Justice Department Proud of Patriot Act Slippery Slope 1108
frank_adrian314159 writes "Yahoo News is reporting that the DoJ has been using its increased powers under the US PATRIOT Act to pursue common criminals. DoJ Officials have been holding seminars on how to use increased wiretap powers against (non-terrorist) money launderers and drug dealers. One example in the article is the guy running a meth lab who's now up for a life sentence for 'manufacturing chemical weapons' instead of the much shorter sentence he would have been facing under the current drug laws. Wonderful, huh? Who didn't see this coming? Of course, you're a law-abiding citizen, so you have nothing to worry about, right?" Patriot Act II will allow any Federal agent to demand records from anyone who interacts with you, with no judicial oversight whatsoever.
It's a cliche, (Score:2, Insightful)
Print the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
How's the weather up in canda? (Score:2, Insightful)
I Understand Now (Score:5, Insightful)
If I chug enough gasoline, I'll die. Let's put the Oil companies away for 12 years to life! For that matter, drink some bad water from a lake and you'll die. Put the Big Bang away for 12 - life!
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not go after the tobacco companies next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
So why don't they go after the tobacco companies since they're manufacturing substances that meet these criteria? Oh wait, the government gets taxes from the sales of these products, nevermind.
Campaigning by the Executive Branch (Score:5, Insightful)
But that sort of thing can't happen here. (Score:5, Insightful)
1984 was never meant to be a how-to guide.
And everyone loves Republicans right? (Score:2, Insightful)
I want to see some conservatives comment now on how Republicans are "conservative". Republicans want even bigger government than the Democrats. I am tired of this, everytime I read the news paper or watch TV George Bush is asking for more money for stupid shit. Hundreds of billions for building schools and hospitals in Iraq, Billions for Africa, Billions for this and Billions for that as if we have money to just throw into the fire, and then as our so called homeland security, we now spy on each other and use the patriot act as some kinda control against the people?!
I cant understand the logic of these Republicans, they seem to be far from conservative, Republicans seem to want Global Government which scares the shit out of me far more than the big US gov democrats.
Land of the free ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems odd to me that in one of the great democracies, individual freedoms and rights are becoming more and more compromised. The real concern for me is that American culture permeates just about every Western culture. Does this mean that the American legislative way will soon arrive here in New Zealand ? I hope not - but it's interesting to see that Australia seems to be using the USA as a role model recently.
Abuse of "anti-terrror" legislation. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's similar to the recent case un England [bbc.co.uk] where demonstrators at an arms fair were detained using anti-terrorism measures.
I find it ironic that people demonstrating against the sale of weapons, some of the same kind used by terrorists are then arrested using laws designed to reduce terrorism.
Re:I'm Proud Too (Score:2, Insightful)
It was once said... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Benjamin Franklin
If the federal government persists in the behaviours that it has been engaging in lately, all that they'll do is force people who care to either leave the U.S., or to engage in rebellion.
I hope that the courts start thinking with some sanity, and dismiss entirely charges against people, despite their illegal acts, because of the treatment that they're receiving at the hands of law enforcement officials in charges and the like. If someone is doing something illegal, like manufacturing an illicit substance whose creation process is relatively dangerous, they deserve the trouble that they'd get, but they do no deserve to be branded "Terrorist". The DA or police who came up with the charge deserve to be sued for libel.
Re:But that sort of thing can't happen here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh no people will never say anything bad about Bush, because you'll lose your job and be labeled a terrorist if you do.
Lets also reminded the Media is controlled by Mr.Bush, just look at FoxNews, MSNBC, etc.
The police, the media, both controlled by Mr.Bush, so who will you vote for this election?
Be careful, make the wrong choice and someone might think you are a terrorist, a traitor, or unpatriotic, ask Anne Coulter.
Re:And everyone loves Republicans right? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know this, you know this, but the republican turds who think George Bush can do no wrong just because he has an R next to his name cannot see this.
I dont know what the difference is between voting republican or democrat, the only reason I'd vote democrat over republican is because democrats seem to understand the economy, and at least they flat out say "We are going to raise taxes"
I'd rather have my taxes raised to pay for stuff in this country than to pay for stuff in Iraq, Afganastan, Africa, etc.
Re:Chemical WMDs (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that sounds like a blanket law.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine even water is outlawed under this law, after all you can drown from it. Polluted water at least. Nevermind air, which is definately lethal if injected into the bloodstream.
Re:I Understand Now (Score:5, Insightful)
Chalk, WD-40, gasoline, soda, cigarettes, et al have the capability to cause serious injury or death when consumed and to some extent contain toxic chemicals.
Thus this definition is seriously flawed and could be used to arrest people even if they haven't done anything wrong (aside from working for Dow Chemical).
As a CME major, that scares the crap out of me.
People always get... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you discover that your latest rant about your taxes in some neo-fascist political forum gets you a midnight visit from the Feds and afterwards, you are never seen or heard of again, you won't get any sympathy from anyone. You won't deserve any.
One of the few comforting things about the "criminalization of dissent" is the certainty that some people like you will get exactly what you deserve. From a government you're stupid enough to trust.
Just like the old Soviet Union (Score:5, Insightful)
Today, in America, we now say due process and freedom is to be enjoyed by all, except those potential or suspected terrorists. Again, the problem is that our terrorist laws being so written that anyone may be charged under them.
And we now have our very own gulogs to boot. What a fitting description for both Guantanimo bay, and for the military brigg in Virginia where several actual American citizens have been held for close to a year now without any rights whatsoever.
Re:I'm Proud Too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm Proud Too (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you that we need to throw the book at more people (drug dealers, mafia), but I don't advocate throwing out all our old laws that dealt with it, and replacing them with one big "Evil is illegal and subject to death penalty" law.
The Patriot Act (and sequel) is too vague, gives the government powers that are too broad and have no oversight. Don't you remember how Schwarzenegger wiretapped his wife's phones and carried out full surveillance? He had no oversight in that instance. I think we should fix the numerous drug laws, not supersede them all with one vague and broad bill.
I'm worried about the idea that the government can pull up my record of video rentals, phone calls, and library books, and there not being anyone who has to approve of it (like a judge or jury).
Worse, if the FBI came to my place of employment, I would be forced to hand over my pharmacy and health records of any person over to them. They may not have or need a warrant, only a badge. Congress unanimously passed the HIPAA privacy acts for patients, and some guy with a badge can just walk in and take everything without caring about the other laws. How do I know this isnt just some cop who wants to see if his wife has VD?
Re:I'm Proud Too (Score:2, Insightful)
The US legal system was not set up to make it easy to stamp out crime. It was set up to ensure due process, and protect the rights of the accused.
Sentences for the guilty aren't intended to match with your naive and/or hyper-literal application of a legal definition.
As for raising kids...irrelevent.
Lastly, it's every citizen's DUTY to be aware of what government does with regard civil and legal rights. It is also every citizen's duty to challenge any abridgement of those rights.
Re:It's a cliche, (Score:5, Insightful)
America.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm Proud Too (Score:1, Insightful)
Where do you draw the line? Do you count petrol or sawdust as a "chemical weapon of mass destruction" because it is a substance which has the capability to cause death or serious injury"? Of course not, but it's a badly drafted law that seems to imply otherwise. I suspect the only reason you'd say methamphetamine is more of a "chemical weapon of mass destruction" than petrol or sawdust is because you disagree morally with its production.
There's two problems with vague, stretchy laws like this. First, it makes the law much less transparent - nobody quite knows what crimes they're committing, because it depends hugely on who's stretching the law and what political posture they're taking today. Second, if the public, through Congress, passes a law prohibiting chemical weapons, and it gets "extended" into an anti-drugs law without democratic debate, that's bad for democracy.
This is a separate question from whether there should be laws to lock up drug dealers for life. This is about having a society where criminal laws are plain for everyone to see.
Re:Putting Away Meth Makers Is Wonderful (Score:2, Insightful)
That all sounds pretty wonderful to me. If you're making meth, you're dealing in death and ruined lives.
If you think the laws banning the manufacture of certain drugs are inadequate, then ammend them. Make them more serious than murder and rape... oh wait, they already are... The drug dealers and manufacturers are supplying an existing demand in a blackmarket that was created and is maintained by your government's disfunctional prohibition laws. If you are going to mandate what people can and cannot put into their own bodies, what they can and cannot buy and sell, then you are going to have a blackmarket for those things.
This has absolutely nothing at all to do with "terrorism" or "chemical weapons". Permitting the abuse of these laws is the first step down a steep and dangerous slippery slope of corruption and oppression. Wake up, you fools!
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
When did a campaign of "Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader"?
Bush's entire campaign was a disconnect between hype and reality. "Compassionate Conservatism" was a campaign slogan that sounded good, but Bush never made a real attempt to back it up. (How is a guy who sets a new record with the electric chair a compassionate conservative?) It was fun to watch Bill Maher ridicule the Republican parakeets like Tom Stoppard and Ann Coulter who repeated this tripe on his show.
-a
Re:Premature pontificators (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I don't know about all the anti-terror laws in the US, but here in the UK people can now be held without charge indefinitely if they are terror suspects. There may not be a test "in court" because it may not even get there for an "indefinitely" long time.
That is why these so called anti-terrorism measures that give special powers such as holding without charge must not be used for "normal" crimes. The usual safeguards such as courts may not even be in place.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Why go after them, let's start with Morton first (Score:4, Insightful)
Sue them!
Re:How's the weather up in canda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of standing up and fighting the bullshit going against our freedom we sit idly by and watch it happen.
Who else knew that this sort of bullshit would start coming? I surely did but what did I do about it? NOTHING.
For two reasons... People in my age bracket are not yet old enough to have a strong enough voice. We are looked at as protesters and not as lawmakers. The fear that me protesting (and not lawmaking) against this sort of legislation will land me in prison. Hell, I must already be earmarked on some sort of subvert list. I get stopped nearly everytime I fly. Whether or not you sport a beard isn't the line between normal and terrorist.
Instead of moving away from the problem someone needs to start a movement against it.
I wish it could be me (so everyone says).
Guilty as charged.
PA or no, the police can pick you up anytime (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I fail to have any sympathy for a guy who runs a meth lab.
2) The sad fact is, Patriot Act or no, in the US and most "civilized" countries there are so many laws that the police can pick you up anytime they want for breaking the law. They just have to care enough to target you and figure out which of the gazilla laws you inadvertently broke.
The "if you're a law abiding citizen" comment, misses the mark. There are so many laws, none of us can go through life without breaking some law. None of us are law abiding anymore, regardless of our intentions.
Also, the sentencing is so Draconian nowadays that the penalty for fighting the arrest and losing makes a plea bargain much more attractive. Given the choice between a 20 years minimum sentence and a 2 year plea bargain, most people take the plea bargain. The 20 years just scares them too much.
The problem isn't "those damn Republicans." Remember many Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. The problem is the political system. Rarely does a politician get elected because they voted to repeal a criminal law. Rarely does a politician get elected for being "soft on crime." Willie Horton anyone? Left or Right, you get votes by promising to protect "the public" and their children. That means you pass MORE laws, even if the existing laws are adequate, because that shows you did something. You pass TOUGHER penalties, because that shows you did something.
That is why we end up with drunk driving laws that set the blood alcohol level at a value lower than the margin of error on the testing devices. And, when this is pointed out to the legislature they just change the margin of error on the test. Not by changing the test, but by changing the definition of margin of error. (Next up, Congress sets the acceleration due to gravity at 11m/s^2.) Because, we HAVE to be tough on drunk drivers "for the children."
That is just one example of the stupid and unreasonable results of the "democractic" political system. I am sure you have your own examples.
I am not supporting the Patriot Act. I wish it and the system that created it wasn't so. But, don't act like this is new. Don't act like the Patriot Act is an exception. And, don't act like the US and only one party is the US plays this horrible game. It is played by both sides, all over the world, all the time.
Compassionate Conservatism was So Last Millenium (Score:3, Insightful)
"Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader" on 9/11/1, when Bush could get away with his normal political positions instead of having to pretend to be compassionate.
Ranting and hating. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really miss those days. When That's My Bush was on television, it was okay to question the government and even though lots of people were unemployed it was still a pretty good time.
In case you didn't note, this is going to be a rant. Two years and three days ago, a bunch of Religious Conservatives hijacked a couple of plains and showed the US (Succesfully this time) that crazy people mean buisness. The largest terrorist attack on US soil was no longer in the hands of a crazed American, but in the hands of a bunch in another country, and thus things became scary.
The World Trade Towers were chosen because not only did a great number of people work there, and that their destruction would be economically crippling for the area and damaging to the US, but because they were symbols of what the United States stood for.
In reaction to these attacks Americans suddenly took up and saw that all of these freedoms which we enjoy and espouse (but don't abide by in countries where we pick up cheap goods from, like China and the Middle East {that's right, gas is cheap in America, come on Europeans, stand up tell everyone how much taxes impat your gas prices}), allow people easy access to pretty much whatever they want. Yup, apparently the fundamental principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were total anathema to the dogma of security. Benjamin Franklin pointed out that fact and the converse, that a society cannot have both freedom and absolute security.
Esentially, 9-11 has been used to pass a Neo-Conservative agenda of global tyranny and domestic oppression. I emphasize the Neo part, because I know many conservatives, they are wonderful and nice people who have many good ideas. These people, a mixed coalition of reps and dems, are responsible for a campaign of silencing all opposition and enriching themselves and their allies upon the spoils of wars.
It is intersting to note how someone brought up 1984 earlier, it is mentioned in that book how war or the idea of such activity is wonderful at putting large populations into subservient moods. Notice how we have gone from a War on Terror (where we didn't find Osama or even put an end to the Taliban, or stop terror), to a War on Iraq (where we didn't find Sadaam and are busy ruling it like fuedal lords and expending 150+ billion on what was supposed to be a short and sweet little engagement). The American people are being manipulated in a very base manner into thinking that anything but pure agression will get us killed, and that if we vote for anyone but this psychotic faction that we will all die in some sort of hellish confligaration of biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.
I for one see that pretty much everything this administration has done has a negative value. They have done much to obfuscate their agenda and to make them appear to be 'compassionate' but those agendas were never pursued, the heavily pushed "No Child Left Behind act" has absolutely no funding and even if implemented it was only going to require more idiotic tests and dropping out of school. Where is the Aid to Africa? Where are the morals and where is the trust that we were promised in 2000? We have simply replaced blow-jobs and S&L scandals, for corporate patronage, more S&L scandals, financial mismanagement, and corruption. And Ari Fleischer and the rest of the crew lies to us as much as the Iraqi information minister lied to the people of Iraq.
Next year, when the fields narrow we need to get out there and force a change or else things will start to head from bad to worse and we will see freedoms and liberties that we once took for granted picked off one by one all in the name of some kind of security that we will never attain as long as our country remains self-centered and militaristic.
More Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. That was sarcasm.
P.P.S. I don't like the Patriot Act(s) either. I don't think its the end of life as we know it. Get a grip. Please. Leftists are so pathetically terrified of Bush and his administration its almost amusing. The amount of paranoia and blind hatred way surpasses the paranoia and blind hatred the right had with Clinton.
Re:I Understand Now (Score:5, Insightful)
Cigarettes are designed to be addictive. If tabacoo companies could find a way to make them addictive and healthy, they'd do it so fast it'd take your breath away (pun intended).
Oh, I'm not a smoker. Never even tried one. My father died of lung cancer when I was 20. He smoked 4 packs a day of Pall Mall unfiltered for 40 years. I'll never smoke, I generally remind people that they shouldn't smoke, and that's it unhealthy.
However, to say that "smoking is designed to kill people", in a discussion about a law that is the result of an idiot attempt to stop terrorists is just intellectually dishonest. Smoking isn't designed to be harmful, like flying planes into buildings is harmful, or like blowing up a Ryder truck full of Diesal fuel and fertalizer is harmful, or going to holy sites in Isreal and blowing up buses full of people. It's designed to optimize the amount of money Tabacco companies make. If they could make you live longer while you did it, I'm sure they'd be up for it, it is an increased revenue stream if you lived longer... *grin*
Personally, I have no problem with people who chose to smoke. I have no problem with people who chose to drink alchol. I have no problem with people who want to use illegal drugs assuming they are law abiding and responsible. I don't want to pay to rehabilitate them, and I don't want to pay their medical expenses. If they do those things, I've got little to no issue with people who pick that as their form of enjoyment or relaxation hobby/habit.
Kirby
Re:But that sort of thing can't happen here. (Score:4, Insightful)
But who's the replacement? Will he (or possibly she), be much better. Will they be WORSE?
Gephardt or Dean worse than Bush and the Cabal of Evil (R) - this is astoundingly unlikely. There's a WORLD of difference between a somewhat incestuous old-boys network and the all-out symphony of stupidity, evil, and greed we've all been witnessing since 2000.
Really. This is important. If you're under the impression that the Democrats the and the Republicans are the same then I humbly suggest without flaming that you haven't been paying attention for the past couple of years. Something dark and terrible is starting up in the USA.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us not forget that 530+ members of congress voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act. And some of these very same members of Congress are now also all over our televisions with the Democratic primary debates and what-not. Heck, IIRC the only Democrat candidates that didn't vote in favor of USA PATRIOT were the ones like Dean and Sharpton who just happened not to be members of Congress at the time.
I find it darkly humorous that some of the very same members of Congress that are decrying the current situation in Iraq are the ones that voted "Uh... I dunno, what do you wanna do?" instead of, say, voting to declare/not declare war. They could have spelled out exactly what the president could and could not do in Iraq and exactly what the goals were, but that would have required Congress to have, y'know, a spine. Taking responsibility and all that.
If they're so unwilling to exercise their rights and duties as members of Congress, why are we supposed to believe that they'll be any different in the White House?
November of next year, do yourselves, your country, and your species a favor and don't vote for either major party. They've both shown themselves to be derelict in their duties as public servants.
Re:Land of the free ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait what are we getting out of this deal again?
Ummm ..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are you going to vote for? I don't remember many Democrats being opposed to the USA PATRIOT Act when it was voted on. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone to vote for who wants it repealed. The only time the "democractic" process will actually deliver change is where you can find some very rich people who are affected by a particular issue. In this case I think you are out of luck. Laws like this are ment for ordinary people only.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its called a Social Security number.
You have just been branded for the Feds meat coral.
Reclaim your US Nationalism title and live as United States Americans were suppose to live.
And does anyone else see the IRS as another "King" that we should revolt against?
I am sure most will completly disagree with all of this, but before you do, just do some research.
One thing you should be worried about is the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned bank.. hmmm my constitution says thats a big no no...
go ahead.. look it up..
have fun earning you freedom.
http://familyguardian.tzo.com/Subjects/Taxes/ta
Re:PA or no, the police can pick you up anytime (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough. But do you really think that he deserves a life sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that.
Re:But that sort of thing can't happen here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Fascism? (Score:2, Insightful)
From Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
An extreme rightwing political system or attitude, which favours strong central authority and does not allow freedom of speech.
Patriot I and II pretty much goes for the strong central authority and DMCA + some patriot goes for freedom of speech. Perhaps not a perfect fit - but it's still quite sad.
Don't get me wrong. I love americans and their country - it's just that the slope is rather slippery post 9/11 - and it really seems to be going down hill at a very fast pace. I have no idea what this will eventually lead to - and hopefully the people will stand up and demand their freedom be given back. Otherwise we in Europe are probably screwed as well - events in America often forebode what is going to happen here.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:3, Insightful)
Regime change doesn't happen over one (election) night.. if people voting for third party candidates weakens the democratic candidate and causes a republican to win, who cares? If republicans are all that bad, then being under republican leadership for another four years would only strengthen the backlash against them. I think it's more important to increase the percentage of third party votes more than anything. The politicians will get the message.
Re:Print the article... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, the small parties aren't voted for, because no one thinks anyone's going to vote for them.
In this nation people no longer vote for who they want. They vote against who they don't want.
And THAT is the true enemy of democracy.
___________
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data (Score:5, Insightful)
You know how Teddy Roosevelt [historychannel.com] was so against the trusts (megacorps that were above the law and beyond mere monopoly, a la Standard Oil) because they were more powerful than the government in so many ways, hence offending his own megalomaniacal sensibilities [time.com]? Apparently, the U.S. Government today is disappointed about the fact that modern megacorps had taken on the role of Big Brother via image recognition, data mining, and monopolistic practices. In the face of such competition, they apparently feel the need to get their anti-Constitution on. Pull out the big guns!
I'm done debating the competency of our current Presidential administration or the legitimacy of the Presidential office. In the face of this perpetually double edged sword, I just want to keep both the terrorists and the government in check.
Re:Abuse of "anti-terrror" legislation. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Apologies for the use of profanity, but this subject just pisses me off (there I go again). It's just that I wish we would all get off of our collective backsides and do something about this creeping fascism. It's difficult I know, to stand up and be counted if all that's promised is imprisonment or death but quite honestly, I don't care anymore. Freedom is too precious for me to do nothing but stand and admire the swiftness with which our liberties our disappearing.
I hope to see you all at the poll booth. Perhaps it's an empty gesture but the democratic process is all we've got left.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
No! The republicans and the democrats is one party with two names [salon.com]! Voting for one is just as bad as the other.
Re:I LOVE THIS MODERATION SYSTEM (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see a single person crying censorship. Please cut and paste an example. Just because someone moderated it as a troll doesn't mean it's censored. I mean, you could read it... right?
Re:Print the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true. (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that this shift has happened will catch up to us when we realize we don't have any public schools, or any public services for that matter. Hey, would you like to burn your trash rather than have the city pick it up? You too can be like rural americans! Well, services might still exist, but they'll be run by corporations, and we'll have to pay out the ass for 'em. Maybe people will like it better that way though. Maybe the constitution and democracy is just outdated.
Anyway, it'll be a sad day when the public school system is eliminated. Then you can say goodbye to racial equality and equal opportunity. Oh wait, we don't care about those things anymore...
Re: I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
> I try not to be/think "partisan". But the truth is, the best possible chance Liberty has of making a comeback is (just about) anything non-Republican. The best possible chance of getting any non-Republican power back is in the hands of the Democrats! No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
I agree with your sentiment, but only reservedly: if you think back to the congressional votes on the "patriot" act and the war, you have to conclude that the Democrats - with a few noble exceptions - are only going to stand up to what's going on if there's a political advantage to doing so, or a political cost to not doing so. Most of them, I suspect, would be all to happy to have these same tools in their hands.
If you vote in the Democratic primary for this kind of reason, make sure you vote for someone who spoke out against things when it was a political liability to do so, not one of the windsocks that changes with the weather.
Sadly, some of the far-right nutcases have a better track record on this than the crowds of Democrats do.
Unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
He could also want to bring back segregation and most voters wouldn't care because he's not going to take their money.
The USA's culture has changed considerably since the 70's. Greed is now God. All anyone cares about is themselves and their possesions. Hell that's what's killing the American Family. Let's see, why do mommy and daddy work 80 hours a week each? That's right so he can afford an upper-middle class life.
Man that's so worth it isn't it? I mean you get to have your kids driven to school by the nanny in the new Lexus. Isn't that the American Dream?
20 years, that's how long I give this society before it collapses on itself. Civilization won't end, but you won't recognize the USA that's for sure. A lot of people aren't going to want to be part of the rat race any more.
Re:I'll take that job. Got more details? (Score:1, Insightful)
Still easily still better than the US, Canada is definitely not a land where the politicians have their heads on straight.
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
Think of germany in the 1930ies and 1940ies. When they look back, they ask themselves how this could happen. But it was a slow and creeping process, too. I wish you good luck, you will need it.
I hope to see you all at the poll booth. Perhaps it's an empty gesture but the democratic process is all we've got left.
If that could change anything it would have been declared unpatriotic by now.
Looking forward to be modded into oblivion.
But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Meth (as in this case) are designed to be addictive. Dead people don't pay money for drugs. I fail to see the difference...
Kjella
Re:Print the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but only because they're never elected for anything.
Get It Right! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of appointing an "Electrical Engineering Czar", they used to offer a charter to some investors so they could start a university. Instead of Social Security, they would've offered a charter to some insurance guys to start a retirement fund that was controlled enough to ensure that it wouldn't collapse and the guys wouldn't steal the cash and run to Mexico.
Ah, back in the day we just contracted out for what we needed. If we wanted to find out how bad the air was at the WTC, we'd call up NYU and have them write up a report. But I'm sure that'd never work.
Re:And everyone loves Republicans right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Some Libertarians agree that Democrats and Republicans both create bigger government, but at least Republicans SAY they want small government. But if you ignore party rhetoric and simply look at results:
- Democrats spend LESS and want to INCREASE personal/social freedoms
- Republicans spend MORE and want to DECREASE personal/social freedoms
Actions speak louder than words, so I will probably vote Democrat in 2004.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vancouver's Pretty Nice (Score:2, Insightful)
Marx Quote Above (Score:2, Insightful)
Some inconvenient facts for you to chew on (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Democrat senators voted FOR the Patriot Act 48-1,
b) Reno & Freeh tried to obtain the SAME POWERS, without a Nine-Eleven pretext,
don't you? So, I think I'll just forego your advice & continue to vote Libertarian.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, don't vote for who you think would best represent your views. Instead, vote for who everyone else is voting for.
At the risk of sounding off-topic, let me point out that the idea of a third-party "weakening" the first two is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone developed an informed opinion by doing a little research on all the possible candidates, then voted for who they wanted, ignoring fear-mongers like the parent, our political system could have a positive impact.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, voting for the guy you figure is "slightly" less of an ass has gotten us so far already how could it fail us now?
Re:Chemical WMDs (Score:2, Insightful)
At one time they did on a widespread basis. I suppose that it's possible that some elite black ops type units are still issued them.
But on the grand scheme of things. When falling asleep WILL be fatal, and taking some meth might be addictive the choice is easy. They can send you to rehab for meth addiction, they can't rehab you from a 7.62x39mm bullet hole in your face.
LK
Re: I understand now (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite so. However, that is not really the issue here. Read the Definition again:
"Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as 'any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury' and contains toxic chemicals."
Clearly there are two conditions that can be considered as "Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction" under that definition:
1) if a substance was "designed" to cause death or serious injury AND contains toxic chemicals, or
2) if a substance has the capability of causing death or serious injury AND contains toxic chemicals.
It is undoubtedly the second, catch-all (and probably "unconstitutionally vague") definition that is being used to prosecute the crystal meth lab. After all, most dope dealers do not intentionally design their product to kill their customers as it tends to put a damper on repeat trade and word-of-mouth advertising.
And - with a bit of a stretch - it could just as easily be used to prosecute those manufacturing cigarettes, alcohol, or gasoline.
RE: Taking back our freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who was in office when the DMCA was signed? Bill Clinton. Umm, what party was he a member of again?
Here's the frustrating thing. I've talked to so many self-proclaimed "Democrats" who have plenty of good ideas, but don't seem to cohesively and logically put all of it together. They'll make statements I completely agree with, but then turn around and claim that members of their beloved party are all for those statements - when they're clearly (and publically) opposed to them!
Meanwhile, yes, Republicans are really screwing up the country too, in the name of "freedom and democracy", no less.
THIS is why the Libertarian party exists! Right now, nobody who can do basic math would sanely argue that a Libertarian candidate has good odds of getting elected next term. Still, what you CAN do is research the candidates on the major 2 platforms and pick out the ones who side with Libertarian beliefs. Next election, whatever you do - DON'T just pull that lever to vote for everyone on one party! Pick and choose the people who are doing the right things, no matter what title they run under. These days, you have "Republicrats" and "Demicans", and lots of people in between.
The terrorists win? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a second, that's exactly what the Taliban had in Afganistan and Saddam had in Iraq. It's starting to blur the line between who's friend and foe here...
Luckily, the legislative and executive branches can't take away all our liberties alone. The judicial branch still has the chance to strike down any law that goes too far accross the lines of the Constitutional protections. I mean, a court can still order that "the Feds" an give accused terrorist access to question another accused terrorist for evidence to be used in his defense... rule of law hasn't broken down totally around here.
Or has it?
Re:I'll take that job. Got more details? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ranting and hating. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, while it is very nice to inform someone when they don't know something, it makes you look like an ass when you don't tell them what it is. Basically double Mitzvah when you let someone in on your precious knowledge, because unlike money, it's usually more valuable when shared (kind of like love).
Second, I am well aware of American history and our tendency to crack down on civil liberites when bad things happen. I can think of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, and the internment of otherwise loyal Japanese citizens during WWII, the jailing and attacks upon dissidents during WWI and WWII, and the internment of otherwise loyal muslim citizens aftr 9-11. After at the very least the second (we tend to forget Lincoln's little act in the face of you know, ending slavery and affirming the power of central government over states rights) item (and for some of us the third) we look back and go, "Hey, that was kind of a dumb idea, all it really did was make us look like the people we were trying to fight against." And after all of these we say, "You know what, civil liberties are good things," and then we start apologizing (for the most part) to the people who got shafted.
Hey, I hate, I'll admit it. I hate a lot of things, like people who manipulate and harm others, people who infringe upon inalienable rights (like rapists, murders, tryannical dictators), the fact that there are little kids that go without healthcare, the fact that there are people in our country struggling to make ends meet.
For the record, I kind of admire the Shrub. He's got balls, big brass ones that he likes to let hang out for the world to see. He sticks to his guns through thick and thin, those are some good qualities to have. I don't agree with many of his policies, but I still admire some of his qualities.
As for all of this war nonsense, my big problem is how wars have to be fought, by a bunch of kids against another bunch of kids. It reminds me of a scene from the third episode of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where Zaphod and others are being fired on by two Galaxy cops and they're saying, "We're a couple of caring and sensitive guys, who you'd probalby really like if you met socially."
I agree with trying to free people from the crazy Taliban in Afghanistan and trying to find Osama to bring him to face justice (the kind with a jury). I odn't agree wiht replacing one group of nuts with a group of militant warlords who still opres the peopple, and then abandoning the coutnry when poll numbers start to slide and a more attractive war looms. I agree with getting rid of a crazy man who dumps chemical weapons on people just because they have different fathers and different views, a man who does not let his people express their own views and ideas. I don't agree with lying about the motivations and falsifying a relathionship between him and the other guy, I don't agree with invading without accepting the responsibilty of having propped his regime up and having supplied the chemical and biological agents to him. I odn't like how the people of Iraq were supposed to start getting involved in July (when we thought the warw as going to be a bit longer than a few weeks) and even though we swept in over the course of a few weeks, Iraqis only have a show in their government.
America is a nice country, it's appeal is the freedom and equality that it offers under the law. The idea of America isn't about God or some immutable force that fail to adapt to changing times and new understandings, it is a secular culture that believes in the inherent value of humanity. I believe in an America where the officers of the law (those that make them, those that allow them, and those that enforce them) are beholden to the people and not to the pockets of some giant whose sole concern is profit. I believe in the America of continuous change and
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:2, Insightful)
Travel much? Anti-Americanism isn't new. The US was already feared and hated. Also, this isn't the first Republican president. Or weren't you keeping track? Other countries have been getting away with the same stuff we pulled in Iraq for centuries. Crack a history book sometime.
slightly different (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Print the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is Ann Coulter a concervative? Is she a republican? Why should it matter to me when she calls me a traitor and says that I hate America?
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounded plausible until W took office and we learned just how quickly a bunch of idealogues can plow this country into the ground. Borrowing a metaphor, W is so far to the right he's in the break-down lane. If you can't tell him from Clinton, you are in a bad way.
It's time for anyone who believes in freedom and representative government to get involved in the Democratic Party. Really. Go to the meetings. Volunteer. It's your responsibility.
If you really want to vote Green, work inside the Democratic Party in support of instant run-off or Condorcet voting, and vote Green after it passes. We have to pull together NOW. The alternative is to lose your country.
Re:Print the article... (Score:1, Insightful)
What that means is that we need a party that is both well-funded and doesn't piss off half the country.
None of this Green "save the environment at all costs" crap. That's why there's a field in central California protected because building there would encroach on the migratory pattern of the newt, mandated cancer-causing gasoline additives to prevent ozone damage, and coal-powered blow driers to reduce paper waste.
None of this Libertarian "everybody prey upon everyone else" garbage, either. There's a fine line between taking that attitude towards lower life forms and taking it towards human beings. I'm not saying that we should have our existing welfare system, either, though. The government should have social programs that help get people out of poverty rather than encourage them to stay there. For example, people on welfare should not get more money for having more children. The minimum wage should be set locally based on local cost-of-living. And so on.
We don't need this Republican "give tax breaks, mostly to the rich" foolishness. Pocket the money for a rainy day. Had various states done this a few years ago instead of blowing the money on new programs and big tax breaks, they wouldn't be utterly SCREWED today.
We also don't need the Democrat "spend lots of money on social programs and raise taxes" attitude. Social programs have to be tightly controlled and carefully managed. When they get out of control, they should be killed and replaced by something better, without regard to the political fallout caused by such a decision. ALL current social programs should have been killed and replaced at least a decade ago, but instead, they're all bleeding money uncontrollably.
What we need is a "Well, Duh" party---a party of the people, by the people---a party dedicated to removing stupidity from our government. Two requirements: high IQ and a sense of morals and ethics. The guiding principles should include respecting the constitution, protecting the public's rights, reducing government waste, and returning the government to profitability. In other words, a party that is liberal with respect to civil liberties, moderate with respect to social programs, and ultra-conservative fiscally, pinching every cent.
To that end, we need a businessman in the Presidency, not a politician. (By this, I don't meen a looney tunes businessman like Perot and his sidekick, Frequently Confused Boy, either.) We need somebody with enough business acumen to make the tough decisions, but someone with enough morals and ethics to not try to utterly ruin the people in the process.
We need people in Congress that live in the real world. That means term limits, caps on campaign spending, and ELIMINATION of ALL campaign ads by "friends of another scumbag politician". That means that Congressmen and women should earn just enough money to cover their expenses and no more.
We should go back to the principles on which this country was founded, in which our representatives were elected of the people and lived AMONG the people except for a few weeks out of the year when they met. Of course, since there's too much to do in a few weeks, they should meet electronically. Regardless, they should live in their districts, and should be immediately removed from office if they stop residing in their districts. (Summer Home Republicans need not apply.)
The fact is, as my father put it, if our country had always been as complacent as we have become, we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen" right now. Sometimes, I think we'd be better off if we were, as the last century has strongly suggested that we are simply not capable of self-governance. That having been said, we have ended up with was a government that, despite its democratic design, is every bit as tyrranical and despotic as that which our ancestors rose up against
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is almost all gone now.
Europeans have not only lost the goodwill they had, but ended up with more "hate" then they had prior to those events.
I for one welcome our new... (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't give a damn, because we never hold them to account. What, really, should we expect?
Re:Something to think about... (Score:2, Insightful)
A bunch of Iraqis ar doing it right now without much problem.
It's OK to lie if you are a liberal left wing Demokrat.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not really lieing as such, because he believes what he says... but just because someone says something, doesn't make it true.
Solutions, please (Score:4, Insightful)
What I want to know is if anyone has any solutions to the problems at hand?
Democrats, what is YOUR plan to fight the war on terror? How do YOU plan to keep another 9/11 from happening? If the PATRIOT Act was so bad, then why did the majority of Democrats vote for it?
While I'm at it, what is YOUR plan to stimulate the economy? What is YOUR plan to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan?
Quit complaining and start coming up with solutions.
I do see shades of 1984 in recent events. If the Democrats can't come up with anything more than complaining, Bush will beat Dean (or whoever else gets the nomination) in 2004 like Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984.
Re:I'm Proud Too (Score:2, Insightful)
The meth lab is not a terrorist unit. It just isn't. It is against the law, but not a terrorist activity to make drugs. Now, using the patriot act to convict the guy for terrorism when he was cooking up drugs is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Once any means justifies the end of putting criminals in jail, the whole judicial system crumbles, because we have to try to avoid putting innocent people in jail. The whole legal system is skewed toward this goal. Move away from that, and we haven't really won anything.
Re:Solutions, please (Score:3, Insightful)
That's easy:
1) It was rushed through so fast that few actually had a chance to read it.
2) In the immediate post-9/11 environment it would have been near political suicide to vote against it.
That's why you are now finding lots of public debate and congressional criticism of PATRIOT II while there was none for v.1.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:3, Insightful)
My answer to this arguement (and to people who don't vote because "it makes no difference") is: What if everyone who thought like you do actually voted according to their real beliefs?
Even if the candidate you vote for doesn't win, you're still sending a message to the winner (assuming he's smart enough to realize it, which rules out the current administration) that somebody believed in what he was saying and maybe that needs to be looked at a little closer and given some consideration.
Politics in this country is determined by the voters, and currently that seems to mean the elderly and religious. That's hardly a representative cross-section of the America I know. If everyone who was elligable actually got off their asses and voted I think the political landscape would change dramaticly, and even more so if they voted for what they really believed in rather than just the next best thing that has a real chance of winning.
What that means is: the only reason we have a 2 party system is because we keep voting for them.
Re:Unfortunately (Score:2, Insightful)
In my opinion, it's good for parents to save for their kid's futures. But the kid should only go to college if they want to. Too many times while I was teaching classes during my graduate schooling, I would see and talk with kids whose parents paid for everything. That's fine if the parents can afford it, I suppose. But the kids didn't usually have the desire to be in college.
College isn't for everyone.
The other thing that I noticed between my education and the education of people I know is that I paid out of my own pocket for the schooling. That means that I had some personal incentive to work my ass off and do well. Otherwise that 1200 per quarter (undergrad; 2000 per quarter, graduate) was meaningless. Having someone else pay for your classes doesn't allow you to appreciate the classes.
The one thing that parents _should_ teach their kids is to find something they like doing and do it. That's far more valuable than, "Here's 40 grand. Go to school."