CNN Talks WIth ACLU Tech Maven Barry Steinhardt 181
muon1183 writes " CNN interviews Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU's cyberchief and former staff laywer for the EFF. Steinhardt speaks on his concerns about current and upcoming legislation and its impacts on your civil liberties. It's good that this is finally making the mainstream media."
We'll see... (Score:2)
Re:Helping the Klan is a "liberal cause"? (Score:1)
Could be good (Score:2)
Re:Could be good (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as people are not willing to sacrifice fundamental liberties for a temporary sense of safety...
They are. Welcome to the real world. In my experience, most people long for safety and stability, not liberty and truth. I would be more than delighted to be proven wrong, though.
Re:Could be good (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people do long for safety and stability. The problem is that safety and stability are a natural consequence of of liberty and truth but no one notices. The world has huge amounts of liberty and truth and is a very safe place to be. Crossing the road is still the most dangerous thing you are likely to do even with all the wars, despots and terrorists. The sense of proportion gets lost at times like this however, which is how these worring laws get passed. If every 'Man killed by terrorist' report came along with the millions of 'Man has entirely trouble free day' reports that could also me true at that point, then maybe we wouldn't panic so much.
Re:Could be good (Score:1, Insightful)
But I bet you hop in your c
Re:Could be good (Score:1)
Re:Could be good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could be good (Score:2)
Re:Could be good (Score:3, Informative)
ACLU's Efforts (Score:5, Informative)
Here's more info about ACLU's campaign to challenge new security laws, called Keep America Safe and Free [aclu.org]
It's interesting to note their views that in order to keep America safe, you do not necessarily have to take away freedom.
More info about the controversial PATRIOT ACT [aclu.org].
Best of luck to him!
Re:ACLU's Efforts (Score:2)
Re:ACLU's Efforts (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:ACLU's Efforts (Score:2, Insightful)
I've yet to ever hear of such a thing. I am a firm believer that the gov't has no business in religion and vice versa and such a thing should also not be permitted. There is one subtle difference here though: the spirit of the first amendment is, in a nutshell, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Popular speech does not need protecting. Nobody will hit me or punish me for waving an
Re:ACLU's Efforts (Score:2)
Here. [aclu.org] And here. [tulane.edu]
You're right, I couldn't name one. I could name two though.
Re:ACLU's Efforts (Score:2)
Re:ACLU's Efforts...... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:ACLU's Efforts...... (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't support NAMBLA's activities or endorse the content of their message, just their right to actually hold and advocate an unpopular view in public. An actual link to their statement on NAMBLA is here [aclu.org]. I'm a straight married male with a young son. The prospect of someone's actually doing something bad to him someday horrifies me. I am disgusted by NAMBLA. But they have a fundamental right to their view and message, however unpopular or disgusting.
The ACLU defends groups and activities on all sides of the political spectrum. They have defended the American Nazi Party, NAMBLA, peace protestors, evangelical churches, and Ollie North. They stand for a principle, not a slice of the political spectrum, and they are consistent in that.
And in these times, we need the ACLU more than ever. It looks like nobody else is really interested in standing up for the Constitution - including the government.
Re:ACLU's Efforts...... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the difference between their interpretation and the intended one is in the wording "the people". If the second ammendment was intended to allow only the government to have guns it should read "The People".
Re:ACLU's Efforts...... (Score:2)
The best suggestion I've read is that they don't waste resources on that one (time, money, etc.) because there's already another high profile, well funded group that does just that -- the NRA.
Why should the ACLU waste time and money on that Ammendment when the NRA already fights for it?
Re:ACLU's Efforts...... (Score:2)
Re:ACLU's Efforts...... (Score:2)
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms.
Re:evangelical churches (Score:2)
The "default" IS the absense of religion. Can you imagine how it would be if the default religion was Satanism?
Re:evangelical churches (Score:2)
A christian couple ran a pop and mom copycenter.
Now a nigger came in and copied some nigger stuff.
They had already accepted payment when they saw what it was, so they finished the transaction and then kindly asked the nigger to not come in their store in the future.
There were two other copycenters in the same street, bothe less than 1 KM both ways.
Yet the ACLU sued.
Now this witch wasn't dependent on this particular center, they had
Re:evangelical churches (Score:2)
The ACLU is all against school prayer and for the removing of "under God" in the constitution.
And that is not Liberty.
What if the Pledge of Allegiance said "under Allah", "under Zeus", or "under Satan"? Suddenly, I imagine that your idea of liberty is to remove those phrases. But then what of the liberty of Muslims and Satanists?
If the Pledge of Allegiance made to reference to God, that is not the same thing as saying "God is dead". If you wrote a post on Slashdot that did not include the phrase "under
Re:ACLU's Efforts...... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ACLU's Efforts...... (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, I haven't been to the NAMBLA site until just now (in order to see if they were offering what you described) and I saw nothing there to back up your claim. I (and obviously
Now the pro bill campaigners will come (Score:3, Insightful)
Mighty nice petard you've got there Senator. (Score:5, Funny)
Serious Question (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?
It certainly doesn't bother me.
What the arguments?
Why should I be worried?
I'm quite willing to change my mind!
Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
Re:Serious Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)
People like to do strange things, and they might not want other people to know about them. If the things are legal, then they have the right to keep them private.
Although most people don't demmand privacy like this - it's important that we all have a basic level of privacy so that when we do want it we don't have to be suspected of being up to something for asking for it.
Also, there is a fear that the information could be used for something it isn't meant to use for, and that people should not be exposed to this risk if they have done nothing wrong.
I agree with you a bit - but I think that people have a right to privacy if that is what they want. With mass surveillance, people can't choose.
Re:Serious Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Serious Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)
What, you say? All of those examples are still about hiding things? I thought I said I had nothing to hide!
IMHO, there's a huge difference between having "something to hide" from an FBI investigation -- i.e., committing a crime -- and maintaining your privacy. You don't want everyone to know that you pick your nose and eat it, so when you send a letter to your psycologist about your "problem", you should be allowed and able to protect that message with encryption.
And, of course, if you're transmitting other types of secrets, namely trade secrets for your company, you should be able to encrypt that as well.
Now, you may still ask, so what if the government can view those messages, as long as "real people" can't? My answer to that is that the government is made of "real people" too, and I don't want any old FBI agent to know about me picking my nose. Extend that analogy as necessary for different levels of "secrets", as well as different levels of paranoia about how Big Brother will stretch any information about you to fit His purposes.
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
Re:Serious Question (Score:1)
A question of spirit and implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to the real world. Lawmakers, authorities etc are people, not ideal machines. Suppose there was somebody in FBI who hated you and your family, just imagine what all could he do if he had information about your whole life....Or a more grimmer scenario... Somebody in the police wants to harm you.... some govt employee who has acess to this database desparately needs money... so if you are rich enough he
Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Fast forward a little way and a leaked memo appeared, asking party machinery (just the Labour party here) to get details on her, and see if she was working with the opposition in order to discredit her.
This is the nub of it, a lot of people have stuff to hide. It might not even be anythign that is a crime, but purely something that you are ashamed of, or might affect how other people see you (which, in this day and age, can be pretty much anything). It basically is a useful tool to settle personal scores, and to stop people from exercising their rights to loudly question their political masters.
Now, I'm not saying this WILL occur, but it certainly can. They can neuter your ability to effectively say anything about the government.
And that's not even going all the way.
Re:Serious Question (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm interested as to why someone who has "nothing to hide" should be worried about mass surveillance by their government?
Ask yourself what you do every day.
Then ask yourself if, seriously, everything that you do and which you consider "nothing to hide" is also something that every potentially powerful religious political group or other self-appointed "guardian of public morality" would also consider "nothing to hide."
If we lived in a utopian society where individualism was respted, where victimless crimes were just considered poor judgement but nothing to bring charges on, and where moral judgements were considered private opinions and not a reason for censure or imprisionment, then a university surveillance society (e.g. like what's depicted in Robert J. Sawyers' Hominids and Humans) could actually be a good thing. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people are lining up to condemn others for wrong thinking, where people can't wait to limit each other's freedoms in the name of morality and other arbitrary reasons.
Are you a homosexual? Do you read any pornographic magazines? Heck, do you look at lingeire catalogs? Do you ever drink alcohol before noon? Do you ever masturbate? Do you ever post to "hacker" message boards like Slashdot? Do you read opinions online critical of the government? Critical of the RIAA? Do you believe that Islam may be at it's core a pecaeful religion? Worse, are you a muslim? Are you an atheist? Do you ever send personal E-mail while at work? Do you ever look at sports scores or other personal sites while at work? How about when you're telecommunting from home?
There are so many various groups with strong opinions about other people's personal morality who have a lot of political influence in this country that I simply do not trust society with universal surveillance capabilities. If we really did respect individual freedom as much as we claim to, then no problem. In the mean time, when we've got things like the DMCA and the philosophy behind it, and when it's a struggle to get anti-homosexual-sex laws stricken from the books, a universal surveillance society will turn this country into a totalitarian state. Nearly everybody has something to hide. Even if you don't really, even if you don't do anything you're embarassed about and if you don't do anything to hurt anybody, there is probably some sort of fundamentalist group out there with a lot of sympathy and ability to get somebody elected who does think you ought to hide it. The easier it is for them to track down the people like you doing these "immoral" things you didn't think you had to hide, the more likely you are, in the best case, to check your own behavior-- behavior you would otherwise have thought innocuous. (And in the worst case, you'd be brought up on charges for it.)
-Rob
The Government is made up of people, just like you (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.
It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.
Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any gov
Re:The Government is made up of people, Ya Think! (Score:2, Funny)
The civil servants are regular folks. The Elected Officials are the Ruling Bosses, who have been known (at times) to try controlling the future by sometimes questionable actions. However, as long as they are the Ruling Bosses there will be no questions [HEIL ______ (fill in the blank)].
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Re:The Government is made up of people, just like (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft buys some (more) politicians and gets a law passed saying that emulated gaming is illegal. This means that people who write emulators are criminals, and those associated with them ought to be 'watched'.
You get an FBI phone tap.
Why? In your slashdot 'fans' list is one 'rtaylor', who has links to WineX on his website.
You see, you've done nothing wrong, and yet 'they're watching you'! This is sounds like a pretty extreme example, but this sort of thing is entirely possib
Re:The Government is made up of people, just like (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, but I really think people are getting a little paranoid here.
But in a free society, shouldn't people have the right to be paranoid? The right to free speech includes anonymous speech, and the right NOT to speak out.
Life is not so "black and white" or "right and wrong" with respect to privacy. Say I'm a licensed, professional engineering. My company is committing illegal actions violating environmental standards, and endangering the welfare of the local population. If my free speech were truly protected, then blowing the whistle would be consequence free. But anyone knows that companies have something to hide, and that employees who violate that "corporate wall of silence" find it harder to get a job with another employer. Thus, anonymous speech could be used, if I wanted to protect my career. What if the company I worked for had influence politically -- and with our current law and mind frame....i could be considered a terrorist.
Every employee that forms part of "The Government" is a person just like you or me; they go home at night to their families; and have a private life - just like anybody else.
That argument alone isn't enough for me. Kennith Lay was a person "just like me" -- he went home every night to his home and family. But the big difference is Kennith Lay got rich off putting 42,000 american familes out of work. Misuse isn't a "hypothetical situation" its a standard operating procedure. Wouldn't you misuse it? What if the "security benifits" outweighed the "costs". Besides, no one's going to find out about it. And after they realized we prevented Sept. 11th 2: The Sequel, they wouldn't question our methods. The ends will justify the means for the public.
It is in their interest to protect their private life just as much (if not more so!) as you or me.
Or divert the watchful eye's attention on to someone else's. Remember, in 1984 all the party members could turn off their telescreens.
Even the (President | Prime Minister) if they were to leave office would be as subject to any government surveillance as anybody else.
If everyone were equal under the law, George W. Bush would have to take the bus and would never have come to power. His "youthful indiscretions" were D.U.Is at age 29. Police Officers found him driving on the shoulder of the road! Now he gets to send other families' kids off to die, having never fought in a war himself (He dodged the draft by joining the national guard back during Nam.)
If the NSA employee could discover something about you in the future and use it against you; well that's a bummer; but there is just as much chance of something being found and used against that NSA employee.
Again, more motivation to find dirt on other people. Get results, and they won't be looking for fault on the inside. There are plenty of patsy's in the american public.
I think I trust my Government. They're elected after all;
Not in my country, buddy. Stupid Florida.
the big caveat being that the majority of what is the "Government" is the civil service; which of course does not change with elections. I'm sure "Yes Prime Minister" has been seen outside the UK.
Even Civil Servants fall in love, and have cats and dogs as pets.
Plenty of people who've done horrible, horrible things were animal lovers or some such drek. Hitler was a strict vegetarian. G.W. Bush Jr reads scripture every day in the morning, even when he was executing retarded people as the Governor of Texas.
We've also had the secret police in western countries for years; and probably still have departments that are "even more secret than the secret ones that we know about"; but so what.
So why should I just sit there and let a soulless organization be funded with my money to work against me and deny me the very freedoms I'm supposedly paying them to "protect"? Are YOU being served?
I think people need to chill out a bit.
I think you need to graduate High School, go to college, maybe stop watching "Yes Prime Minister" and look at how dreadfully dangerous your government IS. Not "will be" or "can be", but IS.
Re:The Government is made up of people, just like (Score:1)
Re:The Government is made up of people, just like (Score:2)
Have you meet many government employees? My wife's family is filled with them. They're mostly part of a good ol' boys network (primarily it's the law enforcement organizations like this) and you do NOT get in the door unless you know someone or think/act just like the rest of them. People who have ever done anything with their life that shows the least bit of individuality or fun do NOT get these jobs. People that have m
Be afraid of Big Brother (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Read 1984, and find out what happens to people with nothing to hide
2) Read about Stalin and what happened to people with nothing to hide
3) Read about Nixon and what he wanted to do to people with nothing to hide.
Nothing to hide is NOT the same as agreeing with the goverment.
Re:Serious Question (Score:1, Informative)
1. Drove 65mph in a 55mph zone.
2. Spanked my daughter...just one swat on the bottom.
3. Had anal with the wife.
4. Didn't go to church.
5. Surfed the web at work on company time.
I like my privacy. It allows me to stay get to work faster, raise my kid as I see fit, do my wife in the ass, not worry about how the neighbors feel about my religous beliefs,
"I like my privacy" (Score:1)
Re:Serious Question (Score:2, Insightful)
Just like one poster said, that 'real people' are the government and data can be abused. Someone like McCarthy can show up at any time, especially in times like this, and scare the puplic. Then watch your seeming innocent 'data' be used against you.
I don't care how much some people claim they have nothing to hide! There is 'always' something you don't want people to know. ALWAYS!!
There have also been recent cases of 'gover
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
Because you are not an US citizen, and the government surveilling you is not your government.
Because you are an US citizen, and has realized that maybe other governments have technology that can do surveillance.
Re:Serious Question (Score:1)
"Nothing to hide"???
Then you won't mind if mandatory searches are done in your house every month by a group of government appointed "concerned citizens".
Neither should you mind if your next workplace will be able to access genetic, political and sexual histories in order to better profile you. Why would they waste time on someone less than perfect? Why should they believe you if they can check you up using a hypothetical Information Transparency Act?
Your insurance company would like to know how
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
Because what guarantees you that some bureaucrat who gets peeved by something legal you do decides to make your day??? Seeing someone being cuffed and booked simply for wearing a tee-shirt that said "FUCK YOU" in Hampton Beach (NH) neatly drove home that point in my case. Or how about being arrested for wearing a " Give peace a chance " tee-shirt [kuro5hin.org]???
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
I accept universal surveillance as long as I get equal powers of surveillance on those looking at me.
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
There are hundreds of abuses of wiretap privileges by the FBI per year. Are they to catch crooks? No, FBI agents use them to spy on their spouses, or even worse, to spy on companies for insider trading purposes (just last year I recall two FBI agents getting arrested for that). It is a classic case of "who watches the watchers"... If you want more examples, take a look at the recently
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
Well, at elast the SEC's watching the watchers :)
I've traditionally opposed the traditional government model of setting up multiple bureaucracies with overlapping ar
Re:Serious Question (Score:1)
One answer: this essay on why privacy is a right (Score:2)
Why is privacy a basic, fundamental right?
here is a scenario (Score:2)
"Dood, you gotta see Boom. I just downloaded it. It fuckin kills. It's the bomb."
that would trigger a flag in a system somewhere, he would suddenly become suspect. they could then check his library records, find out that the had checked out "the anarchist's cookbook" (in order to get drug-making recipes). He is now a possible terrorist. The power they have to 'dissappear' hi
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
Because politicians, law enforcment officials, etc. often have agendas. Whether it is simply getting re-elected, getting legislation passed for Disney, or "making peace" with black market criminals, government employees are human and will act like it. They are both in positions of power and in positions of conflict of interest (think of our administration's stock portfolio, for exampl
Re:Serious Question (Score:2)
If you have nothing to hide, "Boss, Pointy Haired", then why do you post on Slashdot using a pseudonym? Please post your full name, email address, home address, and telephone number. The CIA and FBI would like to talk with you. You have nothing to hide, after all..
Your question is flawed. (Score:2)
However, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on those who seek to limit the freedom and rights of others. So, in this example, the government is seeking to obtain information about individuals that those individuals may not wish to be public. It is up to the government to demonstrate why this is necessary. It can't be just a little convincinig either, it needs to
Hypocrisy?? (Score:2)
Re:Hypocrisy?? (Score:2)
This...
Perhaps if the government gave use equal ability of spy on them, by re-instating the suspended Freedom of Information Act, then I might take them, a little more seriously.
was supposed to be...
Perhaps if the government gave us equal ability to spy on them or at least reenstate the suspended Freedom of Information Act then I might take them a little more seriously.
Eh. Typical mainsteam press, almost content-free (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not as down on the likelihood of winning as Steinhardt is. Cryptography remains essentially unsolvable in bulk.
Unfortunatley, the borderless nature of much technology means there's a scary point to be made that while the next ten years of surveilance technology is unlikely to be all that useful against sophisticated terrorist, it'll be perfectly effective against broke domestic dissidents.
Wired Interview with Barry (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a longer interview with Barry from Wired [wired.com]
They also have some nice information on 'Carnivore' [wired.com] and 'Magic Lantern' [wired.com], spy technologies that the FBI is using on Americans.
Scary stuff.
How George W protects his online rights... (Score:3, Interesting)
He Hosts under a UK IP Block! The Whitehouse [whitehouse.gov] is hosted Here! [netcraft.com]
Looks like Georgie Boy is looking for an exit plan
Duuuuuuh!!!! (Score:2)
Re:How George W protects his online rights... (Score:1)
In 3 months of telling people this you are the first to actually point out the issue. Thank god for that.
I'm trolling here (Score:1)
I've been flipping back and forth between this cnn and fox chic in Aman Jordan for my main stream media.
A little late (Score:1, Insightful)
Good but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I get the impression that the mainstream media is scared of the internet. I wonder if part of it due to changes in how we get our information. In the old days, we turned the TV to 1 of 3 or 4 channels and that was about it. Today, we can use search engines and countless news sites instead. So, the mainstream media feels threatened by the internet as it reduces their influence as well as their revenues.
I got the impression by how some journalist report their discoveries in a local channels expose on the internet. I remember one article where this journalist was inquiring about cookies websites leave behind and the information others can potentially garner from them. Her reaction was of shock! Her response was that a hapless computer user was totally helpless (no mention of turning off cookies for example) unless the government steps in and starts regulating cookies. As a result of this news article, I got the impression that the journalist was more afraid of the internet than anything else.
Re:Good but.... (Score:1)
You bet they are. It isn't easy going from a total monopoly on information flow to this.
Now: their droning, commercial-filled vacuousness drowning in a two (three,
Just one of the reasons the 'net, specifically freedom of expression on the 'net, is one thing we should al
GPS phones not needed for tracking (Score:3, Interesting)
If Steinhardt were to upgrade to a device with global-positioning capabilities, investigators might even track his whereabouts.
Mr. Steinhart is being tracked right now; he doesn't have to upgrade anything.
While your mobile phone is active it will connect with the nearest base station. As you move, it will change base stations. By tracking the base stations you use, you can get a quite nice plot of how you move around. This can be done using todays tech and you don't have to use the phone; just leave it on.
Today the resolution is somewhat lacking, but there are technologies that help. The mobile tech of tomorrow will use smaller cells, providing a finer tracking resolution.
Why You Should Use Encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I mean you. And not just you computer geeks. Your mom should be using encryption too.
Another page of interest is Is This the America I Love? [goingware.com]
Thank you for your attention.
Re:Why You Should Use Encryption (Score:2)
2nd amendment (Score:1, Troll)
Re:2nd amendment (Score:2)
Re:2nd amendment (Score:1)
I used to support the ACLU. In fact in the past I've support them financially through donations, I've supported them physically by providing my time and labor for their functions, and my girlfriend has even participated in an ACLU internship while in college.
I've always appreciated the stance they take on seperating church and state and of course I support their attempts to protect our 1st admendment rights.
However, I feel, by bla
Re:2nd amendment (Score:2)
Just because the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd the way you'd like, you'll toss aside the work they do for all our other civil liberties?
Rather than waiting for the "perfect" organization that protects all the rights you value to come along magically, why not support the one that covers most of 'em, and work within that organization to change what you don't like?
To have any input, you have to participate....
Re:2nd amendment (Score:2, Insightful)
On reflection, it seems like the ACLU is just not recognizing what you think the 2nd Amendment means. Their position [aclu.org] seems fairly reasonable to me. I would expect a reasonable person would understand their dithering on the second amendment(do we advocate people can own nukes? do we support some 'weapons of mass destruction' exception? if we support an except
Poindexter? (Score:2, Informative)
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episod
Giving the Government too much of a "good" thing (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not saying that this is a good thing. Certainly the governments ability to loo
Can't Resist... (Score:2)
MjM
Osama (Score:1, Flamebait)
Book Banned, What Would ACLU Say? (Score:1, Interesting)
judge has apparently banned a book. I wonder
if the ACLU would regard this as a violation
of the first amendment and what they would
say?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Mar
ACLU often grandstands, ignoring important issues (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Support our troops (Score:3, Insightful)
There will be no end to the war on terror; we will always be fighting it, because it has al
Re:CNN should go off the air and the net (Score:1)
Also I'm not sure what you mean about the education level being so low. I don't think "kids" are as stupid as you say they are.
I'm 21, but I have four younger brothers, as young as 12 years old. They all understand this is nothing like Counter-Strike 2, and they don't hav
media, war (Score:3, Insightful)
I think if more news are like this [etaiwannews.com], with pictures, people might start to half-assedly guess what a war is really like - death and misery.
Anyway - I have been kind of thinking (and hoping) that maybe the war will go off so badly until the US will put a "non-aggressive" clause in the constitution like Germany or Japan. I mean, what do you have to lose from it? just because you have the biggest gun doesn't mean you should wave it
Re:media, war (Score:1)
Afghanistan (?)
Kosovo
Panama
Grenada
Lebanon
Vietnam
Dunno if we've waited for UN permission for much since Korea...
Re:CNN should go off the air and the net (Score:1)
You may not agree with the war and thats fine. You may have issues with CNN, which seems odd cause you sound like a liberal and CN
Re:CNN should go off the air and the net (Score:3)
CNN is actually very conservative in their reporting. Perhaps not as conservative as the Lehrer News Hour, but conservative none-the-less. CNN does little but repeat whatever Ari Fleitcher (et al) is spewing at the moment. Unfortunately, there is no money in providing thought provoking commentary on important issues that do not have the mass appeal that things like war do. So CNN (and Fox and CBS and NBC...) resort to sound bites, flashy images
Re:CNN should go off.. OT.. (-1 Insightful) (Score:2)
This is the sign of the times, where dissent is crushed so easily, may be not with the power of force that we accuse Saddam of using, but it is getting close to that.
Yesterday I saw on TV where the TV station was calling for the firing of a Columbia Univ's anthroplogy professor for hoping for more mogadishu type attacks (in private conversation). It may be very tasteless, but for the TV station calling for
Re:Ahh, the good ole' ACLU (Score:1)
For more clarification on the issue, go read my earlier two responses above. For the record I'm not condoning NAMBLA, but if you took the time to read the facts you wouldn't come off sounding like an ignorant individual.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Re:Ahh, the good ole' ACLU (Score:1)
I'm a male, and I love my reproductive rights. I have the right to don a condom, I have the right to get a vascectomy, I was taught about sex in the public school I attended, when I get older Viagra will be covered by my federal insurance plan, I have the right to have sex with any other conscenting adult. Hell! I have a lot of repoductive rights!
Women on the other hand... well, yes they have a lot of rights,
Re:Ahh, the good ole' ACLU (Score:2)
rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold,
consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of
individuals, including those not then actually a member of any
militia or engaged in active military service or training, to
privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the
pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual
weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by
Miller."
So where am I wrong?