Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional 661
Adam9 writes "According to Yahoo/AP, a federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations. The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project."
Re:Patriot Act is Unpatriotic (Score:2, Insightful)
This was a no-brainer (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a case of a super-vague law that prohibits someone from engaging in speech that basically no ordinary person would even find to be controversial speech. I'm surprised that the DOJ even threatened them with enforcement of this in this case. It should have been obvious to them that pursuing some white hat like this would just bust their pet law.
The part of Act that's unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing patriotic about it if you have any love of liberty or freedom.
The problem of fighting violence with violence (Score:5, Insightful)
YES!! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's unbelievable... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's unbelievable that we have an attorney general that this concept eludes entirely. No wonder he lost an election to a dead guy before dubya found him.
Remember, when you vote for Bush, you're voting for the "package" deal.
Major Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd merely like to point out that this "Part" of the Patriot act is just that, a part of it. This still isn't dealing with any of the true hard issues, such as eavesdropping without a warrant/court order, forcing libraries disclosure of a persons activities, and so on. This is not trully a victory for anyone who really cares about Pravacy, or rather "Your Rights Online." Merely a victory for everyone trying to take a quick shot at this administration.
Just the start (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, Lord! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A Small Victory (Score:1, Insightful)
Just the beginning (Score:2, Insightful)
Even with the Supreme Court we have now, one would expect most of the act to end up in the dumpster once it has to face any kind of scrutiny in a court of law.
Defending PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure that I'm distinctely in the minority here, but I think the criticisms of the PATRIOT Act are entirely blown out of proportion. I've actually read the PATRIOT Act, and I see very little that matches the wild claims that have been levied against it.
Take for example the infamous Section 215 that civil libertarians claim allows law enforcement to search your library records. Except this power requires the consent of a federal judge, no library records have ever been searched, and such provisions have already been used in other criminal cases. Library records were searched in the hunt for Andrew Cunanan, the man who shot fashion designer Gianni Versace in 1997, and to hunt down the Zodiac killer in New York in 1990. Yet no one raised a fuss about these searches. It is clear that there is a direct double standard at play, fueled by ignorance of the law.
Most of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act specifically extend already existing powers specifically to fight terrorism. Most of them were already codified in law under earlier racketeering statutes such as RICO. Yet no one seemed to question those moves then.
The fact remains that our rights were abused far more heinously during the War on Drugs and the term of Janet Reno as AG than they ever were under Ashcroft. No-knock warrants are far more suspect as far as civil rights are concerned than extending provisions of RICO to terrorism. I fail to see the logic of a system that gives greater protections to Mohammad Atta than it does to Tony Soprano.
If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well. Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened. Several 9/11 conspirators were pulled over just before the attacks - but because the police didn't have access to immigration records or terrorist watch lists they were let go with only a warning. Another event like that is simply intolerable.
The fact is 9/10ths of the arguments against PATRIOT are based in a sense of partisan politics rather than a rational examination of law. Had PATRIOT been a creation of Clinton Administration I doubt anyone would be talking about it, but in a country where partisanship overwhelms common sense on both sides rational discussion about the best way to protect this country from the clear and present danger of terrorism is difficult to find.
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh Crap! What are we going to do now!?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
In all seriousness, this won't have much of an effect on personal privacy for average Joe and I imagine the powers that be will do everything in their power to keep the steamroller running, but a good swift kick in the nuts to the Patriot Act can only be a good thing for those of us that appreciate civil liberties.
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's not really a good way to define it that doesn't lump US in that category.
For those that say "you just know", that's not good enough.
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
> person's or organization's part to lend support to
> groups that are engaged in terrorist activities.
Do the words "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
-Chris
Just Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also the most consistently overturned court, so this ruling is definitely not the final word.
Re:unconstitutional maybe, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A Small Victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the much-worse provisions of Patriot II were tucked into the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress last week. So, if you want to make a difference, call up your congresscritter and mention how relieved you are at this temporary reversal of Patriot I and how you really don't want to see more of these unamerican laws passed. You could also donate money or time to interest groups: EFF, EPIC, ACLU, whoever's most likely to throw Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney out of office, etc.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:3, Insightful)
The Patriot Act allows the feds to inspect the records BEFORE and at any time if they remotely suspect you of anything.
Russ-Russ! (Score:4, Insightful)
(At least that's what Russ keeps saying in the campaign contribution letters I keep getting...)
Re:Just Remember (Score:4, Insightful)
Stand and be counted if you really think so.
it's been interesting to see (Score:4, Insightful)
the laws continue to be about controlling us, only the rationale changes.
Re:For the Dean Supporters. (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't to say that Dean HAS changed his views, but when someone quotes a two-year-old speech as evidence of a person's current views, I get a little suspicious. Hasn't Dean said anything about this idea since then?
W3rd. (Score:1, Insightful)
But then again, the majority of Americans feel that airline safety has increased dramatically since they started banning and confiscating finger nail clippers. I know I felt safer when they banned curbside check in. Didn't you?
Re:In related news, Judge Audrey Collin ... (Score:4, Insightful)
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
And what divine power do you possess that no other human on the face of the planet possesses that allows you to make such a claim as fact? Most of the 9/11 conspirators were here legally on visas issued by our own beloved State Department which already had access to such vital information but failed to research the applications adequately.
The crux of the matter is that most of the provisions of the PATRIOT act are unneccessary and law enforcement and courts have proven time and time again that they are capable of handling terrorism cases using their existing laws and powers.
Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For the Dean Supporters. (Score:2, Insightful)
Though I remain an ardent supporter, Dr dean poses an ineffective solution. Families and villages have been raising children for many of thousands of years without 'enforcement by governing bodies' and it works out fine. We have progressed and evolved under this non-zero summed game. It is the natural way of things to take care of themselves.
I repeat, we have made near constant progress. Why do we suddenly feel that government must be responsible for keeping our youth off of porn? It does not make sense.
But as I implied, we are all human and we all progress together. Howard Dean is no different. I have had views as my past self that my present self does not agree with. I suspect that the same is true with Dr Dean.
This should be posted on it own headline.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
More than "in a way"... they will have won, period. It's not like they expect the US to give up and remove all our military from the middle east or anything like that, terrorists have been attacking other american territory and other countries for a long time. Their goal is to cause chaos, to make people live their lives differently, by what the terrorists dictate. Exactly what they want is for the US to waste millions on extra metal detectors or anti-anthrax machines, or to give up our freedoms. By "fighting back" and installing all sorts of extra security features, we are only playing right into the terrorists' hand. Fighting back is not trying to guess their next move and save a few peoples lives, but to continue normally, not wasting our money on anti-terrorist measures, and instead spend that money to prevent the deahts of the thousands that might die from poverty, that might become victim to an underfunded education system, the thousands that will die because our great country doesn't want to provide the money for a working free health care program like even Canada has, just because we need to invade a country like iraq in case they attack us first. Terrorists aren't the real threat. Our own irrational fear is what we should be worrying about.
Re:The problem of fighting violence with violence (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the PATRIOT act was signed into law, I didn't like a lot of it, but I was one of the people saying "don't get your panties in a wad. Congress and the President are doing their best at legally stepping up enforcement, and due to the urgency they're doing so by re-treading RICO laws. Anything which turns out to be unconstitutional will get struck down by the courts, and life will go on."
Sure enough, some of those provisions of the new law are being tested against our constitutional rights via the court system. This is how our system of government is supposed to work. Bravo for American government!
There's still a few more elements I would like to see struck down, but some of the enforcement powers in PATRIOT have also made a difference in our ability to avert another attack on the scale of what we saw in 2001. Our democratic system of checks and balances is not perfect, and certainly not efficient, but it seems to work better than anything else that I've seen.
Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional (Score:3, Insightful)
How long will our government ignore the (fundamental) elemental threat?
But who labels the terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine, for a moment if you will, that some group X is labelled as a terrorist group by the government, and this group's members happen to think they're not terrorists and don't support terrorism. There are two groups of professionals they might desperately like to hire, lawyers to plead their case, and public relations experts to present their case clearly. It's only fair in a free society that the accused be afforded a chance to defend themselves in this manner.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why it should be expunged.
If it isn't needed, then why put it in?
The fact remains that our rights were abused far more heinously during the War on Drugs and the term of Janet Reno as AG than they ever were under Ashcroft.
While I agree that the WOD is much more threatening to civil liberties than PATRIOT, why do you support putting more power into the hands of the government when they obviously don't need it (by your own admission, re:librarians)?
Also, the Reno-Ashcroft remark is pure trollbait. I haven't seen Ashcroft sprinting out to repeal any of the WOD provisions, so they stand in full force as they were under Reno. And the laws were passed by the Congress, not the USAG.
If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well.
Good!
Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened.
Your crystal ball is scratched, scuffed, and otherwise translucent.
The fact remains that, despite the passage of PATRIOT, information sharing between agencies remains spotty. And the reason for the lack of exchange is not due to fuzzy-headed liberals blocking the governments efforts. It is due to the time honored tradition of 'empire building' in government agencies.
That behavior will not end with the expansion or the repeal of PATRIOT.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now (most Senators and a sizeable # of Congressmen are either lawyers or have been in service for a number of years) to have been able to make the decision that its unconstitutional and not even bothered to vote for or sign it in the first place.
Passing something with so many bluntly unconstitutional clauses, just to say "we're doing *something* (even if for now its the wrong thing)" is just plain poor leadership.
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me say up front that I'm not a lawyer. But the biggest problem I see here is that there is very little if any oversight. Traditional search warrants are (or become) public record, making it possible for people to check for abuse. For example, in California, after a wiretap is completed, law enforcement must contact every party that was heard on the line to let them know they had been recorded. With the gag rules in the PATRIOT ACT, there's no after-the-fact oversight to make sure the judge who granted the request was doing the right thing and that the enforcement agencies aren't routinely asking for wide-reaching powers. You say that, "no library records have ever been searched," but you don't know that because of the gag rules.
Re:Sure there is (Score:5, Insightful)
a step in the right direction (Score:3, Insightful)
You know...the more I think about it, I get the feeling that both Ashcroft and Bush failed their history classes.
The worst part is that I also get the feeling that Stalin/Lenin won without a fight.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be proof that the system works if and when the appeals are exhausted and the ruling still stands.
Our democratic system of checks and balances requires that checks are possible. If one man can order anyone, US citizen or not, locked away for life without charge and without even the ability to see a lawyer, we have no "democratic system of checks and balances", we have a king.
Information-Sharing Provisions In PATRIOT (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I recommend people read the PATRIOT Act before commenting on it. For reference, the specific statutes that accomplish this are Title II Section 203(b) which increases the ability for law enforcment agencies to share wiretap information and Title II Section 203(d) which allows for the sharing of data accumulated in FISA searches.
Furthermore, Title VII also specifically modifies the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) to remove specific statutory limits to information sharing between law enforcement agencies.
That is simply incorrect. From Section 215:
Furthermore, it is only logical that the government have the right to delay the notification of a search. (The PATRIOT Act does not allow for notification to be cancelled, but delayed under such time as the threat of a terrorist attack is no longer a concern.) If there's a reasonable suspicion that someone just put a nuke under San Francisco, the very last thing we need to do is tip off the terrorists before we've had a chance to find it.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Congress and the President were 'doing their best' and temporarily doing a power grab to defend us poor Americans from the evil terrorist infidels, then why didn't they include a sundown measure in the act where by it would expire after x,y,z number of years? This would give the president and the other branches the power they 'need' while making sure that our civil liberties aren't permanently eroded. If the powers granted in the act turned out to be necessary- then congress could vote on the act when it came up. Congress would have had the time to review the act and maybe read the thing. PATRIOT was pushed through congress in how many days?
The whole act should be repealed- not just parts. I do not believe it has made a difference in our ability to 'avert' another attack. It has been widely known for some time that agents had identified and reported the 9/11 senario as a vulnerability- those reports and warnings were ignored. I am not convinced that the PATRIOT act has helped us do anything but tighten the grip our government holds on us.
Our government is not perfect, and this is a great example of why it must change. No act should be hurried through Congress because our President wants to go to war and his opposition is being called unpatriotic. We shouldn't have to be going through the act and fighting to get parts of it stricken three years after it was passed. This act should never have been there in the first place.
This is a failure of our government not a triumph. It took freedom away and we are now fighting to get it back.
"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Ben Franklin
Re:The problem of fighting violence with violence (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the point of defeating the "other side" is to take their land, destroy their factories, etc. There is no way to defeat the "other side" in a war on drugs/terrorism/poverty. You can't stomp out a social ill or political disagreement with force, because there is no physical necessity belonging to the other side that may be destroyed or usurped.
Calling a political policy a "war" doesn't make it so.
WHAT THE??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I really need to find another country to move to.
Re:Syria (Score:3, Insightful)
When the US government starts handing over people to the Korean government for information extraction and then acts shocked that they get tortured, these innocent victims of the US government will hope Bush hasn't totally destroyed all avenues of legal recourse.
He was a Canadian citizen travelling in accordance with normal laws and the US took him prisoner and gave him to Syria specifically so that he could have information extracted from him (without so much as consulting on it with Canada). This was done in New York.
I suppose in the twisted minds of Bush loyalists, it was reasonable to give him to Syria with no due process or consultation with Canada and they were shocked when they heard how he had been treated by such a civilized nation as Syria.
Now some other nations like Brazil are starting to retaliate for Bush's complete disregard for international decency and law toward travelers, and I wish it were only Bush loyalists who sufferred the effects.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well... You might be hard pressed to convince Mr. Arar of that, at least in the short term.
Further, and more disturbingly, you're essentially saying that the government can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING it wants to in the short term, since it will only be bound by the constitution after the significant amount of time it takes to challenge it in court.
Re:For the Dean Supporters. (Score:3, Insightful)
I look for one thing in a president.
Keep congress in check.
That is all... and that is something this one has done piss poorly.
For the record, president's don't create law. But, everyone here knows that... right?
P.S. It may be a bit cynical to only expect one thing from a president, but I've come to realize that expecting more is pretty unrealistic.
Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed it is unfortunate.
Free speech is used by the ignorant to challenge the educated, freedom of assembly is used by Nazis and the KKK to rally support and intimidate others, the 5th amendment is used by the guilty to avoid self-incrimination, and the 4th is used by criminals to conceal evidence of their crimes.
All of this is, indeed, unfortunate -- and exactly as it was meant to be in a free nation.
Re:And??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure there is (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you could explain how the French Resistance, the Founding Fathers, etc. directed violence against civilian populations, as the parent poster noted.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me you would end up with a whole pack of wolves...
When you want to catch a wolf, you use a human. If you want to wipe out wolves you change the habitat in such a way that it does not support wolves. I'm afraid the climate lately has been very friendly to wolves.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a LOT of things that should have stopped the Sept 11th attacks from happening, but none of them did. One more thing that *should* prevent it, isn't necessarily going to...
That sounds just like every other Republican argument I've heard in years... Blindly supporting the right-wing, and then peremptively criticize your opponents for being partisan...
Here, let me try...
The fact is 15/10ths of the arguments FOR the PATRIOT act are based in a sense of partisan politics rather than a rational examination of law.
See how well it works! You don't need actual facts to support your claims. You just have to be the first one to offer the above "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument, and your opponents, why may even have legitimate complaints, look like they're just being political stooges.
Re:And??? (Score:1, Insightful)
A-frigging-men (Score:4, Insightful)
My grandfather was kidnapped and interrogated for five years by the Polish secret police because they were absolutely sure he was a spy. He wrote a book about it [snailshell.com]. It's an excellent read for anyone who wonders about the dark side of "national security".
That all seemed, at the time, to be a failing of communism. But recent events remind me that it can happen any time and place that the people pledge thier uncritical allegiance to their leaders.
I love this country and want it to be the best it can. With that in mind I keep a close eye on those in charge to be sure they don't run amok. I wish more people did. I hope enough do. The leaders have certainly been running amok in the past few years.
Cheers.
Re:And??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Still works, but stretched to the breaking point. I don't like the idea that 9 appointed judges are the last thing left between me and tyrannical laws. So many of the freedoms I'm most greatful for seem to have been handed down by the Supreme Court... why aren't our elected legislative and executive officials doing a good job of upholding constitutional rights in the first place?
If we could get "freedom" to be more than a catch-phrase in election politics, we could prevent laws like this from being signed into law and used to threaten and abuse groups in the first place.
As long as we have the Second Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Defending PATRIOT (Score:1, Insightful)
Nope, not so. Read section 215(Bc1) (I think, it starts "Upon an application made pursuant"). In most search warrant requests, the judge reviews what the cops have and decides whether or not to issue a warrant. Under this section, the FBI says "We got good reason", boom, the judge is to issue the warrant without any further review. That is what is so bad about section 215, there's no real judicial review. The warrant is to be issued on the FBI's say-so.
everyone could be an enemy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Conventional war usually has some delineation of ground - thus combatants are grouped (imperfectly) base on geography. In wars where this has not been the case (Vietnam, establishing the peace in Iraq), we have been unsuccessful precisely because of the inability to distinguish bad from good without killing a lot of good people because no such delineation exists. A war against terrorism is worse because it doesn't have to be motivated by any single distinguishing characteristic such as race - it is driven by ideas, and ideas can't be killed unless you kill everyone who has them. Since it's hard to know who has an idea (particularly if they are silent about it), fighting this war as a "kill them before they kill you" action on any sort of large scale is doomed to fail miserably, while destroying the freedoms it claims to preserve. On small scale, "kill them before they kill you" can work but only in the presence of specific knowledge on people and their intended acts and targets rather than vague assumptions about race and ideas. (I'm not impugning you as a racist or closed-minded - just that the selection criteria for such action will tend to be the easiest to use (and race has been one of those), while the ones that would actually be effective are so drastic as to be counterproductive.)
The US is supposed to defend freedom, not destroy it.
Re:a step in the right direction (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps your values changed. Mine did not.
Hatch, too, had the legislation in the works long before 9/11 he just used 9/11 as an excuse to do what he was going to do anyway.
Any school bully can say to the principal "I only do it to people who deserve it". It would take a great nation to put trust in rule of law and fair trials in spite of a president that creates such terror in the hearts of those who trust him to justify overriding important American values for better political control.
I had no problem traveling after 9/11 because it was a random act of violence, and I thought we had a government interested in pursuing the perpetrators (until they decided Iraq would be more fun).
But after the US government terrorizes so many travelers, it is getting to the point I will not travel, especially to New York, where the US took an Canadian prisoner with no evidence at all against him and sent him for torture in Syria.
I would like evidence that we are becoming more a republic. We were a republic before the word of a presedential liar could deny a man a fair trial.
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not terrorists (attacking an invading military force is not terrorism, whether or not it professes to be a liberating force) and neither are the majority of them supporters of the old regeime, if this is synonomous with terrorist in your eyes. Get your facts straight.
They want Americans to either A) criticize these democrats for criticizing the war, and thus damage our right to free speech, or B) exert enough stress that the American people elect Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Clark, and the new president pull the troops out of Iraq. That is why they are attacking us, at least in Iraq. There are of course, other goals, such as spreading their radical Islam. (Note: I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion. I will not abide though, anyone who kills innocents in the name of whatever god they believe in.)
Nope, they (terrorists in general) want American troops out of the Middle East. They don't give a damn about how much freedom of speech you have, and I doubt all that many of them really care which God(s) you choose to believe in.
rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?) Anti-war people are not suggesting we go on as before; rather, this is what pro-war people are suggesting. America is attacked by crazy fundamentalists with marginally legitimate greivances. Does it (a) attempt to bring the criminals in question to trial, and (through other means) settle the greivances, or (b) invade a few more countries and piss off a few more million people?
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
How TF did this get modded as insightful? The Patriot Act, specifically the provisions that were found unconstitutional, allow for "secret detentions" where lawyers could not consult for those who were "terrorists" (in this case Mr. Arar). Well, that's great, but if a prisoner can't see the charges against him and neither can he obtain a lawyer, he's screwed... and that's what happened to Mr. Arar.
Re:Sure there is (Score:3, Insightful)
The tea at the Boston tea party was owned by the British East India company. Founding investment in the firm was overwhelmingly from the British Monarchy of 60-80 years previous, and the firm enjoyed a royal monopoly, and employed British military personel as its "para-military" security forces, ergo it was a government front organization.
Sorry, but that's 0 for 2. Your history teacher needs to hunt you down like a dog and make you give your high school diploma back.
Re:And??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely because they are elected, my dear Watson. Being elected, they are beholden to the swaying to and fro of the public. Elected officials are always thinking about the next election, and thus anything they can do that says "I did something" is viewed as a positive, even if it's later shown to be unconstitutional. The wronged Congressman can then say "well, I did my part but those liberal/conservative judges knocked it down" and still gain the voter's support.
That is why the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted our government to be a troika of a sorts. The Executive and Legislative branches are elected and can follow the will of the people. The Judicial branch is not elected and thus (in theory) not subject to the whims of the passing fancy of a public mob. This is a Good Thing, because it's times like these that judges are called upon to do unpopular things. The fact that they can do so largely without facing the ire of voters means they don't have to worry about their political skins like elected officials do.
You know, the longer I view the Constitution, the more brilliant I think the framers were. Truly men of vision, trying to set down a system of fair, just laws in which freedom could endure. What a shame we've made such a mess of it since then.
Re:Sure there is (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely, you are thinking about the revolution. Which is something completely different.
And the difference between throwing tea overboard and blowing up a building is that no one can reasonably expected to get hurt by some tea thrown overboard. Acts of property distruction are just that (or maybe even lumped in with vandalism-- not terrorism). Explosions are messy, and in a populated area (i.e. in a house) an explosion can reasonably be expected to hurt someone.
Re:And??? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you scoff look at the war on Iraq. They wanted to attack Iraq and depose Hussein from the day Bush was inaugerated. Cheney, Perl and Wolfowitz wanted to and wrote about it years before that. 9/11 just gave the Bush crowd a convenient excuse. The fabricated a bunch of unproven ties between Iraq and Al Quida and trumped up non existent WMD's. Presto, they have an excuse to take down Iraq and radicly alter the world to conform to their world view, or at least they thought. It remains to be seen if Iraq turns in to more of a problem than it was under Hussein when the Shia's try to take the power that is their right in a real democracy (though I wager the U.S. will prevent any election that isn't rigged).
I'd argue the Patriot Act is also just a manifestation of the desires of a right wing administration that wanted repressive laws to enforce order and to stifle dissent, 9/11 just made it feasible to pass them. Right wing adminstrations like everyone to either agree with them or shut up. When an administration can spy on anyone without judicial oversight, watch everything you read, everything you buy, they make people live in fear and most people living in fear keep their mouths shut. Ideally they make everyone shut up without even arresting anyone. Though they will arrest and intimidate a few that keep dissenting. That is the thing they want most out of the Patriot Act, an end to criticism of them and a cowering populace.
The fact is the current administration loves 9/11. It is the best thing that could have happened to Bush. Before it happened his popularity was declining and he was looking like a one term President. Afterward he is a towering figure of strength, hard to beat, vote for him or America will go down in flames. Since 9/11 nearly every speech Bush gives is laden with the words terror and terrorism juxtaposed with freedom and patriotism. You are either with us or against us. If you disagree with us you are unpatriotic and soft on terrorists or practicly a terrorist yourself. Every speech is designed to drown America in fear so you will turn to them to "save" you from terrorists lurking in every shadow. The war against terror will never end, and they are the only ones who can fight it, so you have to keep them in power from now to eternity. Fear is a mind killer and the Republicans are using it to great effect to stiffle dissent and to protect their hold on power at all costs.
So the 9th circuit overturned one little piece of the Patriot Act. Well the 9th is the most overturned court and the most reviled by the right wing. Its a propaganda boon for them to say, there they go again, they are a bunch of left wing loons, they aren't with us, they are against us, they are practicly terrorists themselves. See why we need a bunch of right wingers in all the courts. Even if the Supreme Court does overturn this its one little piece and the Bush adminstration will just come back with a bunch of new pieces to replace it. They can currently pass dangerous laws a lot faster than the courts can overturn them. They probably put a few garbage pieces in, in the first place, so a couple would get overturned, people would cheer, and the really bad stuff would still be there.
If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act pretty much the only option is to put Bush and the Republicans in congress out of power in the next election, though we are bucking a head wind in the form of giants piles of cash to brainwash people through TV and the threat of rigged elections thanks to Diebold and the Pentagon's SERVE. The Democrats suck too but I think we all remember now why Republicans t
Re:And??? (Score:1, Insightful)
You will also notice that there are lots of people arround the world who like nonesense violence as much as the average USA president or USA 13 year old boy, with the big difference that they live in a 3rld world country that has been stoled by you over and over again, so he hates you in a way we can't even understand.
So since he doesn't have a college to go, a wife to protect, a job to take care of, since your country has taken care over the years of taking all those things away from him, he doesn't have anything to loose, so all he has left is try to kill as many yanquis as he can. I am not in that situation, i think i can fight against you in a more low-level, self-protecting, and effective manner, which is work hard to see my country recover from what you have done to it; but i understand him, and in his situation, i would do exactly the same thing.
I Think you just got what you asked for.
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, sometimes people die. Sometimes in large quanities. Yes, we should punish Al-Qaeda and put them in jail, no question about it, but geez, people overreacted to September 11th. You can't get too emotional about how deal out punishment. You have to look at it calmly.
Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:3, Insightful)
#2. Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.
#3. Bush is ALREADY planning on pulling the troops out. He's advanced his "schedule" for turning the government over to the Iraqis. That doesn't require any new president be elected.
#4. Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam". But more and more Muslims are seeing the current "War on Terror" as a war on Islam. You don't hate me yet, but if I started setting fire to your house and shooting at you, you'd quickly learn to hate me. That's what the US is doing in Iraq.
#5. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack. Why even bring it up if they had nothing to do with it? Unless you can't tell the difference between Osama and Saddam. Which supports #4's war on Islam.
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches."
-and-
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion."
Hmmm, seems you're a little bit confused as to what your beliefs are.
The reason these laws exist. (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason that the U.S. has the patriot act (and the reason Canada has a similar law now) is because people demanded that the government do something about the threat of terrorism. They wanted security, and they couldn't understand why the laws weren't protecting them.
However, none of the hijackers (as I understand it) ever committed a crime, until the morning of 9/11/2001. Our basic values say that it's a persons actions, not their thoughts, that are punishable. If our laws reflect those values, there's nothing we can do to prevent this type of terrorist attack (short of getting fewer enemies).
Therefore, while these laws run directly against our most cherished values, they are the only defence against the threat.
For that reason, there is no real defence. It's a no-win situation. If we continue to play by these rules, we've already lost.
How do you fix it? Step 1: learn about the history of the middle east, and specifically what the west has done in the last 50 years to really piss off the people there. Step 2: admit we were wrong. Step 3: apologize. Step 4: sign a final deal, compensating the Palestinians for their loss. Step 5: try not to get ourselves into this mess again.
Re:Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:0, Insightful)
Then why did they destroy the twin towers and kill 4000+ American civilians before we arrived in Afghanistan and Iraq?
#2. Iraq will not be a Democracy...We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.
The British Monarchy sure didn't expect the colonies to turn into a self-sustaining democracy either...
#3. Bush is ALREADY planning on pulling the troops out. He's advanced his "schedule" for turning the government over to the Iraqis. That doesn't require any new president be elected.
Pulling the troops out has nothing to do with turning over the government to the Iraqis. We turned over German government years ago but still maintain bases there.
#4. Iraq was a SECULAR state.
true, but only via brutal force (i.e. practice religion=get your head cut off). We're now seeing what the people of Iraq want to practice vis a vis the freedom of religion - ohh, did I mention -we- gave that to them?
#5. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack.
nice try, but intel proves otherwise (geez, how many times did Al-Qurda visit Sadam? geez, what was that empty 747 in Bagdhad used for? geez, how much money did Sadam give Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, etc. for suicide bombings?)
Geez, why did the parent get modded Insightful? Oh, that's right, I'm reading slashdot again.
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:1, Insightful)
No - Bush is the pussy, and you, by extension are as well.
Here's why:
After the first plane hit the first tower, all aircraft should have been immediately grounded, across the country. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Furthermore, the second plane that hit the other tower flew OVER McGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE.
The place "to fight back" was over the skies of New Jersey, on the morning of September 11th.
Furthermore, the attack was carried out solely by Saudis and Yemenites. Our country responded by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. WTF? If we were to take an honest militaristic approach to this problem, we should of invaded those two countries. After all, their people attacked us. But, we failed to respond appropriately, and therefore are playing right into the terrorists' hands. Don't you realize that the Saudis are recieving a nice windfall in their sales of oil since we removed a competitor from the picture?
WE ARE DOING OUR ENEMIES' BIDDINGS. And "neo-cons" who think that the way we fight our enemy is by attacking our enemy's enemy, and yada yada yada about WMD, is nothing more than TREASON.
So, to respond - all these new inconviences in the airports are truly useless as a method to "fight back". Using our military to down airplane #2 when it was as much as 400 miles off course, and clearly headed straight for NYC would have been the proper way to "fight back".
Beyond that, parking ICBMs in orbit above Mecca and Medina would have been also an appropriate way to "fight back" as opposed to doing the Saudi's bidding in Iraq.
The failure of the military to stop the second plane on its way to NYC is UNFORGIVABLE. We have a massive THREE TRILLION DOLLAR defense industry that can't stop a single, lumbering sub-sonic aircraft. The man in charge is solely responsible for those attacks - George Bush.
Re:Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:2, Insightful)
1 - In a way, you're right. Some of the terrorists are people who are resisting our occupation of their country. They used to rule the country and their angry that they don't any longer. The rests of the terrorists are fundamentalist Islamic jihadis who hope to intimidate the U.S. into leaving. Recently, Al Qaeda put out a message telling jihadis to not go fight in Iraq because they were taking too many casualties.
2 - Too early to say. We did go in without laying a groundwork for democracy. Something of a mistake. Also, Saddam didn't want a democracy, so it was sort of difficult to lay the groundwork before getting rid of him. In the U.S., it took 10 years from the Declaration of Independance (1776) to the Constitution (1787). The U.S. and Iraq face(d)different advantages and disadvantages in becoming democracies. The U.S. had the disadvantage that it was the pioneer of this particular form of representative democracy. Iraq has the disadvantage that it is surrounded by failed states that are actively trying to make this attempt at Arabic democracy fail lest it foment unrest in their own territories.
3 - Turning the government over to the Iraqis and pulling out the troops are two different things. I don't have the numbers on troop movement on hand, but there isn't any way that Americans are going to leave Iraq completely in the forseeable future. If only to man bases for pressure/attacks on Syria and Iran, there will be a U.S. presence in Iraq for quite some time. Also, U.S. troops will be there to defend Iraq's democracy for quite some time after the country is ruled by the Iraqi people. Eventually Iraq's own army and police force will be strong enough, but that will take longer than 6 months.
4 - Iraq was a secular state. Iraq was not spreading "their radical Islam". These are not equivalent thoughts. Iraq was a secular state, but when he ran out of allies, Saddam did turn to radical Islam as his only defense against the U.S.. He had the Koran written in his own blood for a little Islamic street cred. Countless connections between Saddam and terrorists have been uncovered since the U.S. rolled into Bagdad. There are also countless connections between terrorists and radical Islam. There isn't a one-to-one-to-one connection between all three groups, but there's a whole lot of overlap all around.
4a - The radical wing of Islam is constantly threatening: "If you do this [random offense] you will turn the entire Muslim people against you." This is false. It would only be true if the Muslim people were sheep, which their not. The ones with hope see the islamic fundamentalists as horrible aberations.
4a.1 - Another way of looking at it is, we tried not to offend the Muslim fundamentalists, and they killed us anyways. Now we're going to kill them, which they may find offensive.
5 - It is still unclear whether Iraq had anything to do with the WTC attack. More evidence has been unearthed since the fall of Saddam to indicate that his government did have dealings with WTC-related terrorists. It is unlikely that Saddam planned or ordered the attacks, but it is likely that he, or his generals, supported some of the terrorists at one point or another. Is this damning? Not terribly, except that the WTC attack was an act of war, Saddam and Co. knew it was being planned, and they condoned it.
5a - Also, there is a general connection between Saddam and WTC, namely, the harboring of terrorists. The more places terrorists can live and train the more likely we are to be attacked again. So, the best way to defend against the next WTC attack is to take away the hiding places.
"Kill every damned one of those sons of bitches" - an abbrieviation of the conclusion of the Just War theory, believed by many Christians.
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion." - not a contradiction of the above sentiment. He doesn't hate Muslims just because they're Muslims. He wa
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:5, Insightful)
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches"
I hate to point this out to you but you are a case study in what is wrong with modern, institutionalized Christianity, especially in the U.S.
If you were really a follower of the teachings of Christ and really understood his teachings you would realize Christ was the ultimate "pussy" to use your derogatory term. He was most certainly the most committed pacifist you could ever find.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5.38-41
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26.51-52
If Christ were alive to see people like our President or the officers in our military, tell you about what devoted Christians they are and then rush out to kill people in his name he would be devastated. No matter how justified they think they are, they are committing a hypocrisy of immense proportions.
There are only two paths, you are truly Christian in which case you would be a pacifist, a pussy to use your term, and you wouldn't kill people, no matter how much you were provoked.
Or you are using Christ's name out of political and social convenience because you have to be a good Christian to be elected President or rise in the ranks of the military or in many respects to be an accepted member of yout community especially in the U.S., one of the most fanaticly "Christian" countries. I'm pretty sure the later is the case for 90+% of the Christians in this country. People like the Quakers seem to be the only people who really understand Christ's teachings. Most of the supposedly Christian churches are institutions Christ would have abhored. They are social institutions worshiping him as an idol, regurgatating his teachings but never really listening to them, and certainly not understanding the most basic tenents of his teachings.
Most of our politicians and military officers should admit it. They are Machiavellians or Nietscheans to whom power is the true religion. Christianity is a badly worn facade of social convenience. Deep in their hearts they don't subscribe to it because it is a "pussy's" religion. George W. Bush no doubt found Christ about the same time he realized he and his family wanted him to be President.
Re:Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:4, Insightful)
#1. Those "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" or "resistance".
You have a point that U.S. troops are legitimate military targets - but the bombings of the Red Cross, the UN offices and Iraqi police are in fact terrorist.
Also, the groups attacking us aren't "freedom fighters" they are on one hand Baathists dead-enders and foreign Islamists - neither group is fighting for freedom, they have no problem with violent oppression per se, they just want to be the ones doing the oppressing. If we totally botch the occupation and transition to Iraqi self-government we may in fact see a popular uprising and genuine freedom fighters, but the current bunch aren't.
Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.
You may be right - but I have to say it will probably be somewhat more democratic than the last regime. The fact that each faction is heavily armed is probably better than the alternative - that one side would be heavily armed and the others defenseless. I think the only hope of any kind of just peace between the different groups is federalism - democracy is somewhat less important. The Sunni's, Kurds, Chaldeans etc. are very aware that a lynch mob is a perfectly democratic - the majority is in enthusiastic agreement and the dissenter is about to cease his dissent.
Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam"
True, but after the first gulf war Saadam wrapped himself in the Koran as a way of solidifying his support and casting his conflict with America as being the U.S. against Islam rather than against Iraq. His own rhetoric became very religious, he added "God is Great" to the flag, began mandatory religious instruction to the schools, increased religious programing on state media, opened new mosques etc. To a large extent this was a defensive measure to forestall Wahabbi and Shia fundamentalist incursions into Iraq but it was also a way of rallying broader Arab and Muslim support.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack.
True, but I think the WTC is the ultimate rationale of the war (I find the "blood for oil" argument unconvincing - at least by itself). After 9/11 the doctrine has been that not only terrorists but their state sponsors are fair game. To some degree this goes for ALL state sponsors not just ones that sponsored Al Quaeda specifically. Of all the state sponsors of terrorism there are good arguments to be made that Iraq was the most immediately threatening. Unlike the others Iraq was in direct conflict with the U.S. - we were imposing the embargo, the no-fly zone, occasional cruise missile attacks by the Clinton administration. I think it is reasonable to assume that Saadams main interest in pursuing relationships with terrorists was to use them as a weapon against his immediate enemy - the U.S. rather than against Israel as is the case with Syria, or as a way to promote a religious doctrine throughout the middle east as is the case with Iran. And I think it is still likely that Iraq's support for terrorism included at least a nascent relationship with Al Queada. It was the Clinton administration that first alleged direct ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda. And such ties make sense - Saadam's preferred secular arab nationalist groups like Abu Nidal seem to have become less effective just as he was wrapping himself in the new Islamic flag of Iraq. He had started to support Islamist groups like Hamas so Al Quaeda's religious nature was no barrier to him. For Bin Laden's part he has always been more than willing to use "infidel" allies against his enemy of the moment - hell, he allied with US against the soviets and was pretty tight with Pakistan until very recently (I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during Armitiges first conversation with Musharef right after 9/11).
Re: Osama and the WTC (Score:4, Insightful)
If the US wasn't dependent upon foreign oil, we wouldn't have been over there in the first place, and there would have been no reason (however twisted) for attacking us.
You don't see many Africans bombing buildings over here.
Why?
We aren't occupying any African countries, that's why.
(And before you bring up the Lockerbie bombing, note that that occured after Reagan bombed Libya.)
If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have.
George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements."
Re: Osama and the WTC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, wait, no, that wasn't it? Well, at least Jesus didn't let that filthy whore get awa... er, wait, he *did* keep her from being stoned to death, didn't he? At least those Romans soldiers got what they deserved! Paul took off a terrorist's ear with his mighty sword! Oh, but, er, Jesus put it back on, didn't He?
I'll stop damning Christians when the damned stop pretending to be them.
Re:Go ahead, mod me down. (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realise that they did all die in the planes that they'd hijacked?
Re:Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a mistake you are making. The guys at IraqiLinux or whatever are most likely upper class or upper middle class. People who own computers in Iraq right now are certainly not working class (especially given that most Iraqis lost some of their wealth with the breakdown of the banking system). These guys most likely had food even during a tyranny likes Saddam's. You may not realize it but in most of these poor or developing countries, the people you come into contact on the internet are the upper end of the economic class. This class generally does ok even during a war or some catastrophe. Even people you see being interviewed on tv are the upper end. They are the elites. The poor, working class, and lower middle class* do not get the same treatment. I mean, just watch a tv interview where some guy from say Kuwait is being interviewed. Do you think this guy is working class? Most likely not. How about China? How many tv reports have you seen from the interior of the country? Do you know that most of the Chinese you see on tv are from the wealthier areas?
When someone setups a website from say Colombia, that person is doing ok. The vast majority of the population won't waste their money and time on things like websites. All the issues you read from these websites are skewed towards the upper end.
It's same with media from foreign countries. If you go and read print media (this is available online; just check out Google News or something), what you read is totally different from what the general population reads. What you read is generally the English-speaking newspapers which are geared towards foreigners and the elites. The issues the elites deal with are not the same as faced by the general population.
What I say applies to the vast majority of poor or developing countries on earth. When you meet some guy in a chat, or a message board, or in a game, these guys are actually the upper end of the spectrum. You hardly ever meet the "regular" people. Most of the time, these people don't have the money or time for computers/etc. Also, most of the general population does not speak English (assuming English isn't a major official language). The people who DO speak English, are the elites.
So the next time you meet someone from China, or Iraq, or Kuwait, or Bolivia, or Pakistan, or Bulgaria, or Tanzania, or whatever, keep that in mind. Is someone representative of the population, or are they part of the elite clique in these poor countries?
(* Most poorer countries have a TINY middle class (relative to richer countries). So most are either working class, poor, or upper class. This means that the people you meet online are actually have a good job, good house, etc) Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Nice fantasy you live in. (Score:3, Insightful)