Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidates and Online Privacy
noiseordinance writes "I'd like to know everyone's opinion about which presidential candidate seems most likely to preserve Internet privacy." We haven't officially started election coverage on Slashdot yet, but I figured it wouldn't be a bad idea to start tossing out questions like this as we get closer to the primaries. Try to stay on the subject of on-line privacy- we can run more stories on other topics in the future.
He is the only one who believes in this &#&@* piece of paper called the Constitution. It takes a great man to realize and accept that there are limits on his power and let others govern themselves.
I'd like to know everyone's opinion about which presidential candidate
Before it even starts, can we just mod the entire discussion 'troll' and 'flamebait'? Instead of trawling for opinions, please browse either the Senate voting records or gubernatorial voting records of the candidates.
He's running on a platform of interoperability with open source and renewable seating resources. Oh, and I hear he's a great dancer.
Haven't seen or heard anything specific to online privacy. I'd be willing to be it's low on the list of issues for most.
I'd guess Dennis Kucinich given his website statements regarding the Patriot Act and other government policies that deal with (directly or indirectly) an individual's privacy. I would expect that view extends to the online world.
The person with the most to hide online will be the one pushing for the strongest online privacy laws. 2 cents
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
but it's an invasion of the candidate's privacy.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
I don't think he's got a shot at really getting elected, but of all the candidates he seems to be the most likely to stand up for Constitutional rights. Second to him is, for Internet privacy at least, is possibly Obama. I don't think Obama can stay away from the pull of Hollywood and various *AA's to maintain full Internet privacy though.
The rest either don't care so much about the Constitution or are so far in the pockets of special interests that the only thing I can be sure of is that it's going to continue being a bumpy ride for the next four years.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
It's the executive branch's job to uphold the law... but as it is right now, there's no shortage of laws that pay lip service to the need of ISPs and such to keep private e-mail private, while another batch of laws circumvent this in a wide array of circumstances both dealing with national security and private matter. Say, a publicly traded company can't exactly keep e-mail secure if there potential for insider trading.
Not that the public really has a clue, though... Sadly, we've learned that our local public schools will gladly hand over authority to the federal government in exchange for a few measly dollars, so any presidential candidate could make a promise dealing with a matter that he/she officially has no role in, and you can be that laws will be passed and departments created that make it their role.
First post nailed this one right away. While I'm interested in each candidates view on the internet and internet privacy, I could care less about other people's opinion of these views. Especially given that most opinions posted will likely be filled with self-serving touting of some candidates and tearing others down.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
Simple as that. Privacy means less control, and by going into politics, they already proved that they want to be in control. Furthermore, more privacy for you means less information for the industry, i.e. the ones that gave the politicians money.
Privacy isn't something any politician will give you. Privacy is something you have to take if you want it. Voting for privacy simply won't work.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That doesn't support the RIAA of course.
I'm not an American, but because the US is so influential in the world these elections are also important and interesting to me. This will have an indirect result on my life as well.
On the subject of online privacy, anything the US government decides on this matter will certainly affect me. Many sites (like Slashdot) that I visit are created and hosted in the US.
If the US decides to invade my privacy when visiting these sites, I will stay away from them. I have already decided to no longer visit the US, as long as it means having my fingerprints taken and such. I am not a criminal and I don't wish to be treated as one! I hope the US citizens (or at least enough of them) realize they are alienating themselves from the rest of the world. And that isn't in the best interest for any of us!
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
And given Slashdot's international audience nowadays, will we do this for every country holding elections?
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
...until I found out about his opinion regarding the Darfur genocide (watch this excellent Frontline special online if you have no clue what is happening over there).
While I can understand his not wanting to send troops over there to stop the government from slaughtering its own people, I can not understand his voting against the Divestment Act of 2007 (passed 418-1), which intended "to require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, [and] to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies".
Basically, the act says that if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that country.
When I read Paul's argument, I was even more appalled. Not only did he ignore the currently-known results of divesting from Sudan (in other words, it's working!), he also had the gall to (purposely?) confuse the Darfur genocide with the completely separate North-South civil war. So his basic argument was "we shouldn't be getting involved with other countries' civil wars"
Ron Paul's stance on Privacy and Personal Liberty.
"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters."
Right to privacy is not a specific constitutional right. It is inferred from a couple different amendments,(3,4,10 I believe) so claiming that someone who is a strict constitutionalist would be big supporter of privacy would not work. That doesn't mean the right doesn't exist, but it does mean that it is open to more interpretation than other "rights". I always hate a "right to privacy" debate, because it doesn't have any sort of set definition.
There have been many articles recently discussing the disappearance of online privacy (or, privacy in general). While I'm traditionally a huge proponent of individual privacy, I'm beginning to think that, as our digital/information age progresses, privacy will be a thing of the past - at least, to the extent that the average citizen can expect privacy.
Currently I, and several like me, fight for our privacy. But, are we better served by doing so? Our privacy will be violated if those who desire to do so have sufficient power and/or resources, so I believe, in our age, it is a moot point. Perhaps we would be better served by making it institutional law that NOBODY has privacy. Everyone has access to information about everyone else.
Before I get flamed, think about it. If this were *actually achieved* (note the hopeful emphasis), politicians could no longer easily hide behind untrue words spoken with conviction. We would be better equipped to discover the pedophile terrorizing the local town, or discover which corrupt army official is taking bribes to transport arms to other countries. If privacy is eroding to the point of no return anyway, why not get something truly useful out of it, instead of fighting tooth and nail against it while politicians make "special rules" that they can easily enforce for themselves, making their lives private, and setting us at further disadvantage.
I would like input - like I said, I'm a huge fan of privacy, so I'm going out on a limb here... but it just seems like we're trying to delay the inevitable, when we could be using it to our favor.
"if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that country."
This should read:
"if a company is directly helping the Sudanese government act out the genocide of their own people, the US government would not sign a contract with that company."
> I'd like to know everyone's opinion about which presidential candidate seems most likely to preserve Internet privacy.
"Preserve?"
Bwa ha ha ha!
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
It depends on where the money is flowing. And for the Govt./business there's plenty of cash to be had in selling our rights. Political affiliation makes no difference. Though I support business growth, big and small, .
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/11/americans-think.html
According to a Ponemon Institute survey written up on MSNBC.com, people think Obama is the candidate most likely to care about privacy, and Giuliani is the one most likely to care the least. There's some errors in the survey results (of course Ron Paul got less than 5 percent, nobody knows who the fuck he is), but its interesting to see.
Of course this only bares a vague resemblance to the candidates' *actual* stances on privacy...
Here is Paul's speech in which he confuses the Darfur genocide with the North-South civil war - two completely separate issues (the Sudanese government even said that they were delaying a peace agreement to end the civil war, in order to have a "lasting solution in Darfur").
Now this is a post that needs to be modded up! Everything timster wrote is completely true. Ron Paul makes the ridiculously huge assumption that everyone that takes part in our society is totally informed on everything and that they will use that knowledge in making their choices. Reality has shown us time and time again that that is not the case.
This guy's the limit!
The entire party has a policy of wanting to get up in everyones affairs. They also bend over and grab their ankles for any company or organization that comes calling wanting to screw with US citizen's rights. They SUCK the at the RIAA and MPAA tit for campaign contributions, thats a bad sign right here.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Almost every person in the country and all serious politicians claim to believe in and and honor the "Constitution". But is just words on a paper, and susceptible to many reasonable (as in not patently unreasonable) interpretations. And frankly, many of Paul's are well outside the political and legal mainstream.
I really hate the term "believe" as applied to shit like this. The Constitution just exists, there is nothing to believe in; just advance the best argument you can for whatever interpretive position serves you best like everyone else. Then see if your positions have any merit. Hint: Paul is competing against 200+ years and millions of legal scholars before him; somehow I doubt he is so brilliant("great") as to overturn all that.
Well, I'll get modded down for this for sure -- but I feel the need to point out that:
* There are many individuals who would consider a total ban on abortions to be a major invasion of privacy, and
* Ron Paul is, from the statements on his website, 100% against any sort of legal abortion.
Other than that (and some deep skepticism about his idea to eliminate the Fed), he really does sound like a straight shooter. I respect the man, but can't vote for him.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
which is no big deal if one is not consorting with unprecedented evile.
the lights are coming up all over now. don't forget to take a moment now&then to look up at the sky, starting early in the morning. also, try to make eye contact with the people you pass by during the day. see you there?
But he's such a raging socialist, he'd invariably make a grab for my private property rights and they are as important as privacy.
For the vast majority, if not all, of the Presidential candidates who stand anything approaching a chance of winning this election:
- For protecting their own privacy on the Internet
- Against protecting your privacy on the Internet
I hope that helps.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
A very good summary of Paul's general views. While I was entirely supportive of Ron Paul until very recently, I do agree with a lot of the Constitutional "hands off" approaches, however I believe that this only works up to a point. Companies are much too skilled at fucking people over these days. It doesn't make sense any longer for a government to assume that the free market will just work itself out. It's ignorance more than anything that drives these sweeping arguments that are basically saying "leave me alone, I don't want to get involved, I don't care what's happening"
Dennis Kucinich has repeatedly voted against bills that would deprive americans of their freedom and privacy. He voted against the Patriot Act which erodes away key civil liberties, and the "Thought Crime Bill" http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/261007_ensnare_activists.htm , which could be, which is so broadly worded and loosely defined it could be used against peaceful activists. Even Ron Paul did not vote against the Thought Crime Bill. Kucinich was one of only 6 representatives to vote against it. If you want freedom, and you want your liberties preserved, the best choice is Kucinich.
Rudy On Rails is the obvious winner here, move along please, and by reading this post you have already complied to any terms past or present that your new overlord wishes so there is no need to accept or welcome him as such.
I firmly believe firmly believe that 'it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.' There have been dictators throughout the ages. Why should America be any different? Because of our Constitution. But men, for years, have been seeking to destroy it. Did you know that Edward Mandell House, the top adviser to Wilson, despised the Constitution? Did you know Alger Hiss, an adviser to FDR, was a communist agent? Are you aware that Bush Sr. said that 'we hereby pledge our sacred honor to the UN'? Did you know that communism is Russia would have failed early on without US financial support? Study history outside of what you were taught in public schools. Try to learn how many things have been justified. For example, federal roads, under interstate commerce? No, the founders said that this did not include roads. It was justified under national defense. Federal involvement in education? That was after sputnik, which was a lie as we could have launched a whole year earlier but we didn't. I could go on and on but you need to learn for these things yourself. I suggest you start with the North American Union and the Federal Reserve. Scary stuff.
> and renewable seating resources
You mean chairware?
But if the election was between him and Kucinich, at least we would have a horse race. With our present slate of front runners, you can forget about any kind of privacy, online or off. We have a long way to go before civil rights becomes a real issue again.
What?
Please do not confuse divestment with intervention - there is too much at stake for people to (purposely or ignorantly) confuse the two. There's a big difference between the US government saying to companies, "if you are providing the Sudan government with the equipment to help them mow down their own people, then you will not be entitled to any US government contracts" (ie, divestment) and the US government sending troops over there to protect the victims (intervention).
I can understand Paul being against intervention, but not against divestment.
"Why aren't those being killed fighting back?"
Unlike the Sudanese government, the victims are just villagers, not being supported heavily by China or other companies. Sudan sends out helicopters that mow them down in the middle of the night, one village at a time.
"Is there anywhere they could go?"
They have tried running across the west border to Chad, but the murderers, who are simply bandits paid by the Sudan government, followed them across the border, and are now attacking the humanitarian camps.
"Can we simply kill all the aggressors, and are there none that would simply replace them?"
The aggressors on the ground are bandits (they do the raping and torture) - it'd be hard to fight them off, but they and the helicopters and planes that do the mass killing are funded by the Sudanese government and China, and companies which US citizens invest in. Telling those companies we will not support what they support has been effective in Sudan. For Paul to act otherwise (ignorantly or not) is ridiculous.
He's the only one who's even close to saying what needs to be said. Of course, I'd respect him more if he'd flat out call Bush a criminal and call for his impeachment, but that's another story.
Informing people about the scams, shams, and bunk that assault them on a daily basis. http://www.jeremyduffy.com
Ron Paul is not committed to net neutrality. He is committed to an "open market" which includes letting corporations off for all the money they have already paid the government and letting them set the rules for the segment of the internet they control. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are more suited to protecting the internet than a free market libertarian.
(I Am A Student of Political Science)
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the two on either side of the aisle that seem most likely to preserve Internet Privacy. That said, they are probably also the two running that have the least likelihood of even placing in a primary. Besides not looking presidential, they both have very unique (among their fellow candidates at least) agendas. Paul would like to shut down just about every government agency and put an end to all positive liberties. Kucinich is for more (suprisingly enough) contemporarily liberal reforms, taking us in not quite the opposite direction, but pushing for more positive liberties. Both are interested in individual rights and are (for now) in it for something other than promoting the interests of contributors.
as it is between mother and child, and society
Did you mean?
as it is between mother, father and child, and society
Both of the slashdot users that won't be voting Ron Paul can enjoy their own thread.
a candidate that promises open government won't be able to deliver it. The next 8 years will see more taxes, larger government and less privacy no matter who is President.
When you believe a baby in the womb is a living human being, banning abortion is no more an invasion of privacy than outlawing murder.
If you don't have property rights, you've got nothing to be private with.
And what's with the leftist privacy fetish, anyway? "We don't want the government even thinking about reading your emails or looking at your phone records, but the government must be in charge of the entire health care of the nation!"
How the hell can you put a government in charge of all health care and not destroy everyone's privacy a helluva lot more than any perusal of international cell phone billing records?
Never mind the basic and utter contradiction of demanding more and bigger government, and then acting dumbfounded and enraged when politicians even come close to giving the appearance of misusing government power.
"More taxes! Bigger government!" is a recipe for totalitarian disaster.
And if you scream "Tax the rich!" loud enough, it won't be long before YOU get labeled "rich". Isn't that right, all you Maryland computer workers who now have to charge sales tax on your services?
The Supreme Court has stated that anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional:
"The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
The argument that "The Constitution just doesn't talk about anything related to it" is invalid. The Founding Fathers are intentions are clear regarding whether rights not explicitly detailed in the Constitution exist "(A Bill of Rights) would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."
i.e.: although the Constitution contains a Bill of Rights, the government is not allowed to claim those as our only rights.
I think it's a mistake for social liberals to consider abortion an unquestionably liberal thing to support. Unlike free speech, gay rights, so on and so forth, abortion is not necessarily victimless. It's not a question of whether you do or don't support individual freedom. It's a question of when a collection of cells becomes an individual. If someone wants to err on the side of not-murdering versus not-ruining-a-young-woman's-next-twenty-years, that shouldn't pigeonhole them them as authoritarians.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
I just assumed you were a typically crazy libertarian Paul types. But your "sputnik, which was a lie" and "North American Union and the Federal Reserve. Scary stuff." comments show your true nature. A pure unadulterated loon. I'll move on with (as you incorrectly assume a lousy public education), as there is likely no point arguing with you. Get a clue. I'll part by noting the constitution did not single handedly produce the current incarnation of the United States. It is a product of a thousands of years of entangled threads of history and culture operating on millions of people and a myriad of man made and natural events beyond any measure of control. A confluence of design and accident. Your perspective filters this state of affairs through a unique lens; do try and see the broader picture and steer clear of the crazy conspiracy theories. Neither federal roads nor the UN are not destroying the constitution; and I doubt any single men ever could. Like previous revolutions, it takes a shift in the underlying cultural dynamics across a whole population to bring about. Don't hold the constitution so sacred it will, with absolute certainty, be replaced some day. Just hope for a peaceful transition to something better. Perhaps you think it has already been replaced, just not for the better. Most people I think would disagree with you.
The interviews cover a variety of technology topics. Here is an example of a question asked to Barack Obama: Should the government involve itself in protecting personal privacy online? Since current measures are doing little to solve the problem, what do you think can be done to address the issue?
Barack Obama
John Edwards
Mitt Romney
John McCain
Bullshit. Only lawyers and teens tie abortion to privacy, and teens don't vote. For most of us, it's a question of the life of the baby/fetus vs. the life/lifestyle of the mother/parents, or else what we're worried our own child will do and how we'd want to react to that.
A lot of people today don't want kids, except as a theoretical. And a lot of people have never thought about the issue, but spout the junk they've been taught. Welcome to earth.
- Constitution == supreme law as against the federal and in many cases state governments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court
- Constitution == individual privacy rights, including security for you own person
- Privacy rights > a state's "right" to protect an unborn "person"
A. No, the community (i.e. states) cannot; it has already been decided by the constitution.He's pro-life, but doesn't believe the Constitution grants authority on this matter and believes it should be left up to the individual states.
that doesnt want to tell me or you how to live our lives. That sounds refreshing. Also maybe if you were a better friend "you" would do something about your "friends" wasting away on hard drugs and not rely on someone else to do it with my tax dollars.
As a republican (a fed-up one at that)I decided to look at Hillary's and Obama's list of issues. I noticed that Hillary didn't even mention the internet or privacy issues. Obama listed it, and once during an interview he said he would have one of his advisors go through every bill/law that Bush has been pushing to determine if they are constitutional or not. I was encouraged by some of this. But I would prefer a President who would just state that some of these new "powers" of the goverment have gone too far. Right now I'm leaning towards Obama. And truthfully I just can't imagine Hillary looking out for my freedoms. (too much of a control freak)
As in most religions, it's the followers that turn people off to the religion. And Mac users are the worst.
Stupid motherfuckers justify controlling other people because some asshole does not have any impulse control.
I knew a guy that served 30 days in county jail for a possession of marijuana charge back in the 90's, sixteen days into his stay he was gang raped, he also got hep c while there also, That sounds like fucking justice served to some of you nazi fucks.
So the answer is "None of them". See other story: U.S. House Says the Internet is Terrorist Threat.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
"The best way to help in Darfur and Sudan is to be part of a UN force"
Please, you need to inform yourself. Start by watching the US-tax-dollar-funded PBS Frontline special released last week. Every second of the program explains how the UN has done nothing stopping the genocide, simply because China is Sudan's key supplier, and nobody wants China angry at them. The most they're willing to do is to make idealistic statements, saying, "hey, that's not nice, please stop".
A choice quote from the program is made by one of the leaders of the movement to stop the genocide, who explains that the most useful knowledge gained from the last 4 years of inaction by the UN is that despite their saying "never again" after the Rwandan Genocide, the UN is ultimately useless for these purposes. You should keep that in mind when the 2nd major genocide of the 21st century occurs (which it will).
"...and to be apart of any multinational embargoes that happen..."
This is the whole point of Sudanese divestment.
Is it necessary for privacy for people to have the ability to be anonymous on the internet?
If IPv6 or any new protocol ever did take off, would people object to each person having their very own assigned IP address. Much like you get a driver's license, getting your own IP would be a big accomplishment.
I imagine it would be quite easy for people to misuse this new "unique" identifier much like social security numbers are misused.
The internet is about a public sharing of information. If you want privacy or even an expectation of it, then use encryption. The most likely attack on privacy will be an attack on encryption use by ordinary people.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Off the top of my head I'd say Dennis Kucinich wouldn't be afraid of protecting free speech on the internet. That said, I don't see anything on his site about it (but look, there's his wife!). Amongst candidates who are more likely to win the primary, Barack Obama has said he'd protect the internet as an open network that benefits our democracy (albeit in the context of a net neutrality question here).
On the Republican side, as much as I like hearing from Ron Paul, I don't think he would protect the internet, because the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to regulate networks, so any such activity would be up to the states. I respect this ... but I wouldn't want it in practice.
Because of my experience following the whole ODF vs Microsoft debate in my home state of Massachusetts, I had suspected that Mitt Romney would have a favorable position on many technology issues, so I went to his site. It took me forever to find the actual issues (you know, those things we're supposed to be voting about?). As a comparison, the second you get to his home page you get treated to a YouTube video about illegal immigration and a nice page about his wife. But when you find the Issue Watch section there's nothing about the internet at all.
Guiliani knows that terrorists are allowed to use the internet, and there are objectionable things there that he doesn't like. So it needs to be controlled by a powerful executive. Who isn't you.
While I'm much more pro-life than you are (better to err on the side of caution where human life may be at stake, I say), I agree very strongly with your statement here.
Nearly all the emotional arguments about abortion, pro and con, would be irrelevant if they were made about the life of a toddler. In that case the toddler's life would be equal to the mother's in value. What we need to decide is: when is that equality reached, and why?
The Constitution already protects a human's right to life. But what is a human? We should have sorted this out decades ago.
Ron Paul wants the federal government to get out of the business of determining whether abortions should be legal, and thereby allow the states to ban abortions. He would PREFER if all states outlawed abortions, but he would not impose that on the states.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/85/federalizing-social-policy/
"Positive liberties are explicitly granted to the people by the government..." ...a notion that violates the very foundation the Constitution was written upon; that our liberties are God-given (*gasp!*) and that government can only take them away.
Any politician that even acknowledges such "government-granted liberties" , in my opinion, has a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution, and is therefore unelectable.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Parent is not a troll. In fact, I agree with him fully.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Ever hear the analogy that sending plain text email is like mailing a postcard, written in pencil? If you want it private, don't put it on the internet. Presidential candidates don't enter into the equation.
I don't know. I'd be willing to consider trading the right to abortion for the right to not have my private statements used against me in a kangaroo court of law.
A baby can be given to the state. Freedom of Speech cannot.
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
Not a damn one of them. Let's look at each candidate. These elections are entirely run by how much frigging money these morons can hawk out of their supporters. So who's gonna win, the one with the most influential friends with the most money.
1. Obama Barrack-Has Oprah on his side, will not say the Pledge of Allegiance nor will stand for the National Anthem. Buddy-Buddy with MPAA, RIAA and MAFIAA types.
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton- Barbara Striesand among others. Hell, Hillary couldn't even control her own man while he was in office, how's she gonna run a country?
3. Fred Thompson-Actor-Nuff said
4. Ron Paul-Sez one thing, but means another.
5. John Edwards-Didn't make it in the '04 elections, so he figured he'd try again.
6. Mitt Romney- Who the hell is this guy?
These are only a few of the candidates to date, but you know what? I'd just as soon vote for Mickey Mouse for President and Donald Duck for VP with the whole Disney group as the cabinet and advisors.
I don't trust a one of these idiots because it's all about the money and how they can further line their pockets. It's not about the American people. It's not about solving America's dependency on foreign countries for Oil. It's not about solving the Unemployment rate for the countless millions out of work because of outsourcing. It's not about the illegal aliens (terrorists/spies) that slip across our borders to wreck our economy and plot attacks against innocent men, women and children. It's not about making America the great land it once was.
No, they're in it for the money. They don't represent the people, they represent the large corporations that constantly feed their bank accounts.
Again, Who Do I Support? I SUPPORT ME. No one else.
Until you can show me a candidate that makes it into office because he cares about the people and America and not the almighty dollar. I'll only support myself.
You make it sound like RP supported the bill with a YES vote. He did not vote on the bill, because he was not there when it was being voted on. He was campaigning. Since a few others already made the symbolic NO vote against tyranny, providing arguments, there was really little more for RP to add; aside, of course, from his own unique eloquent opposition to tyranny.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I was trying to resist responding again, but you are too tempting a target... Linking to some crackpottery from the John Birch Society, a right-wing/libertarian crazy think tank, to an article almost completely devoid of substantive evidence and directly ignoring/contradicting an enormous amount of conflicting evidence? Please take you head out of the sand. And even if their was such a thing as the North American Union, what precisely is your objection? Suppose we joined and submitted to its authority after properly substantial debate concluded by ratification of an amendment to the US Constitution, would your mind change? My guess is no. And is the federal reserve unconstitutional? No, the constitution clearly grants Congress the power to regulate currency, commerce, and a great many things (can you say "necessary and proper"). The federal reserve is apparently our country's chosen mechanism. Did you know private bank used to issue their own competing currencies, backed by their own (sometimes) gold reserves? The uncertainty when receiving a bank note from an unfamiliar bank or one you couldn't be assured was holding sufficient reserves or performing other fraudulent activity is one of the main reasons we now have centrally managed currency and banking systems. Not to mention the wildly fluctuating currency valuations caused by a failure of the gold supply to keep up with real value growth of monetized assets. Do you really want your currency value to be based on a randomly determined amount of mineral mined from the ground, as opposed to some relative measure of the value of the underlying assets?
If google is snooping than YOU CAN CHOOSE another search engine. The FDA is the most corrupt agency of them all and if you think they are "protecting" consumers you are very sadly mistaken and need to do better research. That's the FDA brochure. The FDA serves big pharma and agro corps. Period.
Free speech & privacy does NOT mean google cannot snoop on your searches if it's in the TOS. It does mean the government cannot. Google is not a right nor a service that is provided by the government. You don't have to use them but if they are breaking the law you can prosecute them.
So the Constitution says quite a bit about Internet privacy if it's in the TOS. Don't rely on the government to 'gaurentee' your privacy. Choose who you do business with intelligently and responsibly and be an adult. Liberty assumes you are, governments assume you are not.
"preserve Internet privacy"
bwahahahaha!
What planet have you been living on?
Where and in what way is there any privacy on the Internet?
The only privacy on the Internet is that which you make for yourself using encryption.
None are interested in your privacy. ... Privacy means less control, ...
You missed Ron Paul.
His overriding interest is getting the government back within the constitutional limits and his voting record reflects that. (You may not always agree with his idea of what the limits are. But I bet his idea is a lot closer to yours than those of the rest of the field.)
Right to Privacy is a constitutional issue - with explicit components in the Bill of Rights and a generalization drawn by the Supreme Court from those plus the 10th and 9th Amendment limits and the Framers' writings.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Only slashdot would be stupid enough to pick a president based on online privacy... Real people in the real world have bigger fish to fry.
What Does Obama Have Against the American Flag?
NEED I SAY MORE ABOUT OBAMA
Barack Obama seemed to deliberately decline to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem while campaigning
Whoops, LET'S NOT FORGET ABOUT HILLARY
Everybody's favorite Actor/Politician, Fred Thompson
In short, yes. I think this is entirely preferable for the woman than having abortion banned in the entire country and having to go to Canada, don't you? At the same time, a population with a more or less like mind being able to ban a practice they despise locally is preferable to them than having it universally allowed. By pushing highly controversial issues closer to the individual, it gives the individual more control over the issue. As an obstetrician having delivered as many children as he has, Ron Paul would be a hypocrite to support abortion. Given his views on the Constitution, he would be a hypocrite to try to impose that view on people at the Federal level. He has, however, dealt with dangerous tubal pregnancies which were not viable and a severe threat to the mother. My wife and I are both against abortion, but we recognize that beyond a certain level it is not right to impose that view on others. We also recognize that, beyond a certain level, everyone has a right to life.
The idea that life begins arbitrarily at birth is just as rationally questionable as the idea that life begins at conception and therefore both views, as well as the range in between are ethically supportable. There are identifiable stages where the fetus can be shown to recognize pain and is certainly viable. My daughter was premature. She is coloring with her crayons behind me as I type this. Was she "not a human" before a medical accident caused her to be born early? If that medical accident had not happened, would it have been OK to kill her? Pretending that this is not a moral question is equivalent to sticking your head in the sand.
"As if Darfur is the only place where people are dying by the boatload. The attention on Darfur is for one reason: "Strategic Oil-grab powerplay to give us leverage over china."
Yes, the professors and students actively protesting the genocide are interested only in oil! Ha! It's the simple fact that at least 200,000 and more likely 400,000+ civilians have been mass slaughtered by their own government that has enraged people.
The connection to China is simply the result of Sudan's trade deals with the country. Other nations' fear of China is the reason the genocide has continued unabated for 4 years. The UN has done nothing despite saying "NEVER AGAIN" after the Rwandan Genocide last decade.
"As for Ron Paul: Regulation for the sake of humanitarian interventionism=harming the American Economy for no reason that benefits us."
Humanitarian intervention? Who mentioned that? Not me. I only mentioned divestment - telling companies that if they support the Sudanese government's genocide, we will not give them any of our government contracts. Nowhere does that involve sending any troops or humanitarian groups to another country.
"The bill he voted against was a pre-invasion war drum and I'm glad he voted against it."
The bill was passed almost unanimously. Where's the war? Where's the troops? The bill never had that intention (have you read it?).
You're a joke of a person living in a bubble, pretending there's no penalty for inaction, no such thing as blowback (rather like Giuliani's idiotic claims that won so many Paul supporters).
Paul was my only choice for president until I heard about this vote. Now I have no choice.
I disagree. Now I'm a huge proponent of state's rights and shrinking the role of the federal government as well as federal taxes. Abortion and many other topics, however, need to be addressed federally because they are constitutional issues. States cannot be allowed to pass laws that violate the constitution, including the separation of church and state.
[snip]
In most cases, I would agree wholeheartedly. A state cannot pass laws banning free speech or the right to bear arms(*), for instance. This case is special, however, since, morally and ethically, people cannot agree on the definition of 'person' here and the law cannot therefore determine who the rights are meant to protect. Is a fetus a "person" under the law to which protections of life and liberty should apply? Since the unborn cannot protect themselves (they are minors), should the State(**) intervene on their behalf? Absent that determination, the State has a responsibility to protect the freedoms of the mother. There is no rational way to decide that issue and if decided arbitrarily, a large portion of the population will strongly oppose it on deep moral grounds (to the point of violence). There is no choice here but to kick the issue back down the hierarchy. Like-minded individuals need to debate and decide the issue in their communities, not at the federal level.
(*) or bare arms for that matter--- this would be especially bad in Texas where it gets awfully hot.
(**) Note that this is the capital-S State, national government, not the lower-case-s state.
What everyone seems to be missing here is a sense of priorities.
There are roughly 10 major issues which are relevent in the upcoming election, and any number of minor ones. The war in Iraq, abortion, health care, personal liberties, and so on.
Of these, which one do you feel is *most important* to get right?
Ron Paul can be seen to be pro- or anti- or avoid- abortion. Some people will not be voting for him on this basis.
Which is more important: his stance on abortion, or ending the war in Iraq?
Is his stance on abortion more important than restoring our rights and liberties?
Is his stance on abortion more important than ending the war on drugs?
Please be specific in your views. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is this:
I feel that the issue of abortion is more important than the war in Iraq, so I will not be voting for this candidate.
I feel that the issue of abortion is more important than loss of personal liberties, so I will not be voting for this candidate.
You can use this logic for any of the major issues which you personally feel is important. It's a valid position to take - except that I've not heard many people phrase it this completely.
My perception is that most of Ron Paul's positions reasonate with a large number of people, but they disagree with one or two. That's actually a *huge* proportion to agree with, and given his voting history in the senate it's likely that he would in fact be faithful to his positions.
Eight out of 10 with a virtual guarantee that he wouldn't sell out - that's an enormous improvement.
I'm voting for Paul. Fix 8 of the top 10 problems immediately, I can wait 4 years to fix the rest.
This is true and important, but not fatal. The trick is, once you wake people up, to keep the momentum going. If, for instance, someone like Ron Paul is going to be successful in office, he will need support at other levels of government. However, once a large grass-roots organization is mobilized, that can be targeted at related campaigns. This is not so true of other political campaigns where they are rallied by expensive advertising blitzes. Volunteers and those making personal donations are dedicated and will stick around for a bit. You also need to raise the general awareness of those issues; doing so will start to change the platforms of even opposing candidates.
The big problem with politics right now is that it is much too divisive and polarized, to the extent that a rather moderate politician like Dr. Paul or a moderate voter like myself is suddenly "extreme". The platform that is generating so much attention is not really new or different, politicians have been running on it for a century or so and it once made up the core values of the Republican party. Remember Lincoln? Remember Grant (despite his other faults) paying down the war debt, stabilizing the economy and the currency? Grant's actions probably delayed the 1880's depression by some margin and would have gone farther if it were not for opposition in Congress derailing Reconstruction. Remember Jefferson who was the ideal of the Republican party? How about Reagan (despite his other faults)? These are not new ideas. On that note, we need to start getting moderates/actual conservatives of all stripes into office. We need to have a vigorous debate, work out solutions acceptable to a broad constituency (not ideal, perhaps, but acceptable), and generally go forward with our eyes open instead of playing a football game against "the other side" while our country disintegrates.
As for Dr. Paul becoming "another politician", I don't think so. He's not a saint, but he is stubborn about his ethics, and he has been in the House for ten terms without being corrupted yet. This will cause problems at points dealing with Congress, but again, we need to clean house there too, and much of the cleanup needs to happen in the Executive anyway.
The slaughter had been going on freely for 17 months up to that point. Declaring it genocide so late in the game is more of a move to save face than anything else. For years after they labelled it genocide, they didn't do anything about it either.
As for your slippery slope argument, I'm not sure what's the difference between real/perceived genocide when 200,000+ civilians have been gang-raped and slaughtered by bandits and aircraft weapons paid for by the Sudanese government, funded by China (who hosts the 2008 Olympics under the motto "One World, One Dream") and supported by companies publicly-traded in the US.
Basically, the concept of "interstate commerce" has been interpreted increasingly broadly and in a way that is, honestly, not entirely without merit. In theory, the federal government was supposed to regulate trade only between the states
As a result, all trade is "intrastate" and Congress has the power to regulate it.
Your issues with privacy involve the buying and selling of music and other media, communication over lines and networks that you pay for, etc. One way or another, it's all part of "commerce" these days. So while in principle all of your rights not enumerated are protected, in practice the power of commercial regulation gives the government power over essentially everything not explicitly enumerated by a right, because all activities can be seen as part of commerce.
I'm not saying I like that, I'm saying that's how it is.
Though there are good outcomes of it, as well. The commerce clause (in combination with the general welfare clause) also gives the government power to do things like set standards for healthy food, safe medicines, and low pollution that businesses almost certainly wouldn't see to themselves, or would do so more slowly.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Actually, having just read both your references and a bit more, I think his rationale is quite valid. Maybe not perfect, but certainly justifiable.
First, the economic intervention proposed *would* set a dangerous precedent of using pension money for political ends. Regardless of the current ends, the precedent and power *will be* misused. The action should not be taken without careful consideration, which was the main thing Dr. Paul argued in both places: don't be hasty.
In the case of the declaration of genocide and intervention, his argument was primarily that the bill was being rushed through with minimal thought, debate, and time for revision. This is not really arguable if you look at the timetable. He is not saying (there) that he will utterly oppose it, but that he is predisposed to oppose it and that it requires *very* careful consideration. Given the debacle we already have ourselves in, I cannot argue that point either and I doubt you can.
He points out the condition of the military and its existing commitments. Can we meet those commitments by themselves? How can we do more on top of it? Again, hard to argue. Are we going to invade Pakistan, Venezuela, Burma, etc., etc.?
As for the "confusion" over the issues in Darfur, I see no such confusion in his statements. Those issues would become very confused by any intervention on our part, economic or military. The fact that the situation is complex makes it very hard to intervene surgically and not inflame issues. International peace keepers in Africa are seeing that now as they take fire from multiple sides because they are seen as interfering, because they are simply in the wrong place, or even because they are being raided by rebels for equipment and arms. Relief supplies rarely get to the right people, and sanctions often backfire because combatants will simply keep or take what they need from those we try to protect. We are very quick to consider action these days but very reluctant to actually think it through and really decide what is best and, of the things that need correcting in the world (and they are many) which ones we should really commit to. That, most often, is Dr. Paul's argument, and, again, it is hard to refute out of hand. The fact that he is primarily non-interventionist is a good foil to the trigger-happy attitude which prevails. That is why we have balance of powers (nominally).
Despite your denial, the Mexican War is a great example of a war of aggression on our part. The Americans living there asked permission of the Mexican government and were accepted as *guests* subject to Mexican law. They then brought slaves which were illegal in Mexico. When Mexico tried to actually enforce their laws against guests who had agreed to abide by them, that is when "Texans" voted for annexation. Not all Texans at the time are perhaps at fault, but the overall result was shameful. We invaded Mexico, annexed Texas, and adjusted our borders elsewhere as a result.
The Spanish-American war is largely considered unjust. We invaded and we gained territory as a result.
Post-Civil War, we invaded Native American territories en masse, even those with whom we had made treaties ceding land. The violation of some of these treaties is still bogged down in Federal Court, which has managed to consistently stall the proceedings for over a century. The slaughter of Native Americans, by any definition, was "genocide" and was openly supported as such by some members of Congress and military at the time.
The Civil War itself (good or bad) can be considered a territorial invasion. Secession may have been stupid in some sense, but it was the right of the states who decided to do so as decided by the Supreme Court. After the War, when the government tried to charge some Confederate leaders with treason, the high court found that there was nothing treasonable about secession--- the several states voluntarily joined the Union and could, one would suppose, voluntarily leave it, whether the reason was good or bad.
The Monroe Doctrine was essentially a declaration of a sphere of influence (a step down from colonialism). It specified that we claimed the right of influence over the American continents and others were to have their hands out. This was little different from other countries' statements over other parts of the world at the time.
We may have not "gained territory" in other interventions per se, but we certainly gained (or tried to gain) other benefits and overruled the sovereignty of other nations. We armed many of the extremists we now fight.
This is, of course, a devil's advocate and selective reading of history, but we are not a morally pure country by any stretch of the imagination. I do not hate my country, and, in fact, support its principles with a passion, but we do have a tendency toward arrogance. If we believe in what we say we believe in, that has to go.
It does not matter much what people thought when they wrote it, because they cannot do anything about it. The citizens ultimately get to decide, and they, through their elected representatives and consequent court appointments, have consistently and unequivocally sided with my interpretation. So did the people at the time, since they agreed via acceptance that the Supreme Court gets to say what the Constitution says and means (see Marbury v. Madison (1803)). And because it was a terse and general statement, we have reasoned its principles to ever more specific situations, sometimes getting it "wrong", sometimes "right"; with our ideas of right and wrong changing constantly and necessitating correction of past decisions (see Dred Scott). So yes, it was a contract that between the people of the time and the government, but the contract stipulated "make of our guidance as you will", which is about the most power anyone or anything man has created in the past has over the future.
And if at some future time we all (or a sufficient number) agree otherwise, we can change it. This is our power, whether exercised peacefully or not. Until then, the interpretation and constitutional law history I share with the vast majority of people, legal scholars, politicians, and "those in power" rules the day. You are fortunately in a hopeless minority dominated by quacks.
Presidents have nothing to do internet privacy. If you want to discuss candidates let's discuss things related to they power they will assume.
Since you point out the power rests in the people you may want to consider a couple of things. First of all, we are not a democracy but a republic. The meanings of those words have changed over time but we are ruled by law, not simply by the majority. You may want to also consider that the power bases set up under the Constitution have been altered to more closely mimic a democracy, which the founders were very against due to the many problems. States used to choose the Senators and that has been changed. The electoral college has also been vastly altered from its original form. This means the masses, who are almost all grossly undereducated and very easily manipulated, the power to elect all of the government which doesn't appoint itself, such as judges. The state governments have lost most of their power and become servants to the fed through many schemes including road money, education money, etc. Overall power has become more centralized, and world government will continue this. Decision making has gradually been moved to higher and higher levels and vast amounts are now in the hands of a few.
What if you don't consider a fetus to be a human until the second trimester? Then I think it's pretty clear that delivering a third-trimester baby and aborting a two-week-old fetus are morally consistent under that view.
I'm not saying I agree with that worldview, but I am saying that your assertion is flawed.
Not a flawed assertion so much as a strong statement clarified in the rest of the post. Obviously that was not clear, and, to that extent, I retract it, but the key word there for me was support. I certainly think that being an obstetrician and delivering babies as a career is inconsistent with an unrestricted or casual view of abortion or being in favor of abortion. Dr. Paul has, himself, dealt with non-viable tubal pregnancies, for instance, but that is a situation where there is essentially no alternative other than letting both mother and child die.
Note that, as I say, recognizing the moral question and imposing that on others are two different issues. I believe that abortion even in the case of rape and incest is "wrong," but I would by no means wish to be faced with making that decision or weighing the possible opposing wrongs in that case. For me, that would seem to be between that individual, their conscience, and God. From society's point of view, whether to recognize that as "murder" is again, a very tough question and fraught with danger. I have heard the point of view in the case of both abortion in cases like that, in euthanasia(*), and jury nullification, that having the system make certain procedures illegal or at least difficult ensures that they are only done when the individual is driven by a moral concern which outweighs the legality. I do not know whether I support the position, but it certainly gives pause.
(*) I don't understand why everyone is so concerned about euthanasia! What is wrong with dealing with issues here? Aren't our own youth having problems enough?
The very idea of "positive liberties" should send chills down any freedom-lover's spine. Any government that has the power to grant a liberty also has the power to take it away.
I prefer inalienable rights of the people and a government grudgingly granted limited powers by the people.
He may not have voted for that one, but he is in favor of stricter thought crimes laws and more funding to enforce them. He sponsored the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But then that was just part of his pandering to the gay community.
As I am walking about in public, as determined by the courts in the U.S., I have no expectation of privacy, but I have some degree of anonymity. It's quite concievable that no one will recognize me or name me, though they may be able to describe me, and that is, by definition, anonymous. If I start talking on the phone about the hit I'm about to place on Bob, my neighbor and the police overhear me, they can concievably arrest me (the charges may be dropped for a variety of other reasons, but the point here is that the conversation was not "private" because in an open field, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy.) Legal shenanigans aside, this setup seems reasonable to me: private conversations held outside where everyone can hear are not private. Private conversations held where I reasonably expect that no one else should be able to hear are private. In either case, if I'm out on some arbitrary street corner or park, I am pretty anonymous (unless of course, I'm a celebrity or what-have-you, but let's just deal with the general case here): no one knows my name, where I live, where I came from, or where I'm going next unless they actively start gathering information on me, at which point they can only gather as much information as is provided by my public activities, since once I get to a place where I can reasonably expect privacy, the privacy laws kick in.
I think I'd like the internet, and consequently the laws governing the internet, to work in a somewhat similar fashion, and to a certain extent they do. When I go online, I'm effectively "leaving" my home (*cough* 127.0.0.1) and wandering the far world. Each page I visit should not be able to know who I am, where I live, where I came from, and where I'm going unless I actively start broadcasting this information. They can, however, "describe me" through my I.P. address just in case I do something untoward or illegal.
The problem, as people will probably point out, is in implementing certain portions of this and enforcing all of it. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume privacy when I've established an SSL connection with a web page. Anyone listening in is now listening in on a private conversation and is violating several federal wiretapping laws. It's infernally harder to prove that the people on either end of the conversation are who they say they are, though. So what happens when someone I think is my banker but who is in reality a very well dressed theif (yes, yes, the response from Slashdot will probably be, "all bankers are well dressed thieves." There. Beat you to it.) convinces me to leave my money and information with him? We can make that illegal, certainly, but we can't prevent it from happening, short of a massive education drive.
Beyond that, the "anonymity" portion of this is also tricky; third-party cookies, referrer tags, and other tricks used to introduce state into HTTP allow sites to track people across pages. It's like being on film as you walk from park to park (my sympathis to my friends across the pond. I recommend performing some sort of jig every time one of those CCTV cameras gets you in its sights. Pretty soon they'll start ignoring you. Or they'll arrest you. One of the two), which while not eliminating anonymity, degrades it somewhat. I'm not sure what can be done about it, to be honest.
Right. Any thoughts?
Ne Cede Malis.
We're used to the federal government always meddling with specific issues with situational principles. This causes the hypocrisy we see all the time, especially as the politicians pander to various groups with different interests.
Ron Paul answers on core principles, everything flows from that. I know, strange concept.
Fred Thompson is probably next on principles, his main flaw being support for the federal War on (Some) Drugs while endorsing federalism.
However, I haven't been able to find any evidence of principles among the Democrats. Especially Hillary, she'll switch her position in a heartbeat if she thinks it'll help her get elected.
"The key quote here is this: "...the United States Government has no business [...] in forcing divestment on unwilling parties". This stands true to the core of Ron Paul's principles: the government does not have the right to tell people how to run their business."
How does the US government saying "we will not sign a government contract with you because you signed a government contract with Sudan" equate to "you are not allowed to do business with Sudan"? These companies are international corporations, not US-based. They can do business elsewhere. It's the free market, just like Dr. Paul supports. The US Government is one of the consumers, and this consumer is saying "I don't want your stuff because you support genocidal regimes. I will get my stuff from another company".
RON PAUL has served in the US house for 34 years without ever once voting for a tax increase or a war. He has never supported illegal searches.
He's the only candidate with integrity, that I see.
Andy Out!
Almost nothing is encrypted in most internet communication. We the public don't seem to take our privacy very seriously much less have a real idea of what should be private and beyond government (and corporate) prying. We seem to have even less clear much less actionable notion of what should and should not be punishable or otherwise actionable by the government.
All of that said the most pro-freedom and pro-privacy candidate on principle is obviously Ron Paul.
You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
for Privacy Issues and related. Disclaimer: I'm not registered to any party, but Edwards has my vote unless he starts eating babies. Also the site is obviously in campaign-ese (as they all are). Apologies for length.
http://johnedwards.com/issues/open-media/
[I would argue these necessary for private or anonymous communication.]
"Fighting Media Concentration: Eight business conglomerates control the majority of media content in America, with extensive holdings in publishing, print journalism, online content, movies and radio. In the two years after Washington removed the 40-station radio ownership limit in 1996, nearly half of America's radio stations changed hands, and by 2000, one company had acquired over 1100 stations. Over the last 30 years, two-thirds of all independently-owned newspapers have shut down. The Bush Administration has repeatedly tried to dismantle limits on cable, broadcast and newspaper concentration. Edwards believes extreme media consolidation threatens free speech, tilts the public dialogue towards corporate priorities and away from local concerns, and makes it increasingly difficult for women and minorities to own a stake in our media. Edwards will strengthen local and national media ownership and concentration limits so that a few huge multinational corporations are not in charge of shaping our democracy. [Free Press, 2007; Clear Channel, 2007; Consumers Union, Undated]"
"Keeping an Open Internet: Edwards believes America must preserve the uniquely democratic nature of the Internet, which has allowed regular people to contribute on equal footing with big businesses and organizations. As president, he will ensure that the FCC preserves free expression and competition on the Internet by continuing to enforce net neutrality ensuring no degradation or blocking of access to websites. He will also bring interoperability to wireless communications so that Americans can connect any device or applications to their wireless service, just as they can to their landline phone service."
http://johnedwards.com/issues/homeland-security/
"Keeping America Safe And Free
John Edwards believes we must stop the Bush administration's trampling of basic freedoms in the name of the war against terror. As president, Edwards will prohibit surveillance of Americans' phone calls and emails without a warrant, close down Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and say no to torture."
http://johnedwards.com/issues/civil-liberties/
"We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. We are not the country of secret surveillance and government behind closed doors. We are Americans, and we're better than that." -- John Edwards
America must do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but securing a lasting victory will take moral as well as military strength. President Bush's failure to respect the Constitution and our commitment to the fundamental rule of law has badly damaged our security and our standing in the world. President Bush has sent a message that torture and other human rights violations are acceptable, creating a precedent of disregard for the law that is being exploited by terrorists and repressive governments across the world. We must restore our moral leadership in the world, and we should begin here at home. If we want to spread democracy abroad, we must strengthen democracy in America, including our constitutional freedoms and the rule of law.
Restore Habeas Corpus and Shut Down Guantanamo
The Bush Administration has claimed the power to seize and indefinitely detain anybody it labels an "enemy combatant" with no due process and no lawyer, even if they were seized here in America. It built a prison at Guantanamo Bay outside the reach of our courts, creating a symbol that galvanizes our enemies and alienates our allies. As president, Edwards will shut down Guantanamo
If the parent is TLDNR:
Our government should protect the privacy, communications, and personal records of Americans--not spy on them without court supervision as the Bush Administration has done. Edwards will end the warrantless wiretapping of Americans' phone calls and e-mails and the data-mining of Americans' communications and personal records, restoring judicial review to surveillance of American citizens. He will fix the Patriot Act by restoring important safeguards to the provisions most susceptible to abuse: the "sneak-and-peek" delayed-notice searches, National Security Letters, and the business and library records provisions. He will also end racial profiling by law enforcement. -- John Edwards
"Please name one good thing that will come out of any military intervention in Sudan."
Please read my original statement. I'm not talking about intervention at all, military or humanitarian even. I'm only talking about withdrawing our government contracts with companies who supply Sudan with the equipment and infrastructure used to commit this genocide. That's it. The current divestment has been working - companies are pulling out of Sudan, and the regime is going to the lengths of putting million-dollar-ads in the New York Times to show the "good side of Sudan".
"Also name one good thing that comes out of economic sanctions, for the tradeoff of impoverishing and starving the very people that depend on economic activity for their wellbeing."
I'm not sure what sort of first-world country you think Sudan is. The people being affected by this are poor farmers who get no financial support from the Sudanese regime. This is exactly the reason for the genocide - when the regime got rich, some poor people started fighting back, so the government is solving the "problem" by killing them ALL off.
Basically, withdrawing our government contracts from companies helping the regime slaughter its poor people IS NOT somehow financially impact the poor of Darfur - they were already financially cut off (the whole point of the genocide).
You really need to inform yourself by watching the PBS Frontline special that aired last week. You can watch it online for free. US tax dollars went into the show's production; why not benefit from it?
"I agree that life outside of republican government is nasty, brutish, and short. The Sudanese will eventually learn this, and cease to tolerate it. This is a lesson that must be learned; it cannot be taught."
Again, please inform yourself. The regime is paying bandits to kill people off, no matter where they flee to. They have followed the victims across the border into Chad. Life is not "brutish". It's impossible. The bandits have been attacking villages by night, supported by weaponized helicopters that are mowing down everyone in sight. The bandits on the ground are gang-raping women and cutting babies into pieces. This is not "nasty/brutish". It's obscene.
Our purposeful inaction, out of fear of loss of trade with China or future military action from China, will not go unnoticed by other regimes desiring global power. They will strengthen their ties with China and get a free ticket to whatever atrocities they desire. China also sees how much power they have to completely paralyze the UN for 4 years. They will not back down an inch in the future. All because of our knowing lack of action, action that would have kept them in check.