Kerry's Record On Electronic And Civil Rights 328
An anonymous reader writes "John Kerry lambastes John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act, positioning himself as a crusader for civil liberties. The question is, how much substance is there to his rhetoric? This article was an eye-opener to me, in evaluating just that. Slashdotters tending to be passionate about the Patriot Act, encryption, and electronic monitoring - subjects this article tackles with respect to Kerry."
DMCA (Score:2, Insightful)
However, since Shrub certainly didn't do it while he had 4 years to do it, we can be sure he won't if he wins four more wars.
Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
In that case, you're also likely to be someone for whom there's no doubt that Kerry will be at least a marginal improvement.
Re:You apparently didn't read it (Score:3, Insightful)
The Bush administrattion has been *so* bad on these issues that virtually no one who's capable of securing the Dems' nomination could be equally bad, *regardless* of the historical record.
Virtually every President -- with the exception of the near-pathologically saintly, like Jimmy Carter -- secretly deems his first priority to be winning a second term. Kerry knows that moving too far to the right, even if he were so inclined, would threaten his re-nomination.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
And no chance of winning, so he's not really a choice, even if he's on the ballot.
No matter how much we'd all like it to be so, without voting reform (specifically, something like Instant Run-off Voting, but there are other options), it's a two party, two choice, system for President. Vote accordingly then fight to change the way the system works.
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
But I don't love everything Bush has done. His administration is disturbingly secretive, and while I freely concede the need to keep some things secret, it is clear to me a lot of people are using "security" as an excuse to cover things up. I understand the "You are with us or against us" line in the context of countries (where IMHO it does make sense in context), but they apply it to individuals too often where it doesn't make sense. The deficit bothers me. Some other things bother me.
OK, I understand the war is a big deal, and a lot of people disagree with me. For me it is a big issue, but not big enough to call myself a one-issue voter. Kerry could have definately picked me up on other issues.
But any issue I care about, he has voted against (which sometimes manifests as a "vote for", like the Patriot act). Civil liberties? Copyright issues? Smaller government? Nope, nope, nope. At best, silence.
You take away the war issue, and there isn't much reason for a Slashdot type to vote for either one of them. That leaves me mostly deciding on the war issue and I personally think that it is going as well as can be expected. (For reasoning on that, see a lot of the arguments here [64.235.242.204], and no, I don't expect you to swallow that uncritically, and no, there likely isn't much you can say to change my mind on the issue at this point.) So, Bush it is. But I'm probably voting libertarian on all the other races that I can.
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see Bush is for it. Kerry is against it. Hmm, Kerry gets my vote.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, what's Bush going to do, propose tax increases for big companies?
Outsourcing is caused by business being really expensive here in the US--in fact, so expensive that moving entire factories and buildings overseas ends up saving the company money.
I'm not really a Republican (because somehow they've gone crazy in the last 10 years or so) but it would seem that legislation that would make inland business less expensive would be more of a Republican thing.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably not much. The stronger critique of the Bush adminstration is the alleged tax break given to out-sourcing companies. I never did hear Bush respond in the debates to this break, so I'm not sure what the counter-argument is. Ideally, the US government might be tax-neutral towards outsourcing. Some might support an administration that would take efforts to prevent outsorceing. Bush answered the outsourcing question with answers about increased education opportunities. Education helps, but I'd rather he give a firm answer to the crticism. Some might even support more agressive means to prevent outsourcing (taxes, trade resticitions, embargoes, etc). I'm not saying I'm in that camp, but surely the president has more influence on this issues that just his opinion.
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the question, I base it on these two quotes from your post:
OK, I understand the war is a big deal [...] For me it is a big issue, but not big enough to call myself a one-issue voter.
and
[...] there isn't much reason for a Slashdot type to vote for either one of them. That leaves me mostly deciding on the war issue [...]
My question is: How do you reconcile those two statements?
~UP
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure Kerry will be bad, different bad, and the calculus of badness is pretty hard so I'm not sure I'd be so bold as to say Kerry will be a "marginal improvement", I'd just stick with they are both going to be inevitably bad. What do you expect when you have two spoiled rich kids, Yale grads, Skull and Bonesmen, elite of the elites, never done an honest days work in their lives.
Though I should qualify there is a big plus in having different parties controlling the White House and Congress because grid lock is a big plus when both major parties have gone insane and are completely corrupt, since it slows them down, they can't make major policy changes and are confined to colluding to hand out the massive pork to their friends. Gridlock is kind of like a straight jacket for the criminally insane. So if the Republicans hold Congress, having Kerry in the White House would probably be a marginal improvement and vice versa.
Me I'm taking the long view so I think it would be best if Bush/Cheney win, the Republicans get 60 seats in the Senate, build their lead on the House, and get the Supreme Court stacked early in the next term. It would be especially good if the election looks really tainted, rigged and stolen.
Why you ask? Have I gone insane? Well no, you see I'm pretty sure the Republicans will tilt in to an insane binge of right wing extremism in the next term if they hold power and especially if there is another terrorist attack to use an excuse. In fact I'm willing to bet they will stage their own attack if Al Qaida doesn't oblige, like the Anthrax letters. Terrorist attacks are pure gold when you are trying to seize power.
Why is this good? Because things might get so bad it might wake up sane Americans that their government is no longer of the people, by the people or for the people, and it doesn't really matter which party has power because they are both screwing the people. If Kerry were to win people might say, whew, glad thats over, and not realize Kerry and the Dems are screwing them pretty much the same as Bush and the Republicans, just with a different style.
Maybe, just maybe, if things gets really bad people will wake up and unite to do whatever it takes to take their government back, either peacefully through a real third party, or if it appears the Republicans are stealing the elections using as much force as is necessary, something which I'm pretty sure all the founding fathers would bless. The founding fathers knew and feared tyrannical government and they thouroughly expected one would eventually seize power in America despite their best efforts in the Constitution to prevent it and we are pretty close.
The U.S. is in desperate need of a renewal of its Democracy and ping ponging between really bad Republicans and really bad Democrats is precluding that rebirth. America needs a Master Reset and a reboot to clear a corrupted system.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The primary difference, to me, is that Bush is unwilling to look at his decisions outside the context of his spiritual beliefs. He doesn't even appear to be trying to acknowledge his biases in this regard. At least Kerry acknowledges his bias, and promises to do his best not to let them color his decisions.
When a president supports a constitutional ammendment to define a word -- and a word that stands for something that's historically been a right of each State to legislate -- he crosses a line. When he declares that a belief system (in this case, Wicca) "isn't a real religion", and supports acts that repress its practice, he crosses a line. I think Kerry is at least pragmatic enough that if he has such feelings he knows better than to bring them into his politics.
And, international perception. Now, what the world thinks of the US isn't the most important thing; but, it is worth considering. When all of the US' allies view our president as a would-be dicator, and view his administration's foreign policy as insulting and threatening, it should give one pause. The fact that the international commuity at large is hoping that Kerry will win because they feel that Bush is insane, we have to consider that maybe their opinion is worth considering.
The war issue, for me, isn't about "how it's going"; I agree we're doing pretty well, all things considered. For me, it's about how we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and how the administration continues to try and deceive the public into believing that Saddam attacked (or was about to attack) the US. If Bush had gotten on television and said "Saddam may not be a direct threat to the US, but he is a vicious dictator. Eliminating him will bring stability to the region", I wouldn't be so angry about the war in Iraq.
But, war issue aside:
Now, I think several of the 3rd-party candidates are actually better choices, but since I live in Minnesota, I'm voting Kerry. Simply put, and war aside, Kerry is less insane than Bush.
[0]: If implemented correctly, faith-based services would allow religious groups to have the same standing as secular groups when it comes to charitable work. As long as all faiths are treated equitably, this wouldn't violate the Establishment Clause, and would be (IMHO) a good thing. For the record, I'm an atheist (though of an odd sort).
Re:You didn't say equally bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
On the other hand, we need Badnerick or someone else whose issues are civil liberties. I'm still weighing things to see if I can risk voting Libertarien this year.
Re:Well.. gun grabbers get a F on civil rights (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm voting for Badnarik, and we need a strong third party to help create a new, healthier political system without these two bought and paid for parties that "represent"
However, I want to be free from Mobocracy, and believe in a constitutional republic with armed civilians and with NONE of the rights being collective, all being individual.
The right to speak freely, pursue religion, marry a dog or same sex, freedom from illegal warrants and searches (like the Patriot Act provides) is married to the right to bear arms. I refuse to allow people who champion certain civil rights portray themselves and activists when the support communist/fascist notion of a Totalitarian state, the collective right - in most cases would be totalitarians disguise their fear of an armed public by saying the Framers intended the right to bear as collective, thoroughly disproved in the Federalist Papers and by many quotes from the framers and reflected in the Framer's respective state constitutions.
When thinking of the words of Rand and Kozinski, why is it that the only people who truly appreciate America escaped from Totalitarian communist regimes?
To quote Alex Kozinski - he said history would be vastly different had American slaves or Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto been able to arm themselves.
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees," wrote Judge Kozinski, a native of Romania. "However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once," he wrote.
And to those fools who speak of any right being collective; here is Ayn Rand to the rescue: "If you accept the Totalitarian idea, if the words "State" or "Collective" are sacred to you, but the word "Individual" is not -- stop right here. You don't have to read further. What we have to say is not for you -- and you are not for us. Let's part here -- but be honest, admit that you are a Totalitarian and go join the Communist Party or the German-American Bund, because they are the logical end of the road you have chosen, and you will end up with one or the other, whether you know it now or not.
-- That each man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken from him for any cause whatsoever. These rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
-- That the right of life means that man cannot be deprived of his life for the convenience of any number of other men.
-- That the right of liberty means freedom of individual decision, individual choice, individual judgment and individual initiative; it means also the right to disagree with others.
-- That the right to the pursuit of happiness means man's freedom to choose what constitutes his own private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement; that such a pursuit is neither evil nor reprehensible, but honorable and good; and that a man's happiness is not to be prescribed to him by any other man nor by any number of other men.
-- That these rights have no meaning unless they are the unconditional, personal, private possession of each man, granted to him by the fact of his birth, held by him independently of all other men, and limited only by the exercise of the same rights by other men.
-- That the only just, moral and beneficent form of society is a society based upon the recognition of these inalienable individual rights.
-- That the State exists for Man, and no Man for the State.
-- That the greatest good for all men can be achieved only through the voluntary cooperation of free individuals for mutual benefit, and not through a compulsory sacrifice of all for all.
-- Th
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Changing the electoral system in a way to benefit third parties can't be gradual, changes must be so swift and sudden that any attempt by the incumbents to retaliate by changing the law will be obvious and ugly.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
"I believe in the Patriot Act. We need the things in it that coordinate the FBI and the CIA. We need to be stronger on terrorism."
Combined with all the other quotes in his article, it sounds as if kerry believes law enforcement should have many powers, but they should just be expected to not abuse those powers. Whats going to keep law enforcement from abusing those powers? Nothing, according to all of Kerry's statements.
This is unrealistic, and a complete ignorance of the idea of checks and balances.
Time to hit the books... (Score:3, Insightful)
Civics lesson (continued from the Eighth Grade): Once a bill is voted on and passed by both Houses of Congress, the President either signs it into law or he vetoes it. He can either explicitly veto it, or he can simply ignore it (called a "pocket veto").
Once he signs it, there is little else (as in nada, zip, nuthin') he or a successor can do on his own but enforce it.
He can ask Congress to alter the law, which follows the above process.
He can have his Department of Justice bring suit in the courts to have the law struck down, but then the DOJ is just another party in a lawsuit. The judge can decide the case either for or against the DOJ's side, and even if the judge sides with the DOJ it doesn't mean the law will be struck down (i.e., the case can just be decided on its merits or some other way that doesn't affect the law).
Intellectually dishonest (Score:4, Insightful)
HE ACTUALLY AUTHORED PROVISIONS IN IT! AND SO DID JOHN EDWARDS!
But let's get past the political hackery that Reason is promoting... "WHAAA! John Kerry voted for the Act, and now he's criticizing it, how can you trust him!? Whaaaaa!!!!" It's an amazingly thoughtless critique, even more so intellectually dishonest in that it criticizes Kerry for criticizing the Act.
But the truth of the matter is the Patriot Act wasn't a well thought out bill, or one that was even debated thoroughly. What it was, was a collection of hundreds of little issues that various Congresscritters had brought up over the years, all jammed together. So when Kerry and Edwards wrote parts of it, they wrote the parts which deal with dealing with money launderers and things like that.
And when they criticize it, they're complaining about the parts that allow the FBI to search your Library checkout records.
And GW Bush would have you believe the opposite, that Kerry and Edwards are complaining about the parts they themselves wrote.
The truth is... Parts of the Act are Good, and parts are Bad. AND THAT IS WHY JOHN KERRY IS SUGGESTING WE REVIEW IT!
The reason.com article is intellectually dishonest in suggesting otherwise.
Manadatory service (Score:3, Insightful)
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000791.
"As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students"