U.S. House Votes to Extend Patriot Act 1137
Rick Zeman writes "In the wake of today's 4 dud bombings in London, the U.S. House has voted to extend the Patriot Act by a vote of 257-171. This includes 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on December 31, one allowing roving wiretaps, and another allowing searches of library and medical records."
It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fear Wins Again (Score:1, Insightful)
Talkin' bout a revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
They're also trying to make hay by criticizing the war in Iraq. But where the fuck were they before we, for the first time in history, started a war where none already existed?
Fuck you, Bill Clinton, for demeaning the office of President in such a way that infinitely corrupt GW could trick a bunch of right wing zealots to vote for him despite the pain he has caused.
Scoreboard (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, technically, they're using our own politicians to accomplish that, if that is indeed their goal. Now that is a feat: getting your enemy to obtain your goal for you.
Not yet extended (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just interested in seeing how quickly the conspiracy theorist start spewing stories about how the U.S. was involved in this because only the detonators went off.
So this is how liberty dies (Score:5, Insightful)
Should have added a guarantee (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is a terrorist bombing, we get money back (taxes).
Hold lawmakers accountable, so they create laws specifically for the purpose of prevention, not so they can brag about baseless legislation.
Americans know to look for a guarantee or a warranty on things... why do we hold manufacturers to these standards, but not self absorbed politicians.
I say we need a money back guarantee. If this fails in the next 10 years, we get refunded tax money.
If Apple can get attacked legally for iPod batteries that eventually don't hold their charge (because that's so serious), why not hold politicians in that type of arrangement?
Are iPod batteries more valued than safety?
"Extend the Patriot Act" (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm reading the article right, I'd say "extend" isn't quite strong enough of a word:
From the article: "The bulk of the back-and-forth centered on language making permanent 14 of 16 provisions that had four-year sunset provisions under the original law..."
I have to strongly agree with the critics mentioned in the article, who "said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the September 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law."
Guess the House didn't think so.
Just another "coincidence" (Score:2, Insightful)
http://rense.com/Datapages/londonbmb.htm [rense.com]
Patriot Act coming up for revote
England losing support to stay in Iraq
New need to fuel the fight against 'those terrorists'
London just got the olympic bid
The g8 summit.
The orwellian "we can't define the enemy, so we can't define the victory, so we'll just keep an ongoing war against a mythical enemy" syndrome
The list goes on
posted anonymously, because my karma can't take any more hits from those that censor anything that would shatter their world view.
Re:Scoreboard (Score:5, Insightful)
By politics or terror, bombs or rules, the goals of many politicians and religious terrorists are one in the same: It's about control-- imposing their will onto yours.
PATRIOT coming to Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scoreboard (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course being a Canadian, I know what real freedom is... I can watch anything I want on TV, so long as it's Canadian. I can listen to anything I want on the Radio, so long as it's Canadian. I can smoke anywhere I want, so long as it's not inside or near a building, other than my own house (for now at least). And don't even get me started about this DST crap!
Ah yes... all these great freedoms... screw terrorists, our own governments are herding us around like cattle... we're so desensitized to it that we just don't notice anymore... and when we do notice a huge change, we blame it on it being a necessary thing to defend against the great unknown (aka terrorists)...
I'm now waiting for the men in black to show up at my door for some mandatory brain washing... err... I mean re-integration with normal society... time for some behaviour modifying pills to be crammed down my throat!
Re:"Extend the Patriot Act" (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if they really did it or not (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Our governments have taken away far more freedoms from us than the terrorists ever have. Good job, terrorists: mission accomplished.
Re:The Power of Nightmares (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a pretty comprehensive look at the history and motivations BEHIND the threats we are facing, from both the terrorists and the American government. Yes, at times it's not even trying to be objective, but still a lot of the events and facts that are presented are historical record and are considered far too little today.
If only this was shown in American prime-time, people may start thinking more critically about the moves we are taking now...
I still shiver now when I hear the song "Baby it's cold outside".
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a municipality's right to run a public library, in any way they and their voters choose. If the voters of Podunk want to run a library that distributes translations of the Canterbury Tales in Swedish, that's their right.
It's one of those federal-interference-in-local-matters issues, commonly called "states' rights", that Republicans once got their panties in a wad over but have now forgotten about.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
The Patriot Act would be o.k. (Score:3, Insightful)
if it were only going to be used against people
who were trying to try to blow things up.
The problem is it's going to end up being used
against grandmothers with glaucoma and kids
with a few dime bags.
It's like the RICO act, meant to be used against
racketeers but just try to get your car back if
you drive down the wrong street at the wrong time.
The war on drugs has turned our government into
paternalistic assholes and changed cops from
helpful servants into self-righteous bastards
who see a criminal in every face.
We set ourselves up for this.
Where better for a guilty, nervous would-be bomber
to hide that among a population filled with guilty,
nervous drug users?
Wake up.
Tell your congressmen to repeal drug laws because they
only fuel organized crime, camouflage the real danger
among us and make those who would do us harm safer
by diverting funds and manpower from hunting bombers
down like animals to locking up teenage girls because
they were caught with a joint.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scoreboard (Score:0, Insightful)
I'm a die-hard libertarian, to the point that I believe that all taxes are inappropriate if not voluntary. Yet I think my liberal liberty-loving brothers have gone off the deep end on the Patriot Act stuff. You're drinking the John Birch Society paranoia Kool-aid my side used to thrive on.
Nothing's black and white. You guys tell us gun-loving, anti abortion libertarians that all the time. You talk about nuance. Take some of your own medicine. There are times we have to choose between the lesser of two evils (Bush v. closet white power Gore anyone? Clinton v. old as a fossil Dole?) It's time to apply that nuance to the Patriot Act argument.
Here's a consideration for you: there are an estimated 20 to 70 suitcase nukes in the US now, of which probably most won't work but perhaps as much as a dozen can be salvaged (google suitcase nukes and you'll come across enough reports to give you an objective perspective here). Osama's signature is the mass coordination thing. I think it reflects his contracting/engineering days or something, but that's just a wild assed guess. Regardless, he shows off by showing he can throw four planes at targets. Four subway bombs. Etc. My guess is he's waiting for the numbers in his suitcase plan and then will execute. He's going for infrastructure in the US, while doing political persuasion in the UK, Spain, Turkey, etc (the US is his final target and requires a different strategy).
So you have a choice, liberal libertarian friends. Do you fight an imaginary enemy, Karl Rove/Evil Bush, that might encroach on your liberties (welcome to the freaking club, btw. Since your hero FDR, our liberties have been totally eroded and you never complained). Or do you acknowledged and respond to the real barbarian that's already penetrated your defenses and is only waiting for that last nuke to give the attack his special touch?
My reading of the Patriot Act and revisions gives me a belief that it is a very small step that might help. We probably aren't doing enough, and OBL will probably prevail in another attack because half of us don't give a damn. Then you'll have to think about your liberties as the other half comes after you for letting this happen again.
Tough decisions, brothers. The time for ignoring the enemy is over. Either join us or join them.
Re:obligatory (Score:1, Insightful)
So this is how karma is whored... (Score:1, Insightful)
...by someone posting this Star Wars quote in every single Slashdot article involving civil liberties lately.
I know it was a lie (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?
For starters, here's an obvious case: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8629443/ [slashdot.org]>Jose Pidilla. He is an American citizen, who has been held for 4 years (since 2001). The government says he's a terrorist, but they've never proved it. The government was told to either prove he was a terrorist in a trail or to let him go in 90 days. That was way more than 90 days ago, and he's still being held. The government has appealed that ruling, saying they don't have to prove anything and can hold him forever.
So there's one case: An American citizen, held by his own government, with no way to prove his innocence and the government refuses to prove his guilt. His lawyer has stood before the Appeals Court and literally asked that his client be put on trial.
So how would you, if you were an American citizen, and you were in jail for 4 years (and it'll go on longer), waiting and hoping "that the courts would take the opportunity to sort it out"?
There was another case, the name of which I cannot remember, where a court clerk accidently released the wrong documents and it was discovered there was a John Doe who had been held for months. Nobody knew his name, nobody knew the charges, he had not been given a lawyer, and nobody was notified he was being held. The ACLU tried to get permission to speak to him and represent him. I don't remember for sure, but last I heard, I think they were denied -- so we have a John Doe who may or may not be a citizen, being held without anyone knowing who it is and without any of his family having any idea what has happened to him.
The PATRIOT act is the same thing as the House Un-American Activities Committee. Whenever you hear any politician stumping for something that has such an "all-American" name that there is no way any reasonable American could stand against it, then you know it means nothing but trouble for us. Anytime someone has to wrap a group or law in the flag so they can say anyone opposing it is unpatriotic does not have protecting freedom and the Constitution in mind.
For anyone watching the news, and just keeping up with the headlines, the cases above would have been clear. The PATRIOT act has, and will be used to subvert the Constitution. Do you *really* believe you can give the government that much power and nobody in charge will use it?
Re:Scoreboard (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course being a Canadian, I know what real freedom is... I can watch anything I want on TV, so long as it's Canadian.
If you're implying that there is a lot of Canadian content on Canadian TV then you're right. If you're insinuating that there is only Canadian content being aired then you're wrong. Flipping through any of these channels I can see butt load of American shows. BTW have you actually watched TV in the states? Are you aware of the amount of censorship that is enforced down south? I'm not talking about just news but sex, swearing, you name it and the government doesn't think you're mature enough to handle it. I spent five months in Chicago, seven months back in Toronto, another five months in Seattle and back again. Canadian broadcasting rules are a breath of fresh air compared to the way they deal with content down there. Europeans get to view whatever they want, we're wannabe Europeans and TV/radio in the U.S. well....
I can listen to anything I want on the Radio, so long as it's Canadian.
Same deal as the above. If you're driving through Buffalo then guess what? You're going to hear Buffalo/American content for the most part. If you get satellite radio then you can listen to whatever. Funny how that works.
I can smoke anywhere I want, so long as it's not inside or near a building, other than my own house (for now at least).
Good. Keep your cancer causing smoke in your lungs and and in your house. Thanks.
And don't even get me started about this DST crap!
OK I won't ;)
Re:Terrorism... (Score:1, Insightful)
Mod me up please, this post with its fake quote is about as insightful as the parent. Fair is fair.
Re:Not yet extended (Score:3, Insightful)
The abuses have already happened as reported by the inspector general back in 2003. [capitolhillblue.com] Oh well, this is the ever changing face of America. Funny how this type of big intrusive government is compatible with conservative philosophies. As long as no men are kissing I guess its all dandy.
Re:Calm down people... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is offensive that laws like the PATRIOT act are even discussed in this country, let alone passed the first time.
People act as if having any of these provisions striken is a victory. The fact that secret trials, the seizure of library and medical records, and roving wiretaps are even discussed in this country should offend you.
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:4, Insightful)
These laws have brought the US one step closer to being the sort of nation that is closer to "Utopia according to Bin Laden". Still liking it?
When religious zealots run the country appoint one of themselves to the Supreme Court and cry and whine about a nipple on television, it gets one step closer to Bin-Laden-Land, albeit with the Lord Almighty instead of Allah, but heck I don't see the difference.
Re:The real quote from the AG. (Score:2, Insightful)
"After measured deliberation and a public debate, the House has again provided the brave men and women of law enforcement with critical tools in their efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people"
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,128
Care to post your source? As if you had one.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're kidding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, there's nothing like an armed revolt to ensure freedom and democracy.... not.
Most likely a serious violent revolt would end up with the installation of a dictator and martial law... no matter which side 'won'.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:5, Insightful)
My money is funding it.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But wait! This is America... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this is why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Despite what the media wants you to believe, we are winning the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq and we are WINNING the war. The root cause of Islamic hatred toward America and the west is our success and our rejection if Islam. We can remedy this in two ways, by killing or capturing all Islamic terrorists or by converting to Islam. The terrorists know that if they lose in Iraq then it's all over for them, that's why foreign terrorists from all over the middle east are pouring into Iraq. This is the terrorists' last stand and we will prevail.
Fortunantly we have a president now who couldn't care less what the American left and the American media say about him. They can keep calling him Hitler day and night, they can yell at him until they are blue in the face just like they did to Reagan. Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing, it doesn't matter to him one bit what vocal fringe lunatics think.
Re:in soviet russia (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
The gov has yet to present proof. At this point, all that happened was that they declared him (a US citizen) an enemy combatent. According to the PATRIOT act, that gives them the authority to hold him forever, without even having to prove he is an enemy combatant.
The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me.
It's not just about his rights -- it's about protecting the rights of ALL citizens equally, so the gov can't do to him, you, or me, without following the law.
Re:Talkin' bout a revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
We need more Republicans who can fight the party machine.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you know? Because the government told you so? I don't normally consider myself a tinfoil hat person, but I find that attitude very scary. I have always considered government transparency to be the most important thing in any democratic system.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that it's okay to hold "enemy combatants" without proof. If that's the case, what is the process for determining who is an "enemy combatant?" Padilla was not captured in a combatant capacity on a battlefield; he was detained in an airport upon arrival. Do you have sufficient faith in our government to trust some elected official's secret say-so to determine who is detained without due process?
Re:It's for the children! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scoreboard (Score:3, Insightful)
You see for things to get better they have to get worse, much worse. The problem with America is its government is rotten to the foundation and the American people are completely indifferent and complacent. They ping pong between Republicans and Democrats seeking the lesser evil but finding neither is a lesser evil.
What America needs is a quagmire of a war or two where a lot of their children, friends and neighbors get killed an maimed, one with a draft would be best. What America needs is a newer, bigger Watergate where its exposed that the party in power is abusing its power to hold and expand its power so its becomes obvious we are in velvet gloved dictatorship under a facade of Democracy. We need the FBI and CIA to get even more out of control than they are, presumably after another 9/11 scale attack in the U.S and start rounding up people on a larger scale, torturing them, etc. We need a McCarthyist witch hunt like we got the last time the Republican's held power in Congress, and have it so sicken ordinary people that they will come to their senses and throw out anyone who have so completely lost sight of what our Constitution is supposed to stand for.
We need for this U.S. to turn in to a real police state, for all civil liberties to be eviscerated because its the only way the average American will remember that they had value, why they had value and why they were worth fighting for. American's have had it to easy for to long. They need to experience an old fashioned police state close up so they will remember why they are bad.
The goal is get enough people so disgusted with the status quo they will unite against both parties and start a movement for people and against power brokers, much like the Progressive movement was at the dawn of the 20th century. It could work but not with a bunch of lazy complacent people who could care less if they are living in a velvet gloved police state. That kind of people deserve to live in a police state and would probably be to ignorant to even notice.
To go off on a tangent there was an interesting comment on Charlie Rose recently about the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court. The worst thing that could happen to the Republicans is for them to stack the court with far right idealogues who will overturn Roe V. Wade. Why because women who used to be 15-20% points for the Democrats and are now split 50-50 and giving the Republicans their power mow. If a Republican stacked supreme court takes away the right to abortion and sentances women to unwanted pregnancies they will turn on the Republicans in droves and drive them out of power. For things to get better they need to get worse.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a war, then declare war. The people who are soldiers against you in that war that you capture are prisoners of war. If people you are fighting against are not following the rules of war, by not wearing proper uniform, etc. like most(all) terrorists, then they aren't soldiers: they are just criminals. You arrest them with the regular laws of the jurisdiction at hand; just like McVeigh, as was used as an example.
You seem to be suggesting an Orwellian world where we're always at "war," and not with any particular enemy. In this case a war on terrorism, which is a tactic. The government is fighting a "war" against a tactic which has been used for centuries. That is not acceptable.
blah (Score:1, Insightful)
They essentially now live with more freedoms than us in their own homeland.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
In Canada, the head of the RCMP complained about our "annoying" constitution, and how much easier it was before we had that pesky Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You have it right on the money. Cops want as much power as possible.
Problem is that power corrupts. Without checks and balances we're doomed.
Re:The Power of Nightmares (Score:4, Insightful)
It's quite depressing really. That documentary was shown in the UK almost a year ago. It has made the rounds in prime time slots all over the world - it was showing here in Canada several months ago. And for all that, the one country where it probably most needs to be seen is where it isn't getting any significant play.
If you can't download whole documentaries, you can start this article on Al Qaeda [gol.com] by Jason Burke who featured in the documentary. It will give you an idea of at least some of the background and misperceptions of the "global terror network", or lack thereof, that we are facing.
Jedidiah.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:1, Insightful)
jesus christ, seriously: if you don't care about liberty and freedom, if you honestly think the patriot act is a good idea, why the fuck are you living in this country? remember that quote about "and when they came for me, there was no one left to defend me"? no, didn't think so. those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, retard. shit.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't limited to the right. The left are just as likely to pass laws limiting freedoms as the right are, they'll just have a different set of criteria for choosing the laws. Both left and right are equally interesting in telling everyone else what to do and how to live their lives.
Max
Wow, how stupid can you get. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Oi idiot, Terrorism is already illegal, you can make all the laws you like, but you're not going to stop some nutter slapping bombs to his chest and blowing himself and anyone else near up".
Most suicide bombers are prepared to die, if they kill 1 or 100 guys. They'll blow themselvs up at the slightest chance of them being caught, so why the hell do they think this does anything but endanger police and security officers?
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:3, Insightful)
Can I tell the cops that when they arrest me in my home for smoking some pot? No? I guess I'm a terrorist too....
Re:Jose Padilla the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
Um...I don't know where you get your definitions from...but killing over 100 people sounds like an act of war to me.
Plus, if the difference between a getting a trial in the U.S. and not getting a trial is based on a word with a very loose definition (war) something is wrong.
NO U.S. citizen (unless maybe they are found on a battle field in the middle east fighting our troops) should not get a fair (as can be) trial.
Of course, if you disagree, you are in good company. [teachingam...istory.org]
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were winning the war, then the number of suicide bombers in Baghdad would be decreasing rather than increasing. As I said, this is turning into another Vietnam which will again demonstrate that technology CANNOT defeat an enemy who has the power of his convictions. We lost ~60000 men in Vietnam, the Vietcong lost more than 2 million - yet we left in shame.
You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? Osama bin Laden has called for and gotten Jihad against America because American soldiers are stationed in Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca. HE FRACKING SAYS SO. If America withdraws it's forces from Saudi Arabia, he'll end the Jihad!!! But as I said, we won't do that for obvious reasons. Furthermore, if rejecting Islam was the reason that Osama hates us, then shouldn't he also be waging war on China?
Kill or capture all Islamic terrorists? Sure - just like each retaliatory strike by Israel against Hamas prevents violence rather than inciting more of it. Converting to Islam? Simply not going to happen. Removing our troops from the Holy Land of Mecca just like Osama wants? Not going to happen either. If it weren't for oil, we wouldn't give a flying damn about the middle east. Either we prop up corrupt dictatorships for oil and have to live with terrorists or we stop sucking the oil tit. It's obvious which we're choosing.
Bush is doing the 'right thing?' Was he doing the right thing when he 'fixed the facts around the policy' of war with Iraq? When he failed to fire Rove and Libby for exposing Valery Plame becasue her husband exposed his lie about the Niger yellowcake? When he entered Iraq with no plan to exit? Don't delude yourself - Bush didn't invade Iraq because Saddam is a nasty meanie person. He invaded Iraq because Iraq has 1/4 of the world's oil reserves, and his advisors would rather enrich their former employers than invest 200 billion dollars in alternative energy.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The root cause of Islamic hatred toward America and the west is our success and our rejection if Islam"
Bullshit, it's fringe religious nuts who hate the west. Most Moslems don't, don't support terrorism, and are good, normal people. Interestingly, the beliefs of the fringe groups that fund the terrorism have a great deal in common with the right wing christian ultra-conservatives in this country (including both hating freedom and those who disagree with them).
Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing
That's the worst part, the inability of the right wing nuts who control this country to deffirentiate between "the right thing" and "our beliefs". Bush beleives that he is Right and refuses to ever admit that he is wrong. This is not a strength but a terrible weakness. There is no shame in being wrong once in a while, there is shame in convering the fact up to avoid embarassment.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they came for the Gypsies.
Then they came for the Communists and no one protested.
Then they came for the Catholics and no one protested.
Then they came for me, and there was No One Left to protest.
-- Martin Niemoeller
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Being able to persecute minority religions (prior to the ACLU it was actually illegal to be of the wrong religion in many places).
2) Outlawing abortion.
3) Eliminating enviromental legislation.
4) Keeping black people from voting.
etc.
Of course, few strict constructionist judges ever notice that the war on drugs is clearly unconstitutional too.
Re:Thank GOD for the Patriot Act (Score:2, Insightful)
America's tentacles are already all over Pakistan. Setting up Musharaf as the next Saddam.
Difference is Musharraf already has home grown WMDs and had his own people selling nuclear secrets, or was that your point ?
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Calm down people... (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, c'mon, it's pretty ridiculous that wiretaps requests wouldn't be for a person instead of a specific line. When the police ask a judge for a search warrant, do they have to obtain separate warrants for every room and dresser? No, they ask to search the premises of the person being investigated. Criminal investigations are aimed at people, and it only makes sense to have wiretap requests aimed at the people being investigated.
There has to be a balance between individual freedoms and societal needs. Screaming and hollering about every little step taken in the opposite direction from individual freedoms, no matter if it's justified or not, doesn't help you or the cause of protecting freedom. It just marginalizes you and people with similar views in the eyes of the mainstream, instead of convincing them with rational, thoughtful discussion. Look at the "gun nuts", like the NRA. Even though they have a good overall point in protecting the 2nd Amendment, the fact that they will not even discuss or consider even intelligent or rational gun control steps makes the mainstream look at all 2nd Amendment defenders as fanatics and gun-crazy sociopathic idiots.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:5, Insightful)
People named Habib who wear turbans to work deserve the same rights under the Constitution as those named Steve. By denying them that right, we are violating the fundamental principles of our society; of MY society. The laws and principles of MY country are being violated, and my fellow citizens (many of whom are named Habib) being denied their rights as citizens.
That anyone in DC even gives such a concept consideration is apauling and offensive.
As for a Democratic president, there were terrorist attacks under the last Democrat. The Bill of Rights was not violated under him the way it is being now. Instead, we had an impeachment hearing about a blow job.
You're right. Under a Democrat, we'd not be having this discussion. We'd be paying attention to a fake scandal cooked up by political hacks in order to cripple him. Welcome to Modern America.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Um...I don't know where you get your definitions from...but killing over 100 people sounds like an act of war to me.
No an act of war, by the most traditional definition, is something one nation (or the sovereign of a nation) does to another. The notion of civil war, where there are parties with contending claims to be the sovereign within a nation complicates matters a little, but basically war is not something an individual (or group of individuals without a claim to nationhood) can conduct. So no, what Tim did was not an act of war, it was an act of mass murder.
And the pot gets hotter. (Score:2, Insightful)
Who wants to make a bet that they'll just keep on turning up the heat in this pot of water we're all sitting in? Er, what's that? It's already boiling?!
So let's jump out already. Seriously, we're being cooked alive.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the "they hate us becasue we're free" claim I heard after 9/11. Really, do you believe al Qaeda suicide bombers are giving their lives because they want to remove your freedoms? They may well find your lifestyle repugnant, but what they want to change is US foreign policy; support of the Saudi royal family, Israel, etc. They are probably quite pleased with the occupation of Iraq for reasons which are obvious. But what the US does within its own borders is of no importance to them.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:1, Insightful)
What is worse is this: http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/web/ireland/Fu
US INVESTIGATORS, including CIA agents, will be allowed interrogate Irish citizens on Irish soil in total secrecy, under an agreement signed between Ireland and the US last week. Read the article, it gets worse.
I am really pissed off now. I am ashamed of what my country is tunring into. Blair is Bush's Poodle and Bertie(Irish PM) is Bush's bitch.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you don't like it (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? When?
Name one single example after 9/11 where letters such as what you describe (and not accompanied by a check for $100,000) have made a real difference in the fight against a bill whose purpose was to give the federal government more power or to satisfy the desires of large corporations (in other words, a bill that the "representatives" want to pass despite the wishes of the people).
Bet you can't.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
The current powers, of which the Bush administration is just a part, have realized a sad (to me) truth about the American People. The majority of us will happily settle for the illusion of freedom, eagerly believe any lies told us that support that belief, and disbelieve any truths that threaten that illusion.
We don't really care how screwed up things are as long as we can justify our belief that nothing is wrong (and therefore we don't actually need to do anything about it).
Complacency is easy, cheap, and doesn't cut into our beer and TV time.
The "land of the free, and the home of the brave", is not here in America. Here is the land of the sheeple, and the home of cowards afraid to face any unpleasant truth.
While there are many who are true patriots in this country, most don't actually do anything more than vote, if that. The vast majority has never written their congressmen and senators. Hell, most don't even know who their representatives are.
We complain that voting has become a question of the "lesser of two evils", but wouldn't vote for a truly good candidate if he/she wasn't the official Democratic or Republican candidate. Often, in the two main parties, the best choices are weeded out during the primaries, removed from the ballots not by the will of the people, but by the whim of the party elite.
Tommy
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
please report to the ministry of truth for re-education.
Oh and remember there will be an additional gas ration card for anyone that turns in a suspected terrorist this month.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It won't get any better. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Jose Padilla the facts (Score:3, Insightful)
alleged means someone says he did it, but no-ones offered any proof of that. It they had any proof, they would have pressed charges. Instead, all they have is circumstantial evidence. You obviously have access to a computer and Internet connection. And everybody knows that the most common material on line is pornography, sometimes with children. Does this make you a pedophile? Not until they find the kiddie-pron on your hard drive.
The fact that he converted to Islam has no bearing - this is a free country. Nor does his marriage to a Saudi have any bearing on the case. And I'll bet you know, and may even be related, to someone who was arrested for some crime. Are you an accessory simply because your friend or relative is a criminal?
I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but the simple fact is that there is no evidence, and no legal (constitutional) right for the government to hold him more than 48 hours without charging him. The constitution and laws were created very specifically to prevent this abuse of power, and the government has apparently decided that it isn't subject to the very laws that give it legitimacy.
Simply put, if the government doesn't abide by the constitution, then the government is not a legal government, and deserves to be overthrown (by voting them out, or by legal action - an armed "revolution" simply isn't going to succeed, nor is it necessary). In fact, it's our duty as American citizens to do this if our government fails to follow it's mandate.
America is based on the principle that the government is given rights by the people, not the people given rights by the government. Civil rights are not given to us by the government - we are born with them and the government has no right to take them away. The American justice system is based on the principle that "its better the guilty go free than the innocent are imprisoned", and "due process" is the procedure that ensures that. The Patriot act is nothing but a way for the government to avoid "due process" and illegally remove civil rights - which apply not only to Americans, but to all people regardless of nationality, race, gender, or religion.
But I guess you slept through Social Studies and American History. While you could probably find all this info with Google, it would be far easier to just go to your local library and brush up on exactly how America is supposed to work. Unless, of course, you're just an "Idiotarian" and incapable of understanding concepts like "Rule of Law", democracy, and the Constitution of the Unites States of America.
I have an idea. Instead of bringing freedom and democracy to the middle east, lets bring it home to the US first.
TommyRe:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -- Goethe"
Little new under the sun (Score:2, Insightful)
My favorite quote, that pretty much sums up the whole thing: "Senior American civil servants and politicians came to believe their view that the Soviet Union was an evil force against which the U.S. should be presented as a force for good."
The fools! - All Good Liberals (TM) know that the Soviet Union was a great force for Good in the world! 100 percent literacy and free healthcare! 100 percent literacy and free healthcare! 100 percent liter... erm, in any case what is interesting here is how little is new in the world.
While the "Liberals" (aka Socialists) used to carry water for the Soviets in the old days, now they have make do with the brave Mujahedeen. I guess whoever hates The Great Satan the most gets the loyalty of the Libs, no matter what... (Few things gets a Lib going as much as thinking about the poor, innocent Jihadis locked up at Gitmo.)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
By this definition, 9/11 was not an act of war either, since both those terrorist and McVeigh were in organized terrorist groups, but neither were "nations". Personally, I agree -- declaring a "war on terrorism" is as stupid as declaring a "war on inflation" or "war on poverty". It's meaningless to declare war on a vague concent rather than a defined enemy.
But if you're suggesting that right-wing militia and McVeigh's blowing up a building was "mass murder" while Al Queda's blowing up the WTC was "war" I'd be curious to know what the difference is.
A related quote (Score:2, Insightful)
--Adolf Hitler
TIMING IS EVERYTHING!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:2, Insightful)
"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Exodus 22:20
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18
Likewise, just quoting from a (hehe) holy text.
Ditto.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:1, Insightful)
1. Government is inefficient by its nature. Providing it with more tools to search for the terrorist will make it just more ignorant and lasy.
2. Certain people will get lots of power and even if they have good nature in general, they, as most of the people, are going to have there own biases. Then there is a question about who is going to police the police? The more obscure the procedures, the easier it is to abuse them
3. Politicians ARE ALWAYS DIRTY. How many politicians do you think will be interested in using some ready-made system to cover for their mess-ups?
4. The best way to stay in power forever is when the nation is in the state of emergency. It is very easy to create one and maintain the fears, especially when one can hunt for ghosts now and again...
Overall, the way you go now -- is straigt towards the communist-like oppression state. In fact communists, by the nature of the state (brainwashing, huge kgb, tight control over the foreigners, etc.), had probably the best control against the infiltration by the enemies. But still there were secret agents in there working for CIA.
Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler never said it [bartleby.com].
But so what if had? Hitler was a demogogue who might say anything if it would gain him power. To that end, he might just as easily have said something true as something false.
For instance, he's quoted here [military-quotes.com] as saying "There could be no issue between the Church and the State. The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church."
No doubt Hitler had some ulterior motive for advocating separation of Church and State but simple quoting Hitler would not in any way undermine the concept.
Similarly, America's law makers may have their flaws but they are by no stretch of the imagination like the Nazis or secretly harbour the objectives of the Nazis.
It would make no difference (Score:3, Insightful)
The american people are just not listening at the moment. Michael Moore's film was widely played and seen in plenty of time for the last election, and it made no difference at all.
If you were to play the (excellent) Power of Nightmares twice on NBC ABC and CBS not one mind would be changed in the US. They actually dont want to hear anything that contradicts their new religion.
The reality is that FOX is the perfect reflection of the american mentality, and the pulpit of this religion, and that evil fountain of poision is what the majority want to hear and what they want to believe.
No documentary will be able to break through this.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
In bad old Soviet Russia, you could go and pee on Lenin's statue while shouting "This is what I think of communism ! Lenin, drink my urine ! Down with Stalin !". You would be executed or sent to Siberia for it, but you could do it.
What I'm getting to is that having a right to do something means that you don't suffer negative consequences for doing it. If you do suffer said consequences, your "right" is no more right than our hypothethical russians right to pee on Lenin. And the only way to ensure that there's no negative consequences (such as being noted as potential terrorist by your government) is to make it both possible and legal to use these rights anonymously.
haha (Score:1, Insightful)
I heard the Nazi's also weren't fond of the Bubonic Plague. Stick it to the man! Plague-infested rodents for everyone!
Re:It's for the children! (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
This is different from efficiency. . . this is about the liberation from a monolithic government (England) and the safeguards to prevent such a power from controlling too much in America.
To claim it's a an efficiency enhancer cheapens the original intent and purpose.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Jose Padilla the facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you there. I've been a staunch Republican all of my voting life, I even voted for GWB twice. But, frankly, the people currently calling themselves Republican are nothing more than "The Tax & Spend Christian Party", imposing their warped, hypocritical and hateful religious agenda on the country and the world. I used to believe that if I wasn't doing anything wrong, I had nothing to fear, but I don't believe it anymore.
You even point it out in your argument Well maybe if you are mistaken for someone who is doing someone wrong, or
They've got control of the House, they've got control of the Senate, they've got the White House. And now, with Sandy D leaving, they'll have the Supreme Court, too. I feel so wrong for voting as I did last year. Oh, well, that's why I'm making plans for Canada next year.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes I have, and while it may be useful in some parts it definitely takes away some of our civil liberties, like the right to a trial.
Here's a crazy idea... Come up with a better solution to deal with terrorism in a free and open society
No Patiot Act is just as good as having the Patriot Act when it comes to terrorism. The Patriot Act has done nothing to protect us from terrorists since its inception. In fact, the terrorists from 9/11 should have been caught with the existing infrastructure at the time. There really is no need for The Patriot Act to catch terrorists.
And if you think that the US is no longer a free and open society, remember that in many countries around the world, you would be hunted down, arrested and maybe even executed for expressing the thoughts that you've so thoughtfully shared in this forum
That's irrelevant. If you want to play that game you can tell the Iraqi people that at least they don't live in North Korea. You can tell Cubans that they're lucky because they don't live in Afganistan. Human rights and civil liberties are not relative, they are absolute. We must constantly safe-gaurd them or they WILL slip away a little at a time.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank You!!
That is the perfect answer.
Some Gobsheen: If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?
Me: Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.
That will totally confuse them. They will be thinking about that for hours. Seriously I am going to use it. It is the perfect answer.
Pablo
"The house cat can get shot in a fox hunt" (Score:3, Insightful)
PRESIDENT BUSH: (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe it is in the interest of the world that a truly free state develop. I know it is in the interest of the Palestinian people that they can live in a society where they can express their opinion freely, a society where they can educate their children without hate, a society in which they can realize their dreams if they happen to be an entrepreneur. I know it's in Israel's interest that a free state evolve on her border. There's no other way to have a lasting peace, in my judgment, unless we all work to help develop the institutions necessary for a state to emerge: civil society, based upon justice, free speech, free elections, the right for people to express themselves freely. [usembassy.org.uk]
Yes, freedom is a great idea for other people, isn't it?
Well, by that logic.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have always thought : "If I haven't done anything wrong, leave me the F*CK alone!"
What I have to hide... (Score:1, Insightful)
social security number
mobile phone number
credit card numbers
home address
bank account numbers
medical information
private communications with family, coworkers,...
Not from:
law-abiding law enforcement officials for valid reasons related to protecting our country
But from:
corrupt politicians and their strategists
data and identity thieves
people that might sell the info to anyone who pays
If a intelligence officer's role is publicized in order to punish her husband, how much respect would average American citizens get regarding their privacy? If we post a blog message a politician doesn't like, would all our info published anonymously on the internet?
Access to private information of innocent Americans should be justified and there needs to be procedures in place to prevent abuse. If it cannot be justified, then the citizen should be notified so that they can take appropriate legal action against any abuse or misuse of their private information.
Nothing to Hide if You're Not Guilty (Score:1, Insightful)
Reminds me of this scene from Matt Bracken's novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic [enemiesfor...mestic.com], which is a fictional account of how that line-of-thinking would actually work in practice. It's not much of a spoiler to say that the novel is about a terrorist incident staged by government agents so they can expand their powers (since that's obvious in the first chapter). The following scene takes place at an anti-terrorist checkpoint on the highway:
Re:It's for the children! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nazism, and Communism did not start with we are here to beat you, imprision you, and murder you. They started with "this is for your safety. All of this is for you to prevent future harm from (capitalists|jews|terrorists)".
Sadly, those that downplay all these arguments, are the same type of people that lead societies after societies down the path of Nazism or communism.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is largely a state of mind. While it can be a dangerous one in much of the world, I don't like seeing our country moving in that direction. I would rather live free under threat than safe under fear of oppression. Besides, if the terrorists hate freedom, then why haven't the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc..., countries that are arguably more free than the U.S., not been turned into parking lots by droves of suicide bombers? No, it's our policy and actions, and I don't want to be deemed unpatriotic at best, and a terrorist under prosecution at worst for "attacking" those policies, just as it's supposed to happen in a true, working democracy.
That is my fear, the Patriot Act doesn't help, and it doesn't "feel" free, that's for sure.
Re:Scoreboard (Score:3, Insightful)
You are forgetting all the women who lean democratic, but because the democrats are pro-abortion vote for the republicans. I know a fairly large number of this.
Abortion is controversial. That means a lot of people have strong opinions. Most who care about the issue are already active. There might be a few who change from not caring because they get all the abortions they want now, but the large majority who will care about the issue already do.
Re:Scoreboard (Score:4, Insightful)
When U.S. authorities snatched a Canadian citizen out of an airport who had the misfortune to connect through New York on the way home (didn't even really stop in the U.S.) and sent him to Syria to be tortured they set a precedent that they can snatch anyone, anyplace and do anything they want to them. In fact under a project code named Rendition they've been doing just that. They've been snatching people all over the world, under the noses and against the wishes of sovereign governments, and sending them to be tortured. The U.S. government just has to have a suspicion you might be a terrorist and your civil liberties are gone. They don't even have to be right, you can be completley innocent since there is no trial here.
Perhaps saying more American's need to die in Iraq was a bit jarring. But thats what it took during the Vietnam era to wake America up, Americans coming home in body bags and without limbs. Ideally the people dieing in Iraq should be the people that started that war based on a web of lies, but chicken hawks are really adept at sending others to die for them while they stay safe, and reap the wealth and power that flows from war profiteering.
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:3, Insightful)
When you point to ANYTHING of substance in my life that is changed by the HALOCAUST, I'll take comments like this seriously. --White Protestant in NAZI Germany
No, they aren't on the same level of seriousness, but the logic applies equally in both statements.
I hope you now see why you are wrong. What you are doing is called 'special pleading'. It demonstrates your utter lack of knowledge of logical fallacies.