People have *never* ever received habeas corpus rights, or warrants (like they even know what a warrant is in Iraq or Afghanistan) in wartime, in any country, ever. In fact, people get *killed* summarily with bullets and bombs, without trial!
I am utterly dumbfounded by this whole thread. Since when in the history of warfare has any country, ever given POWs habeas corpus or needed warrants? Seems like America and Bush are being held to a different standard.
What next, will soldiers have to Mirandize the enemy in the battlefield? This is ludicrous.
What the hell? In wartime, when has any POW been given habeas corpus, in any country? When have warrants ever been used in war? What next, will our soldiers have to Mirandize the enemy?
Seem that the US and Bush are being held to a different standard than any other war or country.
So I guess saying "Guantanamo Bay" now constitutes an argument. If you cannot understand the difference between war - where every freaking country in the history of time (including the UK) has held prisoners until said war is over - and criminal law, where people go through some sort of legal process, then I can't help you. What country, ever, has released prisoners before the war was over? The reason for this is so they can't shoot at you again! And yes, there are guys in Guantanamo who have been caught two and three times, shooting at Americans yet again. And the mofos in there eat better than I do. Should we release them so they can be tortured and killed in their home countries? Prisoners of war do not get civilian trials. They never have, and terrorists flouting all rules of Geneva should not be treated better simply because you don't like Bush or his war.
But I guess the rules are different for America and George Bush than the rest of the world.
As for Abu Graib, what a cheap shot. That abuse was reported by military personnel and the perpetrators are doing hard time.
Meanwhile, in the USA, actual criminal suspects have to be charged in 48 hours or released. But keep patting yourselves on the back Britons if it makes you feel better.
I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues. They likely had aides poll and give them pat answers on tech. In other words, don't expect them to stick to any positions they might articulate now. Then again, that probably applies to all issues, not just tech.
A lot of/.'ers claim to be libertarians and to love Ron Paul. The reality is, a lot of/.'ers want libertarianism for themselves and big government liberalism for others. FYI, Paul isn't just anti-Bush. He's against all statists, right and left alike.
I might be the only contributor to this Web site who actually believes in freedom of contract.
What Scalia should have said is that "the Constitution doesn't apply in Iraq or to Iraqi nationals." This is well-settled law, long before Scalia was on the Court. Non-US citizen not in US territory don't have Constitutional protections. But I don't expect anyone who believes that telcos acting in good faith after 9-11 to help the government track terrorist, and given assurances they wouldn't be sued, should in fact be sued, to be reasonable. The fine points of law only matter when they are on your side I guess,/.'ers.
Petitioning your government for redress is a right under the First Amendment. All of you "kill the lobbyists!" types apparently are only concerned about your rights online, not those of others! Put dirty politicians in jail. But don't tell the CEO of the company I own stock in that he doesn't have a right to represent my interests versus the government.
And no, this isn't a troll just because I had the temerity to disagree with your worldview.
I guess the standard and proper response to espionage would be to publicly confirm the value of the intelligence to the Chinese?
What is it with you people? Is there no such thing as a state secret anymore? Should the Pentagon just list all its secrets on its Web site and get it over with? Let's just post all the targeting information, launch codes, encryption keys, advanced weapons and defense systems. etc. Let's just post it all on.mil in the interest of openness.
Not everything is a scandal folks! Nothing to see here, move along.
Boot up your old Apple II. Type some password somewhere. Reboot.
Now, type three lines of code:
10 X=0 20 X=X+1 30 GOTO 20
Scan the screen printout and see if there is anything that scares you! Sure managed to scare my computer teacher and muck up my HS's lab computers back in the 1980's, hee hee. Good old Corvis.
The concept that corporations have ANY "rights", including free speech, is completely ludicrous.
Well, just because you don't like corporations doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights. A corporation is merely a legal business entity created by law, a long time ago, in a representative democracy (or do you only believe in law when it goes the way you want?), to represent the interests of people - you know, the investors. Corporations weren't created to take their rights away because they merely chose a different investment vehicle! Quite the contrary, the whole point was so people can get together and combine and raise capital in a limited liability way. Corporations weren't designed to say, "hey, we have a new way to invest your money, but you lose all of your rights from a sole proprietorship or a partnership." No, the corporate entity was added to further protect investors! Why should someone lose rights merely because they incorporate and get larger and more successful? Simply because you don't like successful businesses? Should we have remained a third-rate power and never grown into this economic powerhouse? Are communist countries really better?
The activist Conservative judges gave corporations some of the same "rights" as people
It wasn't conservative judges, Sparky, that gave Corporations free speech rights. Quite the contrary, the most liberal court in the history of SCOTUS, the Warren Court and the 1970's court in the years thereafter that gave us Roe v Wade and countless other liberal activist decisions, handed down a bunch of decisions that set the corporate free speech rights precedent and more. See:
The most significant case, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI (1978), in which the Supreme Court held, in Kerr's words, that "speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment did not lose its protection because the source is a corporation," passed by the same Court that gave us the unprecedented liberal activist case Roe v. Wade, was one in which future "conservative" Chief Justice Justice Rehnquist dissented.
through a grave misunderstanding of the term "people" in the Constitution, because apparently Conservatives think corporations are more important than actual living, breathing PEOPLE. You know, the new type of hairless talking monkeys. That kind of people!
You mean the creatures that actually own corporations, the investors? You do know that over 2/3 of publicly held stock is owned by the individual investor, either directly or through investment funds? And as one of those investors, I like my chances better if a big corporation with its huge resources is advocating for me financially, rather than little me, squeaking away, unheard!
I can't believe you have me defending corporations here. I just reported the law, cheesemonkey! Don't shoot the messenger!
By linking to W3-dot-org and slashdotting them. Thanks guys, you good samaritans! Can you come over later and throw some gasoline on my house that's on fire?
I do think Hollywood tends to be more liberal and like Dems more, of course. But lots of Republicans are taking money from entertainment too, at least the ones on the right committees. If anything, the entertainment industry is a lot less partisan in its handing out of money than, say, the trial lawyers.
But you gotta believe that most politicians, even those who come into government with the best of intentions, are sooner or later worn down by this lobbying. Take the money or get beaten, kind of like steroids in the NFL. It really does make me sick. Too bad all the billionaires are kooky or maybe they could be an alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
I am utterly dumbfounded by this whole thread. Since when in the history of warfare has any country, ever given POWs habeas corpus or needed warrants? Seems like America and Bush are being held to a different standard.
What next, will soldiers have to Mirandize the enemy in the battlefield? This is ludicrous.
Seem that the US and Bush are being held to a different standard than any other war or country.
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES. See also, 9/11.
Or, since al Qaeda isn't a country, the US has no right to defend itself?
But I guess the rules are different for America and George Bush than the rest of the world.
As for Abu Graib, what a cheap shot. That abuse was reported by military personnel and the perpetrators are doing hard time.
Meanwhile, in the USA, actual criminal suspects have to be charged in 48 hours or released. But keep patting yourselves on the back Britons if it makes you feel better.
Funny how quickly and passionately the so-called libertarian Slashdotter community wants to tell people what to drive.
I doubt either one of these guys has the background or passion for tech to really have well thought out, firm ideas on any tech issues. They likely had aides poll and give them pat answers on tech. In other words, don't expect them to stick to any positions they might articulate now. Then again, that probably applies to all issues, not just tech.
A lot of /.'ers claim to be libertarians and to love Ron Paul. The reality is, a lot of /.'ers want libertarianism for themselves and big government liberalism for others. FYI, Paul isn't just anti-Bush. He's against all statists, right and left alike.
I might be the only contributor to this Web site who actually believes in freedom of contract.
Kinda reminds me of referring to the Internet backbone as "pipes."
Who cares? How about people that would like a sustainable, livable environment?
And how does this story fit into Slashdot's mission? I don't remember anything about "news for hippies" or "news for liberal nerds."
I love how you lefties just assume we all buy into your environmentalism as religion.
We don't.
What Scalia should have said is that "the Constitution doesn't apply in Iraq or to Iraqi nationals." This is well-settled law, long before Scalia was on the Court. Non-US citizen not in US territory don't have Constitutional protections. But I don't expect anyone who believes that telcos acting in good faith after 9-11 to help the government track terrorist, and given assurances they wouldn't be sued, should in fact be sued, to be reasonable. The fine points of law only matter when they are on your side I guess, /.'ers.
The fair-and-balanced ACLU can tell us what to think about Big Brother. Wait, what?
"...it ain't a robot"? Aren't robots autonomous? If not, my car is a robot.
And no, this isn't a troll just because I had the temerity to disagree with your worldview.
Obama of all people is supposed to save us from pay-for-play?
Look who's #2 on TV/Movie/Music donations list. Yeah, I'm sure it's because Obama has promised to pass the Digital Consumer Rights Act.
Get a clue Lessig, Obama has his out out just like all the rest of them.
since everything I turn around, my fucking dog is chewing something up and my blood pressure goes up!
Jobs finally got him to say, "ooo hoo" and sign on the dotted line. Reality Distortion Field meets Thriller!
What is it with you people? Is there no such thing as a state secret anymore? Should the Pentagon just list all its secrets on its Web site and get it over with? Let's just post all the targeting information, launch codes, encryption keys, advanced weapons and defense systems. etc. Let's just post it all on .mil in the interest of openness.
Not everything is a scandal folks! Nothing to see here, move along.
I'd like to thank Gary and D&D for ensuring my virtue in grade school.
Now, type three lines of code: Scan the screen printout and see if there is anything that scares you! Sure managed to scare my computer teacher and muck up my HS's lab computers back in the 1980's, hee hee. Good old Corvis.
"Well, I was wrong, the lizards (monkeys) are a Godsend."
"But isn't that a little short sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?"
"No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snake. They'll wipe out the lizards."
"But...aren't the sneakes even worse?"
"Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that lives on snake meat."
"But then we're stuck with gorillas!"
"No, that's the beautiful part. When winter time rolls around the gorillas simply freeze to death."
The concept that corporations have ANY "rights", including free speech, is completely ludicrous.
Well, just because you don't like corporations doesn't mean they shouldn't have rights. A corporation is merely a legal business entity created by law, a long time ago, in a representative democracy (or do you only believe in law when it goes the way you want?), to represent the interests of people - you know, the investors. Corporations weren't created to take their rights away because they merely chose a different investment vehicle! Quite the contrary, the whole point was so people can get together and combine and raise capital in a limited liability way. Corporations weren't designed to say, "hey, we have a new way to invest your money, but you lose all of your rights from a sole proprietorship or a partnership." No, the corporate entity was added to further protect investors! Why should someone lose rights merely because they incorporate and get larger and more successful? Simply because you don't like successful businesses? Should we have remained a third-rate power and never grown into this economic powerhouse? Are communist countries really better?
The activist Conservative judges gave corporations some of the same "rights" as people
It wasn't conservative judges, Sparky, that gave Corporations free speech rights. Quite the contrary, the most liberal court in the history of SCOTUS, the Warren Court and the 1970's court in the years thereafter that gave us Roe v Wade and countless other liberal activist decisions, handed down a bunch of decisions that set the corporate free speech rights precedent and more. See:
THE RIGHTS OF CORPORATE SPEECH: MOBIL OIL AND THE LEGAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE VOICE OF BIG BUSINESS
The most significant case, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI (1978), in which the Supreme Court held, in Kerr's words, that "speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment did not lose its protection because the source is a corporation," passed by the same Court that gave us the unprecedented liberal activist case Roe v. Wade, was one in which future "conservative" Chief Justice Justice Rehnquist dissented.
through a grave misunderstanding of the term "people" in the Constitution, because apparently Conservatives think corporations are more important than actual living, breathing PEOPLE. You know, the new type of hairless talking monkeys. That kind of people!
You mean the creatures that actually own corporations, the investors? You do know that over 2/3 of publicly held stock is owned by the individual investor, either directly or through investment funds? And as one of those investors, I like my chances better if a big corporation with its huge resources is advocating for me financially, rather than little me, squeaking away, unheard!
I can't believe you have me defending corporations here. I just reported the law, cheesemonkey! Don't shoot the messenger!
By linking to W3-dot-org and slashdotting them. Thanks guys, you good samaritans! Can you come over later and throw some gasoline on my house that's on fire?
Get a Haircut and Get a Real Job. Your kid and the taxpayers will thank you.
I do think Hollywood tends to be more liberal and like Dems more, of course. But lots of Republicans are taking money from entertainment too, at least the ones on the right committees. If anything, the entertainment industry is a lot less partisan in its handing out of money than, say, the trial lawyers.
But you gotta believe that most politicians, even those who come into government with the best of intentions, are sooner or later worn down by this lobbying. Take the money or get beaten, kind of like steroids in the NFL. It really does make me sick. Too bad all the billionaires are kooky or maybe they could be an alternative.
So guess which congresscritters are taking the most from the entertainment industry.
Mods, please don't shoot the messenger.