Senate Trashes Civil Liberties; House to Vote Today 963
The U.S. Senate passed its version of the "anti-terrorism" legislation last night. The Washington Post, CNN, and Wired all have stories. There are terrorists under every rock, and we must destroy our freedom in order to save it. Remember: gamblers are terrorists too. The House is apparently going to drop their version of the legislation and vote on a copy of the Senate bill.
I hope I did my part (Score:5, Interesting)
I received no auto-replies, no real replies, no acknowledgements, nothing.
Guess who's not getting my vote at the next election?
I swear, I'm gunna run for some public office and end this crap.
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:2, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:5, Insightful)
They won't be getting your vote, but they'll still be getting enough other moron's votes that it won't matter. And so what? If they didn't win, the other guy would be just as bad.
(now some god-loving america-is-great sheep can mod this "troll" or "flaimbait" because they can't accept that fact that their system isn't working. Eat my ass, I've got 50 karma and I'm not going away.)
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to enact effective laws to correct course is an impossible task, as others have pointed out. Campaign finance reform? From a corrupt congress? I don't think so. Term limits? From the guys who spend their whole lives trying to stay in office as long as possible? Fat chance. Doing away with the electoral college so that a vote from Rhode Island counts as much as a vote from California? Not on your life!
The system that we have seems to be failing in major ways, unable to adapt to a changing world; and like any organization that finds itself incapable of adapting and under increasingly vocal critical scrutiny it lashes out with action intended to silence the critics and establish effective control over those that might upset the apple cart.
Call me a pessimist, but I no longer believe that it's possible to repair my government through established means - including electing the right officials (my choices in the last presidential election: Gore and Bush. Aside from the last name, what exactly were the major differences between the two? And everyone else, including Nader, was completely sidelined). When your choices for candidates all come from the same money-ticket you have zero chance of getting Congress or the President to substantially alter the system. Even the courts, which until recently I held out as the last possible hope for a strong check on government excess, don't seem to be immune from being influenced to toss aside their views and vote in line with the power structure (Supreme Court...a complete about-face on the 14th amendment re the presidential election...a refusal to substantially justify the decision...etc.)
I don't advocate a violent 1776 response, although our Forefathers certainly did (and published many papers on why armed revolution against an unresponsive government was a dandy thing). I don't have a particular yen to get shot rushing the Capitol building. But if my government decides that it won't listen to me, and will even attempt to coerce me into accepting limited freedoms (or none at all), then perhaps I'm no longer obligated to pay attention to my government on a number of issues.
The question for me becomes: which issues? And if a sufficiently large number of people react in this manner, won't the government - like all governments throughout history - resort to violence to enforce its edicts? No power structure can stand to be ignored; loved or hated, yes, but ignored? No way.
So if the established system won't respond, what do I do outside of the established system as a form of protest?
Max
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm, the first name? Just kidding couldn't resist.
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit Max. You said alot of things I've been thinking in the last two weeks. Aside from a violent revolution, the only other way I can think of to fix our governtment is to infest the public offices. I don't mean infest it with geeks, just somebody other than CEOs or lifetime politicians. I believe that the founders of our government never intended public office to be a career, just a public duty that everybody ought to fufill in some respect.
We need to get more honest, caring, American citizens into office. I don't neccessarily mean congress - I mean mayors, state senators, governers, county commisioners, etc.
And we should also get over this whole party thing. It's complete bullshit. Nobody can completely agree with the views of either party, so basically it comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils.
So there you go, we can either A) Do nothing and get raped. B) Try to overthrow the government and get killed. C) Try to get into office, and not get raped or killed!
NOT A DEMOCRACY (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems we have the technology to become a democracy; the question now becomes whether lawmaking (well ratifying) is best left to those whose career is to study law, or if the average joe can vote intelligently. After reading adequacy.org and seeing how many people can't recognise satire when they see it, I have my doubts.
I have a feeling the current session of Congress is going to go down in history as McCarthyism Part II. That is, if it's still legal to say anything against the government. After all, if I speak out against the powers that be, aren't I encouraging terrorists, and myself a terrorist? Seems like more than enough reason to tap my phone and search my house without my knowledge....
Re:NOT A DEMOCRACY (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that corporations are "real persons". This idea, combined with the 14th amendment's declaration that all "persons" are entitled to equal rights under the constitution, did away with that delicate balance upon which the founding fathers depended. A Corporation, previously an entity subservient to the people who controlled it, now existed in its own right to use its assets in whatever amoral way it would.
This is a case where the judiciary has made an overreaching determination, and by so doing created, by judicial fiat, binding legislation on the rest of us. There is no check nor balance against judicial legislation. We have simply relied on the integrity of the judges in that institution to support sanity and right-thinking. In this case, that long-dead judiciary could never have foreseen the horror they created.
However, there is a straightforward solution to modern-day corporatism. Revoke that expectation that corporations are "real persons". Again make the principals of a corporation criminally responsible for the conduct of their organization. Bring the power of the corporation back to the hands of the *people*! We can prevent this vacuous kowtowing to the siren's song of profit, which preys upon the greed of both our elected officials and corporate shareholders, and we can reign in this horrifying beast we have created.
Revoke the judicial legislation of 1886, and we can win. Otherwise, a corporation remains a "person" of obscene wealth and privilege, against whom no normal person can compete.
But right now, there exists no way to do this within U.S. law. The only entity which can reverse the decision of the Supreme Court *is* the Supreme Court. Figure out how we can change that, and you've figured out an important piece of the puzzle of how to reign in global corporatism...
WHAT ?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
If our country spent just a portion of the 30 BILLION we are gonna cough up in aid to our various allies and supporters for this mission, on say serious alternative fuel sources, we could leave the Middle East to solve its own problems. I doubt that the hardline interpretaion of the Taliban is going to spread like wildfire acrossed the muslim world unless the pressure of WAR with the WEST drives it.
Here is official testimony to Congresss: (Score:5, Informative)
Moderators, please recognize that what Archfeld said, in the parent post, is true.
Archfeld says, "in the middle east for ONE purpose ONLY, oil as we all know it..."
"REALITY says people do not just become SUICIDE bombers for NO REASON."
and
"IF our government had not systematically SCREWED everyone they've ever dealt with in the Middle East maybe things would be different."
This is a quote from the official testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives of Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca, on February 12, 1998. He said, in part, "CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place."
For a link to this document on the House of Representatives government web site, and a document about the pipeline route, search on the word Unocal in: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
Re:I quote Thomas Jefferson (Score:3, Insightful)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
(you can read the whole document here [nara.gov])
The U.S. government was (according to the above) meant for securing unalienable rights.
It was not meant for intervening in foriegn military conflicts, or "fighting a war on evil", or monitoring common citizens' lives, or outlawing the sale of technology without approved encryption, or helping "american interests" by paying for McDonalds to advertise in Asia (yes your tax dollars really pay for that!).
If our founding fathers could see this country today they would be ashamed. I am ashamed, and you should be too.
I am ashamed (Score:3, Insightful)
As for making drastic changes in our government, I think we could do a lot worse. It's not perfect here, but there are a lot of problems that we don't have to worry about. These are problems like not having clean water or medical care, or a 30+ million person AIDS epidemic.
At the same time, we need to work on the problems we do have. Our human rights record is pretty piss-poor, the drug war needs to end now, and it's true that we have a civil liberties problem. The solution, though, isn't just to throw everything out and start from scratch. Democracy can work - it's just up to the people to make it work. Last November, voter turnout was around 50%. That's terrible! No wonder government and law enforcement know they can get away with a lot.. they know that many of us just don't care.
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:5, Funny)
At least someone cares.
Your friendly neighborhood agent is too busy... (Score:4, Funny)
Your friendly neighborhood FBI/CIA/NSA/whoever agent is a very busy person, and can't read *all* email that comes his/her way.
Instead, your email was scanned by your friendly neighborhood FBI/CIA/NSA/whoever agent's 18-year old INTERN.
Re:Your friendly neighborhood agent is too busy... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:5, Insightful)
You should. This is how things can be changed.
But you should consider that getting elected and preserving the principles for which you want to fight may be close to impossible. You need to study the actual and perceived needs of the people you are going to represent, and see if they are anywhere near the ideals you follow. You will also have to join a major political party, and learn to navigate the petty and not-so-petty conflicts, personalities, and agendas.
Utlimately you need to persuade the people that it will be to their benefit to elect you - and I believe there are very few people that can do that, and remain principled.
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:3, Insightful)
As the salmon fishermen on the coast have been quoted as saying "it's not about jobs vs. the environment, it's about my job vs. their job". Others, more bitter, call the farmers "water thieves".
The protection of the sucker fish has come as a result of suits by the Klamath Indians. Without getting into the complex details (which include the sucker being listed as endangered) the bottom line is that the tribe can exert prior water rights. Even without the ESA listing the Tribe had a very strong case (which they've pursued in court for a long time).
Just like the ag interests have prior water rights that lead to them getting most of what's left while the Klamath/Tule National Wildlife Refuge complex (one of the most important in the country)
is left high-and-dry.
Of course, all this comes against a background of one of the worst droughts in the area we've ever seen.
Regardless of how you feel about the water allocation dispute, don't believe for a moment that Libertarians would be welcome. The farm economy in the Klamath Basin wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the federal water project (i.e. paid for by the taxpayers, not farmers) and without past and present federal price support and other subsidy programs. And libertarians aren't wildly enthusiastic supporters of federal welfare programs for agriculture...
Keep in mind also, that the capital and operating costs of the federal project haven't come close to being paid for by fees charged to the irrigation district. The farmers claim different but do so by comparing fees paid in today's dollars with capital costs paid out when the project was built over a half-century ago (in other words they ignore inflation).
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:5, Insightful)
From everything I've read the failure to see this attack not coming wasn't due to having some daft ATA in place but rather was due to our elected officials gutting our intelligence infrastructure after the Cold War.
All these crap jingoistic (USA and PATRIOT Acts puhleaze!) bills are is one of the biggest CYA scams the public has ever seen.
Today, I was listening to the radio while driving to work and hearing about how this one guy had a nail clipper confiscated by two armed soldiers while trying to board a flight. What crap! Boy I can see it now. "Fly that plane into the Sears Tower right now or I'm going to give one heck of a nip with these!" or "Get your ass back into your seat before I decide to manicure you to death. You wanna die with clean cuticles?! Huh? Do you!"
The fact is it is easier, quicker and cheaper to come up with crap laws than it is to implement real security in this country. Real security would require actual thought and admission that we did some things wrong. It would come down to facing facts instead of listening to our fears. Which is exactly what the government is doing now.
I'm just damn glad I live in WI and can toss my vote Russ' way in the next election. I know he's going to need it.
And Now, The Rest Of The Story: (Score:4, Interesting)
The above article appeared yesterday at www.janes.com [janes.com]
"It now appears certain that any effort to
regenerate Afghanistan is predicated upon
the removal of the Taliban, and the terrorist
attacks upon New York and Washington
have given the US a perfect opportunity to
legitimise its plan to do just that (which
existed well before 11 September). "
The link for this discussion is :
www.janes.com [janes.com]
You draw your own conclusions in conjunction with the Caspian Sea Region oil link at the U.S. Department of Energy:
Caspian Sea Region [doe.gov]
Re:I hope I did my part (Score:3, Informative)
But if I send an email to my senator, I expect more back than an acknowledgement of receipt (which is all I've gotten in response to my first email to an elected official). I expect an email back that contains a link to a web page outlining why the Senator doesn't give a shit what I think and here's why... or a form email that starts off "Dear Constituent, thank you for your email about XYZ, but here's what I have planned in that area..." And if I go to the trouble to write a letter, I at least expect a postcard or form letter in reply. This is what interns are for.
As for majority rule: No, It's Not. The United States is not majority rule, nor was it designed to be such. It was designed with minorities in mind, otherwise you wouldn't have a bill of rights. Even the last presidential election (vote counting irregularities aside) was not won by majority vote. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule. I don't need freedom to do the same thing everyone else is doing. I need freedom if I want to be different.
Re:Or, as another path, (Score:4, Funny)
Sure, it *could* be done now, but it would take so much of everyone's time that the country would come to a standstill. But then you say that only the people who cared enough would vote--they coudn't have actual jobs. Maybe we'd give them compensation so they wouldn't need jobs and could spend all day reading proposed bills. But how to figure out who to actually pay--maybe we could elect them?
Oh, wait...
Re:Or, as another path, (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Sept. 11 attacks had happened to a direct democracy, the majority would probably have voted to go bomb every village in Afghanistan or Palestine they can find, require mandatory searches of Arabs and/or Muslims upon entering a public place, ban flight simulators with accurate depictions of cities, regulate the sale of box cutters, etc.
Online Petition (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing about it, most Americans don't care enough to read up on the acts they are signing petitions to support.
The Next Step (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing to fear is what the FBI, CIA, etc., get away with while waiting for the courts to toss this out, in whole or part. Next year will be an interesting election year, be sure to write these things down, go to campaign rallies and then call the representatives on the carpet for it! In the meantime, you can still make yourself heard by stomping into your local Senators branch-home-offices and telling them where they went wrong. Writing into newspapers isn't half bad, either, be sure to be articulate, tho.
Re:Online Petition (Score:3, Informative)
Do you mean in this article, or in previous ones? It probably wasn't in this article, because there have been at leastone previous article [slashdot.org] that covers the bills better. As that article states, there is not just 1 bill, but 3, the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act, and the Uniting and Strengthening (USA) Act. You are right in that the USA Act is the one being talked about here.
Re:Online Petition (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should your morals be forced on me?
Why should your morals put me in prision?
Any consenting adult should be able to do as they please as long as another person is not hurt in the process.
-
"Give me liberty or Give me death." - Patrick Henry
Re:Online Petition (Score:3, Insightful)
If it means a very sensical restructuring of goverment wiretap laws, I'm fine with that.
If you want to give up your constitutional rights, that is fine by me. However do not drag me down that hole with you. I have very few secrets, but I have the right to keep every one of them. I will be interested to see if you still feel the same way when the next round of laws come, which will make it illegal to "Speak out against our government in times of crisis".
WTH? (Score:3, Interesting)
All right, related to the earlier story on our reps not paying attention to us, how *DO* we shine the light of reason into our government?
Perhaps it's time for more than letters, calls, and emails to our reps. Maybe it's time for a bunch of us to get together and get out in our communities and spread the word.
The reps may not be listening to a horde of geeks, but chances are good they'll start hearing us loud and clear if a more balanced mix of their constituents pipes up.
Now we have another problem (or rather a few). How *do* we get people (average Joe/Jane) to listen, and even discuss these issues? Everyone still seems on edge after the 9/11 attacks, but I'd like to believe that energy could be channeled in a positive direction.
Anyone got a site up specificially to discuss this stuff? I'll email all my friends the link.
Re:WTH? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WTH? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.limitingcopyright.com or http://www.amfcc.org
Not completey on the mark, but close..
Upheld (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Upheld (Score:3, Informative)
But technically, a court can't address the constitutionallity of a law until after the law has actually been used to prosecute someone or a civil case has appeared before the court that was not eventually settled out of court.
(OT follows) The latter has been important in much of the patent issues -- there's usually a settlement in 99.9999% of patent court cases because stocks get hurt during long trials, so no court has really been in the position to actually address the issue of the legitimacy of a patent or of the current patent law.
Re:Upheld (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if theress a list of the number of laws each legislator has proposed/voted for that were later ruled unconstitutional. Too bad there's such thing as "voice votes".
The Supremes say, "Bring it on!" (Score:5, Informative)
US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says she foresees unprecedented restrictions on democratic rights in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. She declared flatly, "We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." Read the article here [wsws.org], or find it on yahoo etc - it was widely reported.
Do you see a check or balance anywhere in sight? I see a big blank check being handed to Congress by one of the justices on the Supreme Court, but besides that...
Re:The Supremes say, "Bring it on!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Supremes say, "Bring it on!" (Score:3, Insightful)
The constitution is not something that even the Supreme Court can effectively throw away for the long term. If they do, I for one will think about emigration...
That being said, that article does seem a little slanted and I don't know what will happen. I think that with a formal declaration of war, civil liberties could be TEMPORARILY suspended, but that the last country that tried to live in a perpetual state of war was Germany, from 1932 until they were split up...
Where is O'Conner getting these ideas from? Mein Kompf?
The lone cowboy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even my own, Sen Tom Daschale (D-South Dakota) voted for this, and I too wrote him a letter.
Sigh, I wonder what 'unintended' consequences this will bring about... how it will be abused...
And, I wonder how it will HELP... this is an anti-terrorism bill. I'd like to see some follow up someday that shows specifically how these new laws HELPED fight terrorism.
I hate the comparision, but this 'war on terrorism' is starting to feel a lot like the 'war on drugs'... and open-ended, make it up as you go sort of deal with no clear goals and lots of shady undercurrents.
And no one defined moment where we can say, there we've won, it's over...
Re:The lone cowboy... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The lone cowboy... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the goal is very simple and very clear: stop terrorism.
Ok, that is the goal, but the problem is that terrorist are a renewable resource (so to speak)... it might even be that for every one terrorist we kill, we inadvertantly create another 2 (or 3 or 4).
And who's definition of terrorist do we use? Exactly who is a terrorist? Only terrorist who kill americans? Or all of them? What about warring factions in third world countries that use terrorism against each other? Do we kill off both sides?
And how do you know terrorism is gone? When it stops? What if it starts again?
I think a concept not realized is that terrorism is a concept or an idea... you may kill all the supposed terrorist in the world, but the idea lives on and at any moment any pissed of group may choose to use terrorism as a weapon once again...
So, I honestly do not believe there is way to stop terrorism.
Re:The lone cowboy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously. Look at the attack and what they are finding out from the investigation. None of their stupid laws would have prevented 9-11.
Those terrorists commited the biggest social hack the world has ever seen. They got themselves into the country, blended in extremely well and got all of their training and information from our institutions. They then counted on complete cooperation of the crew and passengers because for the past 30 years we've been running under the asumption that this was the SOP for dealing with highjackings.
There doesn't appear to be any high-tech, superspy secret communications between the terrorists. More than likely they hooked up at the nudie bar and transmitted info between lap dances.
What parts of the ATA/USA/PATRIOT bills are going to protect us from that? None. But I see a lot of parts of those bills that will allow law enforcement to harrass innocent people because they are kinda "Arabic looking" or because somebody is a "hacker."
We need more human intelligence. Not more laws. Not more toys like Carnivore. Information is useless without interpretation.
And that is what bit us on 9-11.
Re:The lone cowboy... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fine to oppose this bill (I do) and to be disturbed by the US hand in the situation in the Middle East (I am), but I've had about enough of the attitudes that we're to blame, and that we have no right to defend ourselves. That's just crap.
Attacking people for what they believe is not fair at all, but attacking them for what they DO is exactly fair. They didn't just believe in murdering thousands of Americans, they did it.
Hackers and Cyber-terrorists????? (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, obviously Hatch doesn't know the differences between a hacker and a cracker.
Then the comment about giving the terrorist privacy rights... unfortunately terrorists are a subset of people... and this legislation is going to hammer PEOPLE's privacy rights - at least in the US.
Sorry to see this happening, and I sure am glad to be a Canadian right now.
Re:Hackers and Cyber-terrorists????? (Score:5, Informative)
First off, obviously Hatch doesn't know the differences between a hacker and a cracker.
No, he is using EXACTLY the right word. I'm so tired of people redefining this word, and then getting pissed when others don't recognize their attempts to redefine it.
One of the original definitions [tuxedo.org] of hacker was one who breaks into computers. ESR has attempted to "deprecate" this meaning, but I don't recognize his right to deprecate, and no one else should either.
That's one of the definitions of hacker. Get over it.
I wanted to write to my representative (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, what goes on "over there" soon enough comes round "over here".
What can a foreigner do to stop the "Leaders of the Free World" leading it up the garden path?
How biased can /. get? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How biased can /. get? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How biased can /. get? (Score:5, Informative)
Feingold was very well spoken. He was very direct. No one gave a single valid objection to any of his amendments. They simply tabled them. Something wierd is going down. There is more to this than just a knee-jerk reaction to the bombings. And for once, Slashdot is not being inflammatory.
I hate resoning by example (people always choose extreme ones either way), but Feingold reasoned that this bill would allow the Feds to wiretap you w/o a warrant if you use the Library's or a work computer in a way other then directed. In other words using your work computer to look at monster.com causes you to fall under the definition of a terrorist and thus you give up all forth amendment protections when dealing w/ and work computer indefinetly. This is not good. The senators understood this example. They did not disagree with it. They went ahead and tabled the amendments anyway. The fix was in. I don't know why but the whole attitude on the floor was wierd. ( I watch alot of CSPAN, things were out of place )
Give me a minute... (Score:4, Interesting)
... ok ready..
First of all, this does not fall under the ben franklin remark about sacrificing liberty for safety etc etc...
terrorism is a semi-expensive business... it takes money to train people to fly a 757 into a tall building, pay off people, etc etc.
Osama and co. obviously is using one of the oldest tricks in the book to launder money.. gambling.. how many people complained when we shut down the mob run casinos in vegas? not many. why? because it helped shut down that element.
Osama and friends are more like pissed of rich boys than they are 'good muslims'. Chances are we wont find him, so the next best thing is to make it very crappy for him to live...
it's also been shown that they have used the net to transmit messages, and now maybe even TV.. if putting harsh restrictions on cryptography can hinder him as well, what all is lost? It's because of paranoia and people continually fighting the governments efforts that these people pulled off what they did. We complained about military spending, intelligence, etc... and now look what happened..
we say we want the govt to protect us, so when will we let them do their jobs?
Re:Give me a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
How many things will you let be taken away in the name of protecting the people ????
I can understand many of the measures proposed but clamping down on online gambling is just attempt to sneak some other agenda in to so called anti-terrorist legislation.
Why should all kinds of legitimate technology be thrown away because they *MIGHT* be used by terrorists. Encryption protects all kinds of things we take for granted ATMs, Credit card & bank transactions etc. do you want your accounts to be compromisable in order to prevent terrorism ??? The needs to be some calm logical thought here not just nee jerk reactions.
The intelligence services couldn't keep their eyes on a relatively small number of *KNOWN* terrorists so why is letting them monitor everybody going to help ?
Re:Give me a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since restricting lawful people from using strong, backdoor-free encryption has no effect on bin Laden's use of strong backdoor-free encryption, what is lost is the ability of lawful people to use strong backdoor-free encryption.
How hard is this to understand? I am willing to give up some liberties for a short while, as long as doing so contributes to the effectiveness of our response to this problem. I am not willing to give up any liberties at all otherwise, and certainly not for window-dressing activities like national ID cards.
Effective limitations on liberties for a short time, with clearly stated goals and intent, and a sunset period - sign me up. Throwing up our hands and giving Carte Blanche to the police - hell no.
Re:Give me a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask Timothy McVeigh... if you could, that is...
We bitch about civil liberties on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes this is going to seem like a flame, but here goes my karma anyway...
You see, we need a balance between security and freedom. Obviously the previous balance wasn't good enough because Downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon were given a serious blow. Civil liberties are not ENDOWED rights, they need to be restricted to keep people safe, in times such as these. It is not A BORN right to be allowed to drive in downtown manhattan. Privacy is not a BORN right... it's a civil liberty.
Ok, we'll get them back after all this is over. Most of these provisions (the one the Senate passed in particular) has a SUNSET clause. Nobody seems to mention that. These are temporary restrictions to aid in the keeping the people safe.
But then again, arguing for restricting civil liberties on
How important will PGP be to you when your entire home is destroyed by bombs/planes or wiped out by plague?
Re:We bitch about civil liberties on /. (Score:5, Informative)
Temporary until when (Score:2)
Any such sunset clauses could last forever. Granted I haven't read it yet, but the summaries I've heard haven't put me at ease.
You are taking Franklin far too literally (Score:3, Insightful)
What the Senate has passed reduces our freedom significantly without increasing our security one iota. Read the Act as passed in the Senate and explain to me how it would have prevented the 9/11 hijackings.
Re:We bitch about civil liberties on /. (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree emphatically. So did these guys:
The government can protect rights, but the rights themselves are not granted by the government.
Re:Uhmm, no. (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's not what the Declaration says. Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are among them. There are other ones not enumerated here. It most definately does not say that these are the "only" rights endowed.
Misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
So how will these laws prevent someone from putting some Anthrax spores in an envelope and mailing them to you? This is how the NBC reporter supposedly got the disease in case you didn't know.
Ok, we'll get them back after all this is over. Most of these provisions (the one the Senate passed in particular) has a SUNSET clause. Nobody seems to mention that. These are temporary restrictions to aid in the keeping the people safe.
This is incorrect. Read the Reuters article about the bill passing [yahoo.com] or any other major news story about the USA act. The Senate voted for No SUNSET on their version of the bill. That's right, congress believes ecret searches of the homes of suspects and treating people like the US is soviet Russia should become the new American way of life.
The House is pressing for sunset provisions to this law but the Senate is trying to convince them otherwise and according to the current slashdot article (you read the links right?), it looks like the House may have been convinced to throw out their objections except for a token disagreement about the wiretap sections expiring in 2004 but even that has provisions that allow it to be overruled if the government feels that it violates "national security".
Re:We bitch about civil liberties on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
Check out CSPAN. It's your country too!
Here's the question back at you: how important is it NOW to make it illegal for me to use PGP? Right now, millions of people encrypt traffic of various sorts from email to web traffic to corporate VPNs. Replacing that hardware and software will take years. By then, we'll be back where we were in 2000. Yes, there will be terrorists using strong crypto. Yes, there will be terrorists using stegonography. Yes, there will be terrorists using various media outlets to transmit seemingly innocent messages. And, yes, it will be illegal for me to hide my credit card number from law enforcement.Yep, big improvement.
Re:We bitch about civil liberties on /. (Score:3, Insightful)
How important will a ban on encryption be when it does absolutely nothing to stop those things from happening? Less freedom does not automatically equal greater security. Would you feel more secure if you knew that you could be detained indefinitely for no reason? Would you feel more secure knowing that everything you do or say is being monitored by people you don't know? Would you feel more secure if you were forced to wear a ball and chain around your legs at all times? And remember, the criminals are the ones who, by definition, don't follow the law, so additional restrictive laws aren't very likely to stop people who are willing to break more serious laws. If you want to get people to stop complaining about losing freedom, you had better be able to show how the loss of that freedom is justified. If there isn't a Damn Good Reason(TM), then the freedom shouldn't be taken away.
sunset provisions?? (Score:5, Informative)
We can expect precisely the same behavior over here in the States. Power needs to control. The government will never willingly return power to the populace -- such an act is simply not in its nature. It is only returned by massive, sustained acts of civil disobedience, for instance, in the legal viewpoint, the 60's were a reaction to the laws passed during the World Wars. It took an entire generation to restore some liberties lost during the previous decades of crisis. With this bill, we have just plotted a course for our children to follow.
Other posters rebutted you, but I should reiterate: civil liberties are in fact endowed, natural rights -- read the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, freedom and security are not polar opposities. It is largely because of our freedoms that America has developed into a vibrant, productive society capable of providing for everyone and thus removing the desperate incentives that drive terrorism. There are many places in the world far less free, with far less safety.
Oh, and I'm not worried about anthrax -- the infection rate is too low to be effective in the face of our fully mobilized medical resources. But there are other, simpler bateriums that can be spread in other fashions. My advice to you -- drink filtered water.
Re:We bitch about civil liberties on /. (Score:5, Interesting)
Big implicit assumption here is that there is a conflict between the two. I would argue that there isn't. Reducing freedom often reduces your security too. This is because, the freedom any government is most keen to irradicate, is the freedom to disagree with it. For instance, Germany wasn't a very free place before WWII, the lack of freedom and rampant patriotism allowed their leaders to drag them into a war which seriously decreased the security of the German people.
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Herman Goering
The proposed law concentrates on classifying things like cyber-activism as terrorism. Most of this legislation is not aimed at reducing the chances of someone releasing anthrax at the super-bowl, it's aimed at reducing protest and dissent, which they are expecting for good reason.
The talk about innocent civilians being killed in Afghanistan misses the point IHMO. A question which is probably of more relevence to Americans is: are we benefitting from this action ?
Trying to irradicate terrorists with bombs is like trying to clean a windscreen with greasy fingers. You might shift the original bits of dirt, but you make a far worse mess in the process. The problem is not a few makeshift training camps in Afghanistan. Where did the terrorists learn to fly planes, where had they
been living for the past few years ? The root problem is the hatred in people's hearts. If you want to understand the hatred, don't read CNN, read some middle east papers and see what they say. Even if it's nothing but a pack of lies, it's worth knowing what the US is accused of.
To figure out whether this action might make us safer, there are two questions to answer:
(1) will it decrease the hatred (particuarly amongst muslims) ?
(2) will it make terrorists think that attacking the west is a bad idea ?
I'll leave the answer to question (1) as an exercise for the reader. The answer to (2) is less obvious, but I don't think you need a degree in psychology to figure it out. The kind of people capable of flying planes into buildings,
or releasing anthrax at a football game, will not be swayed by logic. It was never their strongpoint. Since we seem to believe we
can secure our goals through terror and bombs, I don't see any reason to expect better reasoning from terrorists.
For a hint as to where the push for war comes from, look at http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/10/11/17799.ht
Re:We bitch about civil liberties on /. (Score:3, Funny)
Plus, people often have virus scanners, but nobody has a bacterium scanner...
Oh come on! (Score:5, Funny)
* Yes really -- it's the "Uniting and Strengthening America Act."
Oh boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: I'm scared shitless to vote against any bill with "anti-terrorism" in the title. You really have to admire the lone dissenter, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, for having the sack to vote against it. Too bad he'll be lucky if the voters of Wisconsin don't hold an emergency election to kick him out, nevermind re-election. You know your in trouble when CNN is singling you out in the second paragraph.
related to closure of "Statue of Liberty"? (Score:2)
plumbing problem closure (Score:3, Offtopic)
Who added the amendments? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just which civil liberties are being smashed? (Score:2)
Re:Just which civil liberties are being smashed? (Score:2)
House version (Score:3, Informative)
Could Increase Tax Revenues, too: (Score:2)
Now, that's all well and good, but understand that these shell banks (often located in the carribean, when they're located anywhere) are also used by unscrupulous tax dodgers to make large portions of their income invisible to the IRS. So, this measure could also increase tax revenues substantially, since... well... it's not exactly the poorest of the poor who use these tax dodges :)
Not that it really justifies the bill as a whole. This just might be another interesting (and good!) side effect of it.
Time limits would make the difference (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that the real issue is not that these bills are passing, but that they're passing without expiration dates; that they're potentially part of a much longer-term loss of our civil liberties. That is a slippery slope that we cannot afford to start down.
Partisan Politics? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you think that just because this nation is in the midst of a war and crisis, that the lobbyists are any less active than they would normally be? Absolutely not. Remember most of the law voted into existence in this country is written part or in whole by lobbyists who are trying to obtain some political or corporate advantage by getting the law passed.
Well... (Score:2)
Though not many people know, they also used telephones! Doesn't this scare you, that a phone can be used for terrorist activities?! We should let the FBI wiretap everyone on a whim, so that we can be protected! But wait, they also used CARS! Can you believe that?! I guess that means renting cars should be outlawed and one should have to get govt approval to buy a car of their own! All these things and MORE need to be limited for our own protection.
Fucking stupid if you ask me.
"Freedoms Curtailed in Defence of Liberty" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Freedoms Curtailed in Defence of Liberty" (Score:4, Interesting)
Ironically, that attitude is part of the reason that the US is in this mess. The US government has this tendency to support whatever foreign government appears works to it's best interest, without regard for that government's human rights record. Often, it is easier for the US to work with a totalitarian power since that power can ensure cooperation with the US, rather than be swayed by the opinion of the populace. The US helps them stay in power so that they can supress anti-US sentiment (at least on the surface) and other more useful favors. In the meantime, those being surpressed become quite angry at the US. Over time, they can grow to truly hate the US because the life the US has provided for them is the antithesis of what the US likes to portray itself as promoting (freedom and democracy).
Curtailing civil liberties may be a good solution in the short term to reduce the likelihood of another attack, but it does not address the root of the problem. I wouldn't mind these restrictions if they were temporary and if the US actually began doing something meaningful to help establish some freedom and democracy, even if it meant that those receiving this expressed anti-US sentiment. But I don't expect to ever see that.
Sadly, the US citizens tend to be too wrapped up in their own lives to learn about this situation. Not that it's incredibly obivious. The media is often a little more interested in letting us know about 's problems than reporting about US supported regimes oppressing their populaces. Besides, who wants to hear about all of that terrible stuff when you feel like you can't do anything about it.
I'm reminded of a Churchill quote. During WWII, one of his advisors suggested closing down museums, etc. to reduce spending. He responded, "Good God man! What the hell are we fighting for?" Seems even more appropriate today.
-Jennifer
I'm sure I'll have zero karma after this... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do think voting down the amendments was a bad thing. Please read the bill or at least the summations before commenting. Overall this is a bad bill, but that provision should be passsed (with the amendments attached)!
This country disgusts me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's be real here, there have been people with little or no education for a long time, people who knew nothing about the political process, or what the king was actually doing, or what the dictator was planning, but everyone has always rallied around the concept of freedom. Jesus, what did people fight for for the last 6 millenia? And our countrymen would now lay down and give up so that they could be "a little safer".
President Bush, how exactly will a missle defense shield, email tracking, and shutting down online casinos do anything when the terrorists used box cutters, sent messages through the mail, and had money wired to them Western Union?
I think the great American democratic experiment is almost at an end... wait... a little longer... its done. So, what's up next? Oligarchy? Sounds good to me I suppose. Where do I send my RIAA tithes?
Re:This country disgusts me... (Score:4, Informative)
So you didn't give up your freedom to own a nuclear weapon so that you are safe from your neighbor blowing up your town?
Everyone always screams the Benjamin Franklin quote that "anyone who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither" doesn't realize that Ben didn't live in the friggin 21st century. Back in the 1780s, there wasn't too much of a harm in having your neighbor own a musket (and there isn't much harm in that now). Up that musket to a 10 megaton bomb and you have a problem.
Everyone has give up some liberties for safety. 8 year olds don't have the liberty to drive a car, people under 21 (in most states) give up the liberty to drink themselves into a stupor, and YOU have given up liberties to provide for the safety of society as a whole.
The problem is in striking the perfect balance between the two--and this is something that may never be found. This goverment is about always tweaking to provide for the times. Look at amendments to the constitution, that allows for the goverment to make a small change that was not anticipated at the signing in 1787 without having to trash the whole thing every few years.
That's exacly how the Talibans took over Afghanistan, they said they would guarantee the people's safety and look at them now, look at them.
As a side note, I don't think that is how the Taliban took over--that was basically a small band of rebels who used force to take over the government.
Contact Info -- mod to top please (Score:5, Informative)
More freedom lost (Score:5, Insightful)
DMCA
SSSCA
USA Act
Now I think you Americans have also given up the right to call your country 'Land of the free'.
Someone will probably mod this as funny but really it's sad.
An old quote (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess the one thing that really worries me about all this is not that the government wants to go after terrorists. I'm even willing to give them the benifit of the doubt about their intentions with the bill. The question I have is how do you define "terrorist"?
I know this sounds silly at first glance but it isn't. Everyone sort of assumes we know what we mean by a "terrorist" and Congress passed laws in order to help deal with them. But these laws will be with us even if we win this "war". And we as citizens will have to live with the consequences of them for years afterwards.
I think taking a significant amount of time to make sure the proposed rule changes don't cause more harm to the citizens than grief to the terrorists is not a particularly silly thing to ask for. Given the speed which with this bill was passed, I'm not convinced it will to more good than harm. I'd like to think it would but I've seen far too much to not be cynical about the prospects.
House Adding Time Limits to Bill (Score:3, Informative)
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011012/us/attac
The House is saying that it won't pass this thing without some changes -- It specifically mentions the wiretapping clauses, and brings in the idea of money laundering as well (adding something that's potentially useful, whoda thunk?)
This is horrific (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, the USA Act says that system administrators should be able to monitor anyone they deem a "computer trespasser." ...the USA Act still allows police to conduct Internet eavesdropping without a court order in some circumstances. [amemdments would have] Preseved the privacy of sensitive records -- such as medical or educational data -- by requiring police to convince a judge that viewing them is necessary. Without that amendment, the USA Act expands police's ability to access any type of stored or "tangible" information.
It's almost too much to belive. Agents of my government may now view all records related to me without warrent. Those records will now contain anything any "system admin" decides to collect about me. If enough computer records can be collected to convince a judge that my house should be searched, I might not ever be informed.
How long before the "system admin" is required to collect information? Might my competitors and enemies create false records for me? I'm sure the FBI will now be equiped with M$'s most secure tools. How can anyone be secure in their house and possesions knowing that their government may have bugged it? Do I have to sit behind a bookshelf to write this?
The potential for abuse is unlimited. Such observation can easily be used to harrass. By posting the comment, "Israel is unjust for driving the Palestinians out of their land and keeping them as slaves in concentration camps that lack plumbing, sewerage, power, medical facilities, and schools. It is beyond my comprehension that a people who suffered such things at the hands of others two generations ago could behave this way.", do I become a suspected terroist? Does the FBI then dig into my wife's medical records?
The terrorists have won. We are swiftly becoming the enemy we defeated in the cold war. Rights of free speech, publication and privacy are being stripped away faster and more permenatly than I had ever thought possible. You don't think encryption and the web as a collection of peers will survive digital rights managment do you? Say good bye to the free press of the digital era. With such massive ability to harrass, you don't think people will dare speak their minds about controverial subjects, do you? Say good bye to rational public debate. Our government will soon make the UK's privacy invading cameras and other Orwellian nightmares look like child's play. YOU WILL CONFORM AND CALL IT FREE WILL.
This legislation is perminant. God help the supreme court see it for what it is.
The Details, RTFL (Score:5, Informative)
Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court order to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use. Current law requires a court order for each phone number, which most say is outdated with the advent of cellular and disposable phones.
Allows the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges. The administration originally wanted to hold them indefinitely.
Allows law enforcement officials greater subpoena power for e-mail records of terrorist suspects.
Relaxes restrictions on information sharing between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence
officers about suspected terrorists.
Makes it illegal to knowingly harbor a terrorist.
Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service Inspectors and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the northern border of the United States, and provides $100 million to improve technology and equipment on the U.S. border with Canada.
Expands current measures against money laundering by requiring additional record keeping and reports for certain transactions and requiring identification of account holders.
Eliminates the statute of limitations for prosecuting the most egregious terrorist acts, but maintains the statute of limitation on most crimes at five to eight years.
/. fear so much?
I don't feel any safer, but I don't feel any less free either! Exactly what is it about more border guards do all the
Re:The Details, RTFL (Score:4, Insightful)
- Expanding the ability to subpoena voice mail
- Expanding the ability to subpoena ALL electronic data
I think that the points you bring up are pretty useful, and I'm not sure anyone has a problem with them. I don't think anyone would argue with the illegal to harbor a known terrorist at this point in time.But thinking back to an earlier story about shopping habits [slashdot.org], I think people are having a bigger problem with the little things slipping through the cracks, and the lack of a time limit on them. Taking all these little things and throwing them together result in one big database that knows a whole lot about you, and it does feel a little Big Brother-ish.
It's imperative to pass laws that enable the people dealing with the actual situation to do their job effectively, but at the same time, these laws are being passed in a VERY short time-span, and it's dangerous to not have a way out of the scenario if there are repercussions for the general population.
Re:The Details, RTFL (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Details, RTFL (Score:3, Funny)
You mean that used to be legal?!
We're screwed. (Score:5, Interesting)
I heard "someone" on National Public Radio this morning interviewed. They were speaking about "network analysis", and the conversation was quietly interesting. NA covers credit card purchases, credit profiling,that sort of thing.
He said that law enforcement on the Federal level wants access to our marketing data.
You heard me right.
He said that businesses had more information about us than the government did -- implying, to me, some surprise that the government doesn't have as good a set of data on its citizens as biz does, and that that obviously, in the light of the new day, this should be rectified.
The Feds want to apply network analysis, the same kind of tech used to track your credit history, to be applied to everyone's data, so that they can work up a pattern of questionable behavior and jump on someone before they actually do a deed.
You heard me. Pre-emptive law enforcement.
Good enough for terrorists, for now. But remember, the current admin wants to expand the definitions of "terrorism" to someone who gets unauthorized access to a network or computer system. And I gor-un-tee that they will add more definitions of a "terrorist" as the decades wear on in their weary way.
We've lost a big one. One dissenting vote.
Americans are too stupid, and ignorant, to understand the freedoms that they are giving up, the implications of what they are doing for future generations and the current world, and to undertake rational risk analysis of the current, tiny, threat of the bin Laden nutcases.
Americans scare me.
They're grabbing all the stuff they can... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mention the Nixon/Reagan/Bush connection, not as a flame, but as a real indicator. Nixon, Reagan, and other very right-wing leaders hated the "liberal" press, believed that freedom was too free, and that law enforcement was hamstrung by civil liberties.
Let us not forget that Hoover, the chief of Fed law enforcement for almost a half-century, ran a despotic organization that nailed people he didn't like, blackmailed presidents and congressmen and citizens with information he obtained from spying, and was himself a security risk par excellence because of his secret homosexuality and cross-dressing.
Nixon used the CIA to spy on and destroy his "enemies", which he saw as threats to his admin and by extension the country. The "enemies" were the press, members of congress, and a hell of a lot of citizens.
The FBI and the CIA were limited BECAUSE of the actions of the leaders that championed more power granted to law enforcement. Too many of you are too young to remember why those laws were passed. The law was abused by quasi-dictators who wanted power, naked and brutal, over their enemies. And such power is never enough for those types of personalities.
Today, the beginnings of such power is being given back to the very people it was taken from 30 years ago. Literally. They didn't deserve it then, they don't deserve it now. no one does -- but they especially do not.
Additionally -- not a single thing would have been changed on September 11th had this series of powers been granted prior to the attack. Nothing.
The agencies responsible have all the power now needed to track and capture terrorists. They were doing so prior to the attack. The Feds just weren't mind readers, and the men struck simutaneously, and there was no chance to stop them.
Finally, it amazes me that people who hate government in our lives have no problem with the current admin making a naked power grab under the cover of "fighting terrorism".
They aren't going to wind up controlling terrorism. They are eventually going to wind up terrorizing us.
1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
I was at a talk by Naomi Klein a few weeks ago and she mentioned that she had heard a US Military official mention that they are expecting 20 years of war. Even if that is totally uncredible it still makes you think, "what if?"
1984 may have only been 17 years off.
Trust me on this one: (Score:5, Insightful)
There are three vague aspects of criminal law. They split them up into the classic criminal, the socio-behavioral criminal and the conflict criminal.
Now the theory behind the classic criminal is that he/she/they think out the crime before they commit it. Think about it in advance, look at the reprecussions, weigh the benefits and the detriments and make the decision.
To combat these criminals, a process known as target hardening and situational prevention. Make it harder to commit the crime, catch 'em in the act, make examples and make punishments harsh enough to scare them off.
But then you get to the other criminals. Socio-behavioral and conflict criminals.
Socio-behavioral criminals are affected by factors just as social pressure, social interaction, social dysfunction, behavior dysfunction and social moral development.
The general concept of preventing socio-behavioral criminals from emerging is to find the flaws in their society and environment and work on them.
A similar concept behind the conflict criminology.
A conflict criminal is suppose to be one who commits "crime" (crime by our definition may be rebellion by theirs) because of situations of oppression, injustice or inequality.
A conflict criminologist would also most likely disagree with the anti-terrorism package proposal set forth as one would believe that this would just increase the injustice, inequality and oppression, at least in the eyes of the "criminal". For them, the real prevention methods would be to set forth to equalize the people and lift any oppression.
Now of course, lets apply this to our own time. Osama bin Laden personally declares Palestine as a reasoning for America being devoid of safety.
My personal opinion is that this won't work, because Osama bin Laden is more a conflict criminal, or a socio-behavioral criminal, then anything. So are most of these terrorists. Whether we agree with it or not, the guns and tanks and other support we give to Israel is being used to occupy Palestine and expand Israeli land. Palestenian people are being killed by our bullets. Palestenian kids are standing in front of our tanks and throwing rocks (as a kid of 16 years old, I find it a bit crazy and a bit admirable for a kid of my age to throw rocks at a tank coming torwards them. It requires either alot of balls or so much anger as an injustice that you simply don't care).
So even if these changes to American privacy go through, how much good can they do before they're just being used against American people? Not only will the terrorists find other ways, but when someone is willing to give their lives to do something, it's very hard to stop them.
Perhaps we should look torwards our foreign policy before we jump the gun and "declare war". The relatives and friends of the innocent "callataral" people who may get harmed by our bombings are potential terrorists, and so are the relatives and friends of the terorrists we imprison. Punishment is necessary, I agree, but so is prevention.
Ambushed by fundamentalists from all sides (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, slashdotters, the challenge is this: corporate America needs to be offerred a new ideological alliance which won't involve placating fundamentalist monotheists. As Andrew Sullivan noted in last weekend's New York Times Magazine, "it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity [nytimes.com]."
So how do we do that? How do we build a political alliance that preserves freedom for economic activity (and emphasizes freedom in economic activity, rather than allowing corporations to band together to remove freedoms from individuals), while also preserving freedom from people who are too silly to see that their favorite interpretation of their favorite old text is not a direct order from the sort of God who would have us see free will as the crack through which evil enters an otherwise perfectly ordered creation (which is in fact the theology of our fundamentalists)?
How do we extend open source to make freedom even more of an economic imperative? Just as America has found some strange allies in its struggle, so must we find ways to radically realign our domestic political alliances to regain the freedoms our current unrepresentatives are surrendering in our name.
Where's Roosevelt when you need him? (Score:4, Insightful)
Senators and Trouble Tickets... (Score:3, Funny)
About a week later, I got a very sincere-sounding form letter response. I can only assume my ticket got marked RESOLVED_WONTFIX
Proud to have voted for Feingold (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's his statements about the liberty implications of the bills that are in consideration right now: feingold.senate.gov [senate.gov]
Don't blame socialists. Wrong adjective. (Score:3, Informative)
Your header should read:
Welcome to the United Fascist States of America.
It's the correct adjective. Today we have embraced fascism as a way of life. It will take years, but this seed planted today will grow into a twisted, sickly tree.
Thing is, the people who live in fascist states are usually very happy. Crime is low (depends on what "crime" is tho), streets are safe, and you don't have to think very hard about the big stuff.
Remember, Americans should watch what they say. Or there could be.. consequences.
Re:Just a reminder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except what happens when Government manufactures our Consent for us (see also: Noam Chomsky), and only a small minority are aware of it? In Britain's case, this small minority had the fortune to have their own (sizable) chunk of land to flee to.
90% of the population happily sacrifice their freedoms, and have been doing so since the writing of the Constitution.
Take a peek at history; this is nothing new. How many people realize that there was a HUGE debate over the Harrison Act (the start of our war against drugs)? Many people knew it was unconstitional for Federal Law to apply to doctors perscriptions of medicine, and yet the Act (which was the first to list "controlled" substances in the form of herion, opium, and cocaine) passed, and everybody quickly became used to it. If the proponents of the Harrison Act could only see what the long term effects of this disastrous legislation had, I'm sure they would have thought twice.
Sacrificing our freedoms for the sake of Freedom(tm) is an American Tradition(tm). Why stop now?
Income tax was also a "temporary measure" (Score:3, Insightful)