That said, the better question is -- are we willing to allow the government to change its relationship with us, the citizens, and if so, what will be the new boundaries for such a change?
I think that question is in the process of being answered.
The 2nd amendment is because we didn't have a standing military at the time,
That is false two respect. First, the US Army as a force in being predates the Constitution, which is where the 2nd Amendment is found.
The U.S. Army as a permanent institution began on 3 June 1784, when the Confederation Congress approved a resolution to establish a regiment of 700 officers and men. Intended as a force to assert federal authority in the Ohio River Valley, the regiment deployed at a string of posts along the Ohio where it functioned as a frontier constabulary during the last years of the Articles of Confederation era.
Congress adopted this tiny force after the reorganization of the government under the Constitution in 1789. Responding to the outbreak of Indian war in the Old Northwest—and especially to St. Clair's defeat in 1791, the worst setback at Indian hands in the army's history—the government expanded the military establishment to over 5,000 in 1792. Organized as the “American Legion” and commanded by Maj. Gen. Anthony Wayne, the army defeated the northwestern tribes at Fallen Timbers in 1794. During the same year, in response to European threats, the government launched a program of seacoast fortifications and added a corps of artillerists and engineers to build and man them. -- more
Second, the 2nd Amendment rights were not intended to be time limited.
Some people suggest the justification clause provides a built-in expiration date for the right. So long as a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (or so long as the right to keep and bear arms contributes to a well-regulated militia, or so long as the militia is in fact well-regulated), the argument goes, the people have a right to keep and bear arms; but once the circumstances change and the necessity disappears, so does the right. 12
This reading seems at odds with the text: The Amendment doesn't say "so long as a militia is necessary"; it says "being necessary." Such a locution usually means the speaker is giving a justification for his command, not limiting its duration. 13 If anything, it might require the courts to operate on the assumption that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, since that's what the justification clause asserts. 14
--------
Having those firearms at that time served a legitimate need.
They still do. Besides, whether you recognize it or not, if you are an American man you have almost certainly been a part of the militia.
-STATUTE- (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
--------
Nice to see that you're pretty much completely ignorant of the reasons behind the 2nd amendment.
If I have more to learn I don't think you have anything to teach. What you "know" about the matter seems to be wrong.
The second amendment isn't ultimately about hunting. It is about the final defense of the American people against tyranny, whether from home or abroad.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. --- Noah Webster
The Swiss have that figured out as well.
In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. Let's begin with the rifle in every home combined with the Alpine terrain. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite. Some governments surrendered to Hitler without resistance based on the decision of a king or dictator; this was institutionally impossible in Switzerland. If an ordinary Swiss citizen was told that the Federal President--a relatively powerless official--had surrendered the country, the citizen might not even know the president's name, and would have held any "surrender" order in contempt. -- Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook
A mile is 8 furlongs and a gallon is 8 pints. So this car can do 262 furlongs per pint. That's quite an achievement considering it's mass is 125 stones.
But don't exclude the performance figures! It will do 266,112 furlongs per fortnight. Not too shabby for what it is.
People responsible for crafting laws should be penalized for poor and vague wording.
Even if it was unintentionally vague (I suspect it is frequently intentional, too).
They are subject to public ridicule, having their law overturned in court, and being tossed out of office by voters. If they go for the gold they could be caught up in corruption charges. Of course a politician being a disgrace doesn't really seem to matter to some voters. These two still seem to find enthusiastic audiences.
Yes, but by the same token you don't need to have corruption for idiocy to occur either. People make mistakes, but due consideration can help reduce them. That is why the current trend of the US Congress passing 2,000 page bills without giving members of Congress a chance to read and digest them before a vote is such an appallingly bad idea. These bills are often being changed up until the last moment and written with the help of outsiders. There is no way that anybody can read them, there is no way that anybody can understand them and consider the consequences. I think it is exceedingly dangerous to democracy, liberty, transparency, and good government.
I thought everything that government did was well planned and orchestrated, directed by the corporations that own everything, including politicians. Next thing you know, somebody will challenge the idea of the all powerful military-industrial complex that has had its share of resources in the US budget reduced from 38% of GDP in 1945 to ~ 4-5% today. That is crazy talk.
The Heritage Foundation did at one point have a plan for a vaguely similar idea, but it differed significantly in important details, and they eventually concluded it was the wrong path to take. You can find details here: ObamaCare's Heritage
Once again we have Anachragnome posting his crackpot conspiracy theories about me. If you bothered reading his post above and find it persuasive, then you should read this post of his, and note this line:
This is East Germany, all over again--the NSA literally has us spying on each other, inadvertently or not.
Anachragnome seems to think that everyone is spying for the NSA. Who is it doing all this mutual spying? If you stop and think for even a moment you realize that the idea is nonsense. But it does play into his fear inducing agenda, including attempts to make people suspicious and fear me. He is engaging in the very same sort of behavior he is complaining about. By spreading fear he hopes to control people, to stamp out opinions he finds disagreeable, and control discussions. Ask yourself - are you living in fear? I don't. And yet he seems to want you to. Why?
Anachragnome seems to find great significance, even to the point of it being evidence that I am a government agent, that I have a different viewpoint, a minority viewpoint among the population of posters on Slashdot. For some reason he can't accept that different viewpoints don't constitute a conspiracy. What is the purpose of having civil rights if we all have to believe the same thing? I thought that was what fascism was about.
Further evidence that his claims are nonsense is the fact that he thinks that I am both an NSA plant and that I have multiple accounts named with a common theme, no doubt including the recently created troll accounts that have been trying to harass me of late (coid fjord, and co1d fjord). That would seem to be pretty pathetic tradecraft if that were the case. His view is just another sad example of a crank seeing a pattern in the noise that doesn't really exist, and thinking it significant. Go ahead and read from the two troll accounts. I don't think you'll find much evidence to support Anachragnome's nonsense view. (If you think you have, read more of the thread and check UIDs.)
Apparently the only people that disagree with him are spies. Bow to his power, or you may be branded a "shill" and "forum breaker." Submit to his fear. He expects you to inform on each other. Obey him, or you may be branded a traitor too.
Or maybe he is just a crank full of suspicion and fear that should be ignored. Take your pick.
But this isn't new shit for us Brits - we've been getting bombed and "terrorised" in our colonies and home country for decades now.
So if that is the case, then why is the British government doing something about it? That is what this whole thread is about, isn't it? The British government has taken action to protect British lives and some people object to that action. Although you show contempt for members of Parliament, you don't limit it to the question of this policy, so I assume it is a general conempt. I also note that there don't seem to be any attacks on the post up thread that is in essence calling for the overthrow of the monarchy. And the basis for your objection to my views is apparently that you disagree with my thinking that British lives should be protected? And you sweeten the pot with some anti-American trolls? It seems to me that you are the one with his knickers in a twist about something. And maybe some hint as to why can be found in your statement, "You certainly won't turn us against any of our friends who happen to be of different faiths..." Well, that's it then. You apparently have no loyalty to the Crown, contempt for the government, hate for America, indifference to the slaughter of your fellow Britons, and love for your Muslim friends regardless if they are innocent, or terrorists. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought yourself a "British patriot."
It appears to me that I can say with less irony than you, God save the Queen, and let's have Jerusalem.
Then it seems to me that your problem is with the democratic process and the ability of the government to hold the security services accountable.
If you hold that view I hope you aren't a fan of the NHS: Yes, I trust the government to put its hands into my bowels and move things around, maybe take out this or that, and put something in, or to pump me full of toxic chemicals and irradiate me, but I in no way trust them to keep me from being blown up.
I'm surprised you are aiming so low. I would have thought you could have at least shot for the Federal Republic of Germany if you are going the German route.
So, exactly which countries are you thinking about for revolution?
I think this is a splendid example of the fringe thinking you keep posting.
Should we come after you as well? Surely you have commited the very same thoughtcrime as the most likely innocent muslims you call terrorists.
I'm not interested in "thought crime." I'm interested in preventing bombings, shootings, beheadings, poisonings, hijackings, and various other assorted crimes that occur outside of people's heads. The people that commit those crimes aren't "innocent," although they are innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think much of anyone is interested in creating a police state in the US or UK. By the same token I don't think the US or UK can reasonably be called a police state at the moment. If you do, then show evidence, not just declare it to be so.
It isn't that would-be terrorists in the US and UK are non-existent or lazy, but that they keep getting arrested before they can conduct a meaningful attack. Effective intelligence and police work is keeping the problem largely under control. That can change, and you seem unconcerned about it. Your view seems to be: "Die well my fellow countrymen" so long as no government minion passes near your phone number (which is public information).
A predictable answer, and completely wrong. You obviously have no idea what al Qaida and the like minded want. Ultimately what they want isn't so much the US, UK, Europe, et. al, out of the Middle East, but rather that the US, UK, Europe and the rest of the world to convert to Islam and be governed by Sharia law. Do you understand that? They want to revive the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved in 1923 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, change the governments in Muslim countries to rule according to their strict interpretation of Sharia law, and finish the conquest of the rest of the world for Islam.
Their grievance doesn't go back to simply 1923, but to 1683 and the Battle of Vienna, in which Europe repelled the last Muslim invasion. The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas teaches the children that they need to retake Spain for the glory of Islam.
Their aggression is unrelated to anything done in the last century. It is based on their understanding of Islam. This problem won't go away soon.
I think you've made it quite clear in the past that you are indifferent to the prospect of the mass slaughter of your fellow citizens, and you aren't alone in that regard. You don't really have much to offer in the discussion other than the hope that they will die well, and that no minion of the government pass near your phone number. Most other people in society are able to make more nuanced judgments about what the government might do that has no meaningful impact on personal liberty.
The Star Chamber tried British subjects, powerful ones that might otherwise escape justice at the beginning. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is essentially a complaint resolution mechanism for complaints regarding government actions.
If you dislike the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a new Star Chamber would be far worse since it could come after you.
Yes, the problem is that random accidents and animal attacks are different than deliberate human actions.
Part of the reason that terrorism is under control in the UK, is that the authorities are taking reasonably effective action. You can tell that from the stream of arrests and convections on terrorism related offenses.
If you get this wrong it is easy for the numbers to change quickly. 9/11 - 2,973 dead. 7/7 - 52 dead. Bali - 202 dead. Madrid - 191 dead, 1841 wounded. In Iraq they were suffering multiple attacks per week of this sort at times.
It would be unwise to grow complacent since the extremists won't be changing their minds, or giving up soon.
As for cameras and secret courts for bees, I doubt that sort of silliness will help, but it may prove popular among Python fans. Perhaps you could form a new ministry for it?
You left out some of that quote, including the clarifying sentence in the middle of the two you quoted, and a meaningful bit at the end:
We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today
And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
JFK wasn't stating there should be no secrets, but that keeping them should be well justified. I don't think his administration published American war plans, nuclear force readiness reports, or the encryption keys for military and diplomatic communications, for example.
Too many people here are distorting history and mangling quotes to try to justify the extremist position that government should have no secrets. That is dangerous nonsense. Good democratic government should be transparent, but that doesn't mean that every citizen gets to see everything. Some things should be limited to the legislature or parliament, and even then perhaps to only specific designated members.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Thomas Jefferson was an American revolutionary. While you seem very keen on spilling the blood of patriots and tyrants, you aren't really addressing the real issue. In fact, as far as I recall you just completely ignore or try to assume it away every time it comes up. The problem involves this lot, and their brethren:
They have been actively plotting attacks, and used other means as well, to try to force their way of life on ordinary Britons. There have been many arrests and convictions in the UK as a result. A sample:
Some of those cretins are quite willing to spill not just the blood of patriots and tyrants, but the blood of innocents as well. This has been amply demonstrated in Russia, Afghanistan, and other places.
Although you may think it wrong, the surveillance by GCHQ is a meaningful part of the security services efforts to protect ordinary Britons. You don't offer anything to replace it.
Waving your hands and saying no system is perfect isn't helpful. Polemics against the monarchy in a story on the UK are misplaced, and overthrowing the monarchy does nothing to protect Britons. What would you do to replace the surveillance to keep British subjects from harm? If your answer is something along the lines of, "Don't cause offense to the rest of the world. Pull back into a shell." then you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the problem. The ideology of the extremists is an aggressive one; they mean to take over the world even if it takes 1,000 years. So we come to the question again: what would you do to prevent British schools and football stadiums from being drenched in blood, besides advocating the overthrow of the monarchy, which is in no way helpful at all?
If you think Obama is a D I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in, what we have is simply Bush's third and fourth term which is how those at the top wanted it to go.
I can't agree with that, and here's why. Obama has largely continued Bush's national security policies, and in some cases expanded them, but in terms of economic and social policy has gone in a very different direction than the Bush administration. In that regard I don't think Obama has done anything really different than FDR or Truman would have done. No major party wants to be the one that gets large numbers of voters killed by an enemy, or terrorists. They can't really blame that on the other party even if they wanted to, so that is likely to turn out badly for them at the polls. I don't think you could seriously suggest that the Bush administration wouldn't have defended DOMA in court, or that Bush would have signed some of the economic regulation bills into law that Obama passed, and plenty of other things. [ Well, maybe he would have - Bush didn't use the veto pen much, but I think it is much less likely he would have supported some of the things that Obama did. At the very least there would have been a lot more signing statements.;) ]
Slashdot Mirror
That said, the better question is -- are we willing to allow the government to change its relationship with us, the citizens, and if so, what will be the new boundaries for such a change?
I think that question is in the process of being answered.
Linchpin for Obama’s plan to predict future leakers unproven
PRUDEN: Obamacare called ‘The fiasco for the ages’
LOL, I think you're an optimist. Awk! I've sed too much already. Look! Perl!
The 2nd amendment is because we didn't have a standing military at the time,
That is false two respect. First, the US Army as a force in being predates the Constitution, which is where the 2nd Amendment is found.
The U.S. Army as a permanent institution began on 3 June 1784, when the Confederation Congress approved a resolution to establish a regiment of 700 officers and men. Intended as a force to assert federal authority in the Ohio River Valley, the regiment deployed at a string of posts along the Ohio where it functioned as a frontier constabulary during the last years of the Articles of Confederation era.
Congress adopted this tiny force after the reorganization of the government under the Constitution in 1789. Responding to the outbreak of Indian war in the Old Northwest—and especially to St. Clair's defeat in 1791, the worst setback at Indian hands in the army's history—the government expanded the military establishment to over 5,000 in 1792. Organized as the “American Legion” and commanded by Maj. Gen. Anthony Wayne, the army defeated the northwestern tribes at Fallen Timbers in 1794. During the same year, in response to European threats, the government launched a program of seacoast fortifications and added a corps of artillerists and engineers to build and man them. -- more
Second, the 2nd Amendment rights were not intended to be time limited.
II. A Permanent Right
Some people suggest the justification clause provides a built-in expiration date for the right. So long as a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (or so long as the right to keep and bear arms contributes to a well-regulated militia, or so long as the militia is in fact well-regulated), the argument goes, the people have a right to keep and bear arms; but once the circumstances change and the necessity disappears, so does the right. 12
This reading seems at odds with the text: The Amendment doesn't say "so long as a militia is necessary"; it says "being necessary." Such a locution usually means the speaker is giving a justification for his command, not limiting its duration. 13 If anything, it might require the courts to operate on the assumption that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, since that's what the justification clause asserts. 14
--------
Having those firearms at that time served a legitimate need.
They still do. Besides, whether you recognize it or not, if you are an American man you have almost certainly been a part of the militia.
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
--------
Nice to see that you're pretty much completely ignorant of the reasons behind the 2nd amendment.
If I have more to learn I don't think you have anything to teach. What you "know" about the matter seems to be wrong.
The second amendment isn't ultimately about hunting. It is about the final defense of the American people against tyranny, whether from home or abroad.
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. --- Noah Webster
The Swiss have that figured out as well.
In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. Let's begin with the rifle in every home combined with the Alpine terrain. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite. Some governments surrendered to Hitler without resistance based on the decision of a king or dictator; this was institutionally impossible in Switzerland. If an ordinary Swiss citizen was told that the Federal President--a relatively powerless official--had surrendered the country, the citizen might not even know the president's name, and would have held any "surrender" order in contempt. -- Dr. Stephen P. Halbrook
A mile is 8 furlongs and a gallon is 8 pints. So this car can do 262 furlongs per pint. That's quite an achievement considering it's mass is 125 stones.
But don't exclude the performance figures! It will do 266,112 furlongs per fortnight. Not too shabby for what it is.
People responsible for crafting laws should be penalized for poor and vague wording.
Even if it was unintentionally vague (I suspect it is frequently intentional, too).
They are subject to public ridicule, having their law overturned in court, and being tossed out of office by voters. If they go for the gold they could be caught up in corruption charges. Of course a politician being a disgrace doesn't really seem to matter to some voters. These two still seem to find enthusiastic audiences.
Lupica: Sleazy New York politicians Spitzer, Weiner just refuse to stay away
Endgame: New poll shows Anthony Weiner leading in race for NYC mayor
Yes, but by the same token you don't need to have corruption for idiocy to occur either. People make mistakes, but due consideration can help reduce them. That is why the current trend of the US Congress passing 2,000 page bills without giving members of Congress a chance to read and digest them before a vote is such an appallingly bad idea. These bills are often being changed up until the last moment and written with the help of outsiders. There is no way that anybody can read them, there is no way that anybody can understand them and consider the consequences. I think it is exceedingly dangerous to democracy, liberty, transparency, and good government.
I thought everything that government did was well planned and orchestrated, directed by the corporations that own everything, including politicians. Next thing you know, somebody will challenge the idea of the all powerful military-industrial complex that has had its share of resources in the US budget reduced from 38% of GDP in 1945 to ~ 4-5% today. That is crazy talk.
Obamacare was written by members of the Democratic party with assistance from the progressive think tank, the Center for American Progress.
Center For American Progress President Shares Part In Obamacare: "I Helped Write The Bill"
The Heritage Foundation did at one point have a plan for a vaguely similar idea, but it differed significantly in important details, and they eventually concluded it was the wrong path to take. You can find details here: ObamaCare's Heritage
Once again we have Anachragnome posting his crackpot conspiracy theories about me. If you bothered reading his post above and find it persuasive, then you should read this post of his, and note this line:
This is East Germany, all over again--the NSA literally has us spying on each other, inadvertently or not.
Anachragnome seems to think that everyone is spying for the NSA. Who is it doing all this mutual spying? If you stop and think for even a moment you realize that the idea is nonsense. But it does play into his fear inducing agenda, including attempts to make people suspicious and fear me. He is engaging in the very same sort of behavior he is complaining about. By spreading fear he hopes to control people, to stamp out opinions he finds disagreeable, and control discussions. Ask yourself - are you living in fear? I don't. And yet he seems to want you to. Why?
Anachragnome seems to find great significance, even to the point of it being evidence that I am a government agent, that I have a different viewpoint, a minority viewpoint among the population of posters on Slashdot. For some reason he can't accept that different viewpoints don't constitute a conspiracy. What is the purpose of having civil rights if we all have to believe the same thing? I thought that was what fascism was about.
Further evidence that his claims are nonsense is the fact that he thinks that I am both an NSA plant and that I have multiple accounts named with a common theme, no doubt including the recently created troll accounts that have been trying to harass me of late (coid fjord, and co1d fjord). That would seem to be pretty pathetic tradecraft if that were the case. His view is just another sad example of a crank seeing a pattern in the noise that doesn't really exist, and thinking it significant. Go ahead and read from the two troll accounts. I don't think you'll find much evidence to support Anachragnome's nonsense view. (If you think you have, read more of the thread and check UIDs.)
Apparently the only people that disagree with him are spies. Bow to his power, or you may be branded a "shill" and "forum breaker." Submit to his fear. He expects you to inform on each other. Obey him, or you may be branded a traitor too.
Or maybe he is just a crank full of suspicion and fear that should be ignored. Take your pick.
You apparently aren't really reflecting on what he is actually saying in context.
If that were really true, the US probably wouldn't be one of the most litigious societies in the world, including many ridiculous lawsuits.
But this isn't new shit for us Brits - we've been getting bombed and "terrorised" in our colonies and home country for decades now.
So if that is the case, then why is the British government doing something about it? That is what this whole thread is about, isn't it? The British government has taken action to protect British lives and some people object to that action. Although you show contempt for members of Parliament, you don't limit it to the question of this policy, so I assume it is a general conempt. I also note that there don't seem to be any attacks on the post up thread that is in essence calling for the overthrow of the monarchy. And the basis for your objection to my views is apparently that you disagree with my thinking that British lives should be protected? And you sweeten the pot with some anti-American trolls? It seems to me that you are the one with his knickers in a twist about something. And maybe some hint as to why can be found in your statement, "You certainly won't turn us against any of our friends who happen to be of different faiths..." Well, that's it then. You apparently have no loyalty to the Crown, contempt for the government, hate for America, indifference to the slaughter of your fellow Britons, and love for your Muslim friends regardless if they are innocent, or terrorists. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought yourself a "British patriot."
It appears to me that I can say with less irony than you, God save the Queen, and let's have Jerusalem.
Then it seems to me that your problem is with the democratic process and the ability of the government to hold the security services accountable.
If you hold that view I hope you aren't a fan of the NHS: Yes, I trust the government to put its hands into my bowels and move things around, maybe take out this or that, and put something in, or to pump me full of toxic chemicals and irradiate me, but I in no way trust them to keep me from being blown up.
The most oppressive and dangerous dystopia inhabited by most people here is the one between their ears.
I'm surprised you are aiming so low. I would have thought you could have at least shot for the Federal Republic of Germany if you are going the German route.
So, exactly which countries are you thinking about for revolution?
I think this is a splendid example of the fringe thinking you keep posting.
Should we come after you as well? Surely you have commited the very same thoughtcrime as the most likely innocent muslims you call terrorists.
I'm not interested in "thought crime." I'm interested in preventing bombings, shootings, beheadings, poisonings, hijackings, and various other assorted crimes that occur outside of people's heads. The people that commit those crimes aren't "innocent," although they are innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think much of anyone is interested in creating a police state in the US or UK. By the same token I don't think the US or UK can reasonably be called a police state at the moment. If you do, then show evidence, not just declare it to be so.
It isn't that would-be terrorists in the US and UK are non-existent or lazy, but that they keep getting arrested before they can conduct a meaningful attack. Effective intelligence and police work is keeping the problem largely under control. That can change, and you seem unconcerned about it. Your view seems to be: "Die well my fellow countrymen" so long as no government minion passes near your phone number (which is public information).
A predictable answer, and completely wrong. You obviously have no idea what al Qaida and the like minded want. Ultimately what they want isn't so much the US, UK, Europe, et. al, out of the Middle East, but rather that the US, UK, Europe and the rest of the world to convert to Islam and be governed by Sharia law. Do you understand that? They want to revive the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved in 1923 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, change the governments in Muslim countries to rule according to their strict interpretation of Sharia law, and finish the conquest of the rest of the world for Islam.
Their grievance doesn't go back to simply 1923, but to 1683 and the Battle of Vienna, in which Europe repelled the last Muslim invasion. The Palestinian terrorist group Hamas teaches the children that they need to retake Spain for the glory of Islam.
Their aggression is unrelated to anything done in the last century. It is based on their understanding of Islam. This problem won't go away soon.
I think you've made it quite clear in the past that you are indifferent to the prospect of the mass slaughter of your fellow citizens, and you aren't alone in that regard. You don't really have much to offer in the discussion other than the hope that they will die well, and that no minion of the government pass near your phone number. Most other people in society are able to make more nuanced judgments about what the government might do that has no meaningful impact on personal liberty.
Might as well reopen the Star Chamber while they're at it.
No, I don't think you want that, and the The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is clearly not the Star Chamber .
The Star Chamber tried British subjects, powerful ones that might otherwise escape justice at the beginning. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is essentially a complaint resolution mechanism for complaints regarding government actions.
If you dislike the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a new Star Chamber would be far worse since it could come after you.
Yes, the problem is that random accidents and animal attacks are different than deliberate human actions.
Part of the reason that terrorism is under control in the UK, is that the authorities are taking reasonably effective action. You can tell that from the stream of arrests and convections on terrorism related offenses.
If you get this wrong it is easy for the numbers to change quickly. 9/11 - 2,973 dead. 7/7 - 52 dead. Bali - 202 dead. Madrid - 191 dead, 1841 wounded.
In Iraq they were suffering multiple attacks per week of this sort at times.
It would be unwise to grow complacent since the extremists won't be changing their minds, or giving up soon.
As for cameras and secret courts for bees, I doubt that sort of silliness will help, but it may prove popular among Python fans. Perhaps you could form a new ministry for it?
If you read the complete original quote it is clear that his meaning was more nuanced than it appears in those selected lines.
You left out some of that quote, including the clarifying sentence in the middle of the two you quoted, and a meaningful bit at the end:
We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today
And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
JFK wasn't stating there should be no secrets, but that keeping them should be well justified. I don't think his administration published American war plans, nuclear force readiness reports, or the encryption keys for military and diplomatic communications, for example.
Too many people here are distorting history and mangling quotes to try to justify the extremist position that government should have no secrets. That is dangerous nonsense. Good democratic government should be transparent, but that doesn't mean that every citizen gets to see everything. Some things should be limited to the legislature or parliament, and even then perhaps to only specific designated members.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Thomas Jefferson was an American revolutionary. While you seem very keen on spilling the blood of patriots and tyrants, you aren't really addressing the real issue. In fact, as far as I recall you just completely ignore or try to assume it away every time it comes up. The problem involves this lot, and their brethren:
At Least 4,000 Suspected of Terrorism-Related Activity in Britain, MI5 Director Says
Muslim Gangs Enforce Sharia Law in London
They have been actively plotting attacks, and used other means as well, to try to force their way of life on ordinary Britons. There have been many arrests and convictions in the UK as a result. A sample:
Bomb plot: Life sentence for Irfan Naseer, ringleader of Birmingham men planning wave of UK suicide attacks
London terror bomb plot: the four terrorists
7/7 London Attacks
Some of those cretins are quite willing to spill not just the blood of patriots and tyrants, but the blood of innocents as well. This has been amply demonstrated in Russia, Afghanistan, and other places.
Russia school siege toll tops 350
Acid attacks, poison: What Afghan girls risk by going to school
Although you may think it wrong, the surveillance by GCHQ is a meaningful part of the security services efforts to protect ordinary Britons. You don't offer anything to replace it.
Waving your hands and saying no system is perfect isn't helpful. Polemics against the monarchy in a story on the UK are misplaced, and overthrowing the monarchy does nothing to protect Britons. What would you do to replace the surveillance to keep British subjects from harm? If your answer is something along the lines of, "Don't cause offense to the rest of the world. Pull back into a shell." then you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the problem. The ideology of the extremists is an aggressive one; they mean to take over the world even if it takes 1,000 years. So we come to the question again: what would you do to prevent British schools and football stadiums from being drenched in blood, besides advocating the overthrow of the monarchy, which is in no way helpful at all?
If you think Obama is a D I have some swampland in Florida you might be interested in, what we have is simply Bush's third and fourth term which is how those at the top wanted it to go.
I can't agree with that, and here's why. Obama has largely continued Bush's national security policies, and in some cases expanded them, but in terms of economic and social policy has gone in a very different direction than the Bush administration. In that regard I don't think Obama has done anything really different than FDR or Truman would have done. No major party wants to be the one that gets large numbers of voters killed by an enemy, or terrorists. They can't really blame that on the other party even if they wanted to, so that is likely to turn out badly for them at the polls. I don't think you could seriously suggest that the Bush administration wouldn't have defended DOMA in court, or that Bush would have signed some of the economic regulation bills into law that Obama passed, and plenty of other things. [ Well, maybe he would have - Bush didn't use the veto pen much, but I think it is much less likely he would have supported some of the things that Obama did. At the very least there would have been a lot more signing statements. ;) ]