who hear arguments, usually but not always, based on previous precedents. Those judges re-interpret and add to those precedents all the time.
Lawyers are treated as the new priest class and judges are the high priests. In reality, they are the Wizards of Oz, sounding righteous and superior while hoping beyond hope that we don't peek behind the curtain.
Thank you for the links.
However, it's worth noting that Obama wasn't around to vote for either the "Patriot Act" or the Iraq war resolution, since he joined the U.S. Senate in 2004.
While I can't say with 100% certainty that he would have voted against the patriot act (only Feingold did at the time), IMO there's a real chance he would have, given his stance on various social and civil rights issues. He certainly doesn't pass on opportunities to remind people of his opposition to the Iraq war from the start (particularly to distinguish himself against Sen. Clinton).
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Fine it's your interpretation, not a re-interpretation. Whichever way you say it it amounts to the same thing. The only justification you provided for your interpretation being any more accurate than anyone else's is that "you can read".
Meanwhile, there IS a standard interpretation. That's what precedent is; all of the previous decisions combined to identify where society stands on this issue today. Sometimes we reverse a position that we once held earlier, but generally not without overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Judges are not a priest class, They come from American schools and American homes and American churches and American neighborhoods. They are just people who have demonstrated the work ethic and intelligence and dedication to take on an important job that America decided needs to be done. It's the role of Judges to make these decisions, that's how it works in America. This isn't a class thing, they've been assigned that Job. If you don't like it go somewhere else, but there is nowhere in the world where your voice can have as much impact as in America, so I doubt you'll be happy anywhere else either.
I think you are very naive in your assumptions. At the level of interpreting constitutional law, judges are more likely to be political appointees with a life term. It is not a job that any American can get or even try to get. Some states elect judges, but they are almost invariably local and of limited influence.
The idea of a standard interpretation is also flawed. What was the standard interpretation before "Roe vs Wade"? Did society change overnight? If so, why do a majority of Americans still oppose abortion rights? Abortion is still a hot button issue to this day.
If there is a standard interpretation, why do so many civil rights cases get tried on the left coast as opposed to say Utah? Why do so many land mark rulings seem to come from San Francisco and Oregon?
You can mention America a hundred times and even question my patriotism, but that doesn't make you right. I earned my citizenship, can you say the same?
Actually, the act is the only thing that is illegal. Making something a "hate crime" merely makes the hatred an aggravating factor in the crime itself, sorta like one could go from murder to capital murder if the victim is a cop, for instance. Hatred isn't a crime iteslf, merely an aggravating factor. At least that's what I *think* the legalese for it is...
Without the anchor of the criminal act itself, such hatred is, at worst, slander or libel of sorts.
I could say "fags should die", and nobody can lay a finger on me because what I'm exercising is free speech. If I kill a homosexual, I'm guilty of murder. If however, the two are COMBINED, what would otherwise be "free speech" becomes an aggravating factor in the murder, and is considered a "hate crime *enhancement*". It is an enhancement because saying "fags should die" (or most anything else for that matter) is not itself a crime.
Some evidence would be nice, especially for the entirely unfounded accusations that the CIA and NSA are hiring Al Qaeda.
Oh, and while we're at it, I am amused to find that you are incapable of employing the truth; you seem to think that Barack Obama voted for the war and the PATRIOT Act when he wasn't even in the Senate when those votes were taken! Also, even if this were the case (which it is not), Ron Paul would be about as unlikely to clear it up as you claim Hillary would be.
Most of the time I'm pretty laid back about political philosophies because I understand that people are different, but when I find someone as ignorant as you, it makes me angry.
"All you need is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." -- Mark Twain
Ok. I'll tackle these one at a time.
You've earned nothing in regards to citizenship that I have not. Your's and my citizenship is a function of your being born here, the same as anyone else and it's a matter of pure chance. I can only assume that you're referencing your service in the Military, which is commendable but does not under any intelligent circumstance propel you to some elevated class status or citizenship. If you want to live in a hegemony I suggest you find a different country to serve. I hear India is real nice this time of year and they have a wonderfully organized caste system. If you're going to continue to imply that you are somehow superior to me or have done more to earn your citizenship then I'll gladly be finished with this conversation, since you're obviously delusional.
As for the standard definition you're missing my point. The rules that we live under (that you've in fact risked your life to uphold) provide for the Judicial system to make these decisions for us. What they have decided at any given point IS the standard definition. If you're unhappy with the way that works then by all means argue against the Judicial system we have in place. Talk about it's flaws and offer us some intelligent alternatives to the current system. Sounds like a great conversation to have!
That's not what this conversation was about though. First, you suggested that the $2 million dollars and dismissal of charges he received in settlement was plenty enough to cover the civil rights violations he faced. My counter-point was that no amount of money is enough to allow the federal government to continue to abuse it's powers and violate the civil rights that we have. This time he managed to get the evidence in court and get the ruling, but what if he hadn't? What if the real bomber wasn't found? How many people would be wrongfully accused and have their lives destroyed by this? The man and his family was put through hell, he'll never be able to live his life the same way again. The rights he did not get to exercise are the same rights our men are dying in Iraq to provide, that YOU may have fought in combat for, but you think a few dollars and a quick apology are enough to right that wrong?
Your second point was that maybe the government shouldn't even be protecting that right. Just because they feel the 4th amendment means there has to be a search warrant before they can search your house, doesn't mean they're correct. Using your strict interpretation of the wording of the 4th amendment that right isn't actually explicitly stated. But then again, neither is the right to bear arms. Nowhere in the original document or it's amendments are citizens given the right to own or carry a gun and it's common knowledge that the writers original intent was not to give individuals that right. Hell, most of your rights to privacy are not explicitly stated in the document or the amendments, so should we just take them all away?
Or maybe, you're not the right person to be doing the interpreting. Maybe, just because you "...can actually read" isn't enough of a reason to make your opinion on the interpretation of the Constitution a strong argument. Maybe, even though these Judges are appointed, this Democracy of ours still produces a reasonably secure method of getting the general will of the people accomplished. Certainly everyone can't be happy all of the time, but then again if anyone who is literate is allowed to interpret the constitution and make the rules then all we'd have is Anarchy. It may not be perfect, it's constantly changing, but our history has shown it to do a mostly overall good job. After all, we do still live in the best country in the world.
The constitution is a written document. It is readable and the words have meaning. It is wrong to put precedent and 'standard definition' above the words and meaning that pre-existed those precedents.
There are many instances where a warrant is not needed to enter a private residence. The need for a warrant is not absolute. The 4th amendment, although mentioning warrants, does not require one for searches and seizures. What it prohibits is 'unreasonable' search and seizures. In this case, I believe they did have reason and probably enough for a warrant which they should have gotten.
$2 million dollars for 14 days in jail is unreasonable. There are plenty of innocent average joes who get sent to jail and receive much less, if anything at all. Why does this guy get so much? That $2 million comes from your tax dollars and mine.
When someone uses America and American so much in one post, I do feel like my service counts for something. In this case, it means stop trying to wrap yourself in the flag and/or stuff the flag down my gullet.
The whole idea of 'standard definition' is so rediculous, I have to think maybe you took one too many polysci courses in college. If Bush gets one more Supreme or the next president is not Hillary Clinton, your 'standard definition' is going to radically change. Which means it is not a standard.
> Wait; has there been two?
No, just the one _Iranian_ jet. We were helping Iraq (therefore Saddam) covertly, as they were keeping the Iranians from doing anything harmful to any other country in the region, by starting then continuing the Iran-Iraq War. Several years later (probably 10 or more) we found out that the night that the airliner was shot down, we were busy blowing up about 1/3 of the Iranian Navy while it was in port.
I do not know if we ever payed weregeld for the passengers on the civilian jet; I think that we were not paying because we expected that the mullahs would take most or all the money before it ever got to the relatives.
> Iran was very quiet for a long time, after the hostages came back.
Because they were involved in another war than with Great Satan 1 or 2.
> But Iran did one, too?
Nope, real mistake on our part.
Yeah, ok: here's the one you're talking about:
*1988 July 3rd. Persian Gulf, Iran Air Airbus A-300, U.S. Navy cruiser Vincennes shot plane down, after mistaking it for an attacking jet fighter, 290 people died
I remember this one, but only vaguely. What's really odd is that I remember more clearly one going down in ~1990/1991 or so; I still have a mental picture of the photo showed on CNN. The link that provided the paragraph above didn't mention anything similar, though it mentioned a lot of other crashes/explosions/problems/etc all over the world.
It bugs me because memories I have that are so clear are hard to get there; I must be thinking of something else. That's so _weird_. I must be wrong; accept my apology- I don't know how I came up with the idea.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov