Justice Department Proud of Patriot Act Slippery Slope 1108
frank_adrian314159 writes "Yahoo News is reporting that the DoJ has been using its increased powers under the US PATRIOT Act to pursue common criminals. DoJ Officials have been holding seminars on how to use increased wiretap powers against (non-terrorist) money launderers and drug dealers. One example in the article is the guy running a meth lab who's now up for a life sentence for 'manufacturing chemical weapons' instead of the much shorter sentence he would have been facing under the current drug laws. Wonderful, huh? Who didn't see this coming? Of course, you're a law-abiding citizen, so you have nothing to worry about, right?" Patriot Act II will allow any Federal agent to demand records from anyone who interacts with you, with no judicial oversight whatsoever.
I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait, we've had them since 1776. DOH!!
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its called a Social Security number.
You have just been branded for the Feds meat coral.
Reclaim your US Nationalism title and live as United States Americans were suppose to live.
And does anyone else see the IRS as another "King" that we should revolt against?
I am sure most will completly disagree with all of this, but before you do, just do some research.
One thing you should be worried about is the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned bank.. hmmm my constitution says thats a big no no...
go ahead.. look it up..
have fun earning you freedom.
http://familyguardian.tzo.com/Subjects/Taxes/ta
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of appointing an "Electrical Engineering Czar", they used to offer a charter to some investors so they could start a university. Instead of Social Security, they would've offered a charter to some insurance guys to start a retirement fund that was controlled enough to ensure that it wouldn't collapse and the guys wouldn't steal the cash and run to Mexico.
Ah, back in the day we just contracted out for what we needed. If we wanted to find out how bad the air was at the WTC, we'd call up NYU and have them write up a report. But I'm sure that'd never work.
Name change... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Name change... (Score:5, Informative)
you've already got one, m'lad. they're called the project for a new american century - the think tank that came up with the whole notion of making u.s. foreign and domestic policy more "pc" (patriotically correct). it's all on record here:
official pnac site:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ [newamericancentury.org]
analysis site 1:
http://www.pnac.info/ [pnac.info]
analysis site 2:
http://pnacrevealed.com/ [pnacrevealed.com]
read 'em and vote.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:3, Insightful)
Regime change doesn't happen over one (election) night.. if people voting for third party candidates weakens the democratic candidate and causes a republican to win, who cares? If republicans are all that bad, then being under republican leadership for another four years would only strengthen the backlash against them. I think it's more important to increase the percentage of third pa
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is almost all gone now.
Europeans have not only lost the goodwill they had, but ended up with more "hate" then they had prior to those events.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Informative)
Then, Dubya decided to do everything that you've listed above and fscked all of that up.
Please read the entire post before responding.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Funny)
Even better, they're warning people to both cover their windows with plywood AND to evacuate their homes. The notion that you can make a house air tight with plywood is ridiculous enough, but it does little good if the people aren't even there!
Face it, the Republicans have trumped up this "hurricane Isobel" nonsense to spread fear and panic to the masses. Luckily, you all have us Democrats to tell you about this farce. Take it from us, the best thing you could do, even if a hurricane were to magically hit, is to stay _home_. In the event of an actual hurricane, the roads will be needed for rescue crews and linemen to repair the electrical and telecommunications infrastructure. That's what the roads are there for, after all. Even if your neighbor is in trouble, don't go to help! Call 911 and let the authorities handle the situation, because after all, who's going to be better trained for these situations, you or an impartial team of workers hired and trained to be able to prioritize these things properly?
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
No! The republicans and the democrats is one party with two names [salon.com]! Voting for one is just as bad as the other.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounded plausible until W took office and we learned just how quickly a bunch of idealogues can plow this country into the ground. Borrowing a metaphor, W is so far to the right he's in the break-down lane. If you can't tell him from Clinton, you are in a bad way.
It's time for anyone who believes in freedom and representative government to get involved in the Democratic Party. Really. Go to the meetings. Volunteer. It's your responsibility.
If you really want to vote Green, work inside the Democratic Party in support of instant run-off or Condorcet voting, and vote Green after it passes. We have to pull together NOW. The alternative is to lose your country.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Funny)
The majority of his tax cuts went to those at the lower end of the ethical spectrum.
Re: I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
> I try not to be/think "partisan". But the truth is, the best possible chance Liberty has of making a comeback is (just about) anything non-Republican. The best possible chance of getting any non-Republican power back is in the hands of the Democrats! No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
I agree with your sentiment, but only reservedly: if you think back to the congressional votes on the "patriot" act and the war, you have to conclude that the Democrats - with a few noble exceptions - are only going to stand up to what's going on if there's a political advantage to doing so, or a political cost to not doing so. Most of them, I suspect, would be all to happy to have these same tools in their hands.
If you vote in the Democratic primary for this kind of reason, make sure you vote for someone who spoke out against things when it was a political liability to do so, not one of the windsocks that changes with the weather.
Sadly, some of the far-right nutcases have a better track record on this than the crowds of Democrats do.
Re: I, for one, welcome our... (Score:4, Funny)
------------Mark Twain
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, don't vote for who you think would best represent your views. Instead, vote for who everyone else is voting for.
At the risk of sounding off-topic, let me point out that the idea of a third-party "weakening" the first two is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone developed an informed opinion by doing a little research on all the possible candidates, then voted for who they wanted, ignoring fear-mongers like the parent, our political system could have a positive impact.
Re:I, for one, welcome our... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, voting for the guy you figure is "slightly" less of an ass has gotten us so far already how could it fail us now?
RE: Taking back our freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who was in office when the DMCA was signed? Bill Clinton. Umm, what party was he a member of again?
Here's the frustrating thing. I've talked to so many self-proclaimed "Democrats" who have plenty of good ideas, but don't seem to cohesively and logically put all of it together. They'll make statements I completely agree with, but then turn around and claim that members of their beloved party are all for those statements - when they're clearly (and publically) opposed to them!
Meanwhile, yes, Republicans are really screwing up the country too, in the name of "freedom and democracy", no less.
THIS is why the Libertarian party exists! Right now, nobody who can do basic math would sanely argue that a Libertarian candidate has good odds of getting elected next term. Still, what you CAN do is research the candidates on the major 2 platforms and pick out the ones who side with Libertarian beliefs. Next election, whatever you do - DON'T just pull that lever to vote for everyone on one party! Pick and choose the people who are doing the right things, no matter what title they run under. These days, you have "Republicrats" and "Demicans", and lots of people in between.
Print the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Print the article... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Print the article... (Score:4, Interesting)
will you be voting for Nader and the green party in 2004? (or whoever isnt a "D" or "R"
or will you be voting for the lesser of thoes two evils this time around?
Re:Print the article... (Score:3, Interesting)
And if Dean or Kucinich is the Democrat's nominee, I wouldn't consider either the lesser of two evils. (But if it's Kucinich, he'll most likely win my state--his home state--with an large majority, so I'll vote Green.)
Re:Print the article... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, the small parties aren't voted for, because no one thinks anyone's going to vote for them.
In this nation people no longer vote for who they want. They vote against who they don't want.
And THAT is the true enemy of democracy.
___________
Re:Print the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Print the article... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Print the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
However, there is one major advantage that Libertarians have over both of the two major parties: They don't have the Dems' or GOP's dismal track record. Note that everything you have in your post is pure speculation about what might happen if the Libertarian Party became the dominant party, while Ds and Rs have had over a century of power brokering for us to look back on and say "no" to.
Ultimately, the solution is not to pick one party over another but to reject the concept of political party membership outright. Anybody who runs for public office while a member of a political party (any political party) is trying to serve two masters, and that conflict of interests should be a black mark against the candidate in the eyes of the voters. In this supposed "Information Age," voters have all the tools needed to research all candidates and make their decisions based on the individuals in question, not based on dilluted party philosophy.
And if you still don't like any of the choices you see before you, then put yourself on the ballot. Anything is better than being just another non-voter.
Re:Print the article... (Score:3, Flamebait)
Anyway, you shouldn't be so surprised by these turn of events. The practical definition of a terrorist to the current US government is "anyone who disagrees with us".
Ummm ..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who are you going to vote for? I don't remember many Democrats being opposed to the USA PATRIOT Act when it was voted on. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone to vote for who wants it repealed. The only time the "democractic" process will actually deliver change is where you can find some very rich people who are affected by a particular issue. In this case I think you are out of luck. Laws like this are ment for ordinary people only.
Re:Ummm ..... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Print the article... (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. And remember, Congress voted [house.gov] 357-66 in the house, and 98-1 in the senate. Which means, despite the rhetoric of Democratic presidential candidates - at least 69% of Democratic representatives (and 96% of Democratic senators) voted for it as well. So be sure to print off this sheet [lifeandliberty.gov] as well (pre-emptive google cache: here) [216.239.41.104]
Give all these assholes the boot: vote against the incumbent!
I Understand Now (Score:5, Insightful)
If I chug enough gasoline, I'll die. Let's put the Oil companies away for 12 years to life! For that matter, drink some bad water from a lake and you'll die. Put the Big Bang away for 12 - life!
Re:I Understand Now (Score:5, Insightful)
Chalk, WD-40, gasoline, soda, cigarettes, et al have the capability to cause serious injury or death when consumed and to some extent contain toxic chemicals.
Thus this definition is seriously flawed and could be used to arrest people even if they haven't done anything wrong (aside from working for Dow Chemical).
As a CME major, that scares the crap out of me.
Re:I Understand Now (Score:5, Insightful)
Cigarettes are designed to be addictive. If tabacoo companies could find a way to make them addictive and healthy, they'd do it so fast it'd take your breath away (pun intended).
Oh, I'm not a smoker. Never even tried one. My father died of lung cancer when I was 20. He smoked 4 packs a day of Pall Mall unfiltered for 40 years. I'll never smoke, I generally remind people that they shouldn't smoke, and that's it unhealthy.
However, to say that "smoking is designed to kill people", in a discussion about a law that is the result of an idiot attempt to stop terrorists is just intellectually dishonest. Smoking isn't designed to be harmful, like flying planes into buildings is harmful, or like blowing up a Ryder truck full of Diesal fuel and fertalizer is harmful, or going to holy sites in Isreal and blowing up buses full of people. It's designed to optimize the amount of money Tabacco companies make. If they could make you live longer while you did it, I'm sure they'd be up for it, it is an increased revenue stream if you lived longer... *grin*
Personally, I have no problem with people who chose to smoke. I have no problem with people who chose to drink alchol. I have no problem with people who want to use illegal drugs assuming they are law abiding and responsible. I don't want to pay to rehabilitate them, and I don't want to pay their medical expenses. If they do those things, I've got little to no issue with people who pick that as their form of enjoyment or relaxation hobby/habit.
Kirby
But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Meth (as in this case) are designed to be addictive. Dead people don't pay money for drugs. I fail to see the difference...
Kjella
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
After 9-11 I'm a radical libral...
And my opinions haven't changed.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
When did a campaign of "Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader"?
Bush's entire campaign was a disconnect between hype and reality. "Compassionate Conservatism" was a campaign slogan that sounded good, but Bush never made a real attempt to back it up. (How is a guy who sets a new record with the electric chair a compassionate conservative?) It was fun to watch Bill Maher ridicule the Republican parakeets like Tom Stoppard and Ann Coulter who repeated this tripe on his show.
-a
Compassionate Conservatism was So Last Millenium (Score:3, Insightful)
"Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader" on 9/11/1, when Bush could get away with his normal political positions instead of having to pretend to be compassionate.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us not forget that 530+ members of congress voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act. And some of these very same members of Congress are now also all over our televisions with the Democratic primary debates and what-not. Heck, IIRC the only Democrat candidates that didn't vote in favor of USA PATRIOT were the ones like Dean and Sharpton who just happened not to be members of Congress at the time.
I find it darkly humorous that some of the very same members of Congress that are decrying the current situation in Iraq are the ones that voted "Uh... I dunno, what do you wanna do?" instead of, say, voting to declare/not declare war. They could have spelled out exactly what the president could and could not do in Iraq and exactly what the goals were, but that would have required Congress to have, y'know, a spine. Taking responsibility and all that.
If they're so unwilling to exercise their rights and duties as members of Congress, why are we supposed to believe that they'll be any different in the White House?
November of next year, do yourselves, your country, and your species a favor and don't vote for either major party. They've both shown themselves to be derelict in their duties as public servants.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Apologies for the use of profanity, but this subject just pisses me off (there I go again). It's just that I wish we would all get off of our collective backsides and do something about this creeping fascism. It's difficult I know, to stand up and be counted if all that's promised is imprisonment or death but quite honestly, I don't care anymore. Freedom is too precious for me to do nothing but stand and admire the swiftness with which our liberties our disappearing.
I hop
Why not go after the tobacco companies next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
So why don't they go after the tobacco companies since they're manufacturing substances that meet these criteria? Oh wait, the government gets taxes from the sales of these products, nevermind.
Now that sounds like a blanket law.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I imagine even water is outlawed under this law, after all you can drown from it. Polluted water at least. Nevermind air, which is definately lethal if injected into the bloodstream.
Why go after them, let's start with Morton first (Score:4, Insightful)
Sue them!
Exactly (Score:3, Informative)
It give the prosecutors way too much power to selectively apply terrorist laws to situations that don't demand them in order to increase the penalties.
Think the sentances for meth are too low? Raise them, don't try to apply terrorist laws.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Chemical WMDs (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Chemical WMDs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Chemical WMDs (Score:3, Informative)
Most meth people make today is based on the so-called nazi recipe and is much harsher. However when you get down to it speed is speed.
Oh, and dexies can also be prescribed to adults with ADD or in some cases of obesiety. Which is how people usually get them.
Re:Chemical WMDs (Score:3, Interesting)
And there is nothing inherently "unclean" about methamphetamine. It's just that your basement meth-lab isn't nearly as careful nor as accurate as a pharmaceutical company would be. Prescription-quality methamphetamine (i.e. Desoxyn) is just as "clean" as you would expect any other drug
Ob. Brockman. (Score:3, Funny)
Wait a second. No I don't.
Campaigning by the Executive Branch (Score:5, Insightful)
Didja see this? (Score:5, Informative)
And while I can't find it there was also, at a Patriot Act "whoo-ha!" rally, a protestor that directly addressed Ashcroft and said "You're fired" and told him that what he was doing was wrong. You didn't see any of that in the liberal media, however...
Re:Didja see this? (Score:3, Informative)
That story's great! The Imperial Death March was a particularly nice, if not-so-subtle, touch.
Its especially interesting how the lower levels of government, even ones as large as Boston, have been actively working against things like the Patriot Act. Aren't there a couple dozen towns and cities now that've passed laws requiring their law enforcement officers to do the minimum necessary in response to any "PATRIOT"-related requests?
Re:Didja see this? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Didja see this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Quoted from Patriot Rebellion Keeps Growing [americanfreepress.net].
Re:Campaigning by the Executive Branch (Score:5, Interesting)
So constitutional protections are now marketed as "weaknesses" which need to be fixed. That whole 4th amendment thing is just a big loophole for criminals and evildoers who want to kill us because they hate our freedoms.
But that sort of thing can't happen here. (Score:5, Insightful)
1984 was never meant to be a how-to guide.
Re:But that sort of thing can't happen here. (Score:4, Insightful)
But who's the replacement? Will he (or possibly she), be much better. Will they be WORSE?
Gephardt or Dean worse than Bush and the Cabal of Evil (R) - this is astoundingly unlikely. There's a WORLD of difference between a somewhat incestuous old-boys network and the all-out symphony of stupidity, evil, and greed we've all been witnessing since 2000.
Really. This is important. If you're under the impression that the Democrats the and the Republicans are the same then I humbly suggest without flaming that you haven't been paying attention for the past couple of years. Something dark and terrible is starting up in the USA.
Land of the free ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems odd to me that in one of the great democracies, individual freedoms and rights are becoming more and more compromised. The real concern for me is that American culture permeates just about every Western culture. Does this mean that the American legislative way will soon arrive here in New Zealand ? I hope not - but it's interesting to see that Australia seems to be using the USA as a role model recently.
Re:Land of the free ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you guys in the 'States going to have to change your country's description ? Land of the free ?
Keep in mind that the US named themselves "the land of the free" back when slavery and apartheid were in full force, and that they have consistently lagged almost every other Westernized country in granting equal rights.
-a
This is good (Score:5, Funny)
Finally the US government has unveiled some dangerous chemical WMD.
Too bad it's produced in the US, by a US citizen and for recreational purposes.
Go USA.
Abuse of "anti-terrror" legislation. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's similar to the recent case un England [bbc.co.uk] where demonstrators at an arms fair were detained using anti-terrorism measures.
I find it ironic that people demonstrating against the sale of weapons, some of the same kind used by terrorists are then arrested using laws designed to reduce terrorism.
Re:Abuse of "anti-terrror" legislation. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Premature pontificators (Score:4, Insightful)
Well I don't know about all the anti-terror laws in the US, but here in the UK people can now be held without charge indefinitely if they are terror suspects. There may not be a test "in court" because it may not even get there for an "indefinitely" long time.
That is why these so called anti-terrorism measures that give special powers such as holding without charge must not be used for "normal" crimes. The usual safeguards such as courts may not even be in place.
And blind ignorants (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition to MartinG's point about the "due process" (or lack thereof) under UK anti-terrorism laws, the government in the UK is also trying its best to collect personally idenifiable data on any "troublemakers" whenever it can. Even if you're just arrested and formally cautioned for something -- without ever seeing a courtroom, never mind being found guilty of a crime -- your fingerprints, DNA, etc. will be taken. If you choose to accept the caution, it will disappear from your record after a few years,
It was once said... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Benjamin Franklin
If the federal government persists in the behaviours that it has been engaging in lately, all that they'll do is force people who care to either leave the U.S., or to engage in rebellion.
I hope that the courts start thinking with some sanity, and dismiss entirely charges against people, despite their illegal acts, because of the treatment that they're receiving at the hands of law enforcement officials in charges and the like. If someone is doing something illegal, like manufacturing an illicit substance whose creation process is relatively dangerous, they deserve the trouble that they'd get, but they do no deserve to be branded "Terrorist". The DA or police who came up with the charge deserve to be sued for libel.
Ebay (Score:4, Interesting)
Also of note, here is the full write-up of the wire tap law from Cornell [cornell.edu]
Rhetoric.. (Score:4, Funny)
I do believe this is the final straw for myself. I will be permanently leaving the country as soon as financially possible.
It would incredibly interesting if the emmigration rate soared in the next few years from the US. I guess we'll wait and see.
Ever see Ashcroft on TV talking about this (Score:3, Funny)
We can only hope 4 year terms run in the bush family. And I voted for dubya.
6 months?!? (Score:3, Funny)
A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.
Six months?!?!?? I think the drug laws are kinda whacked, but do you blame a prosecutor from trying to get a stronger sentence any way he can? The guy was manufacturing meth, fer gawd's sake. Not like he was smoking a doob or doing an occasional line.
Re:6 months?!? (Score:4, Informative)
From the Federal Bureau of Prisons [bop.gov] (PDF, 4.8 MB [bop.gov]), median sentences in months for various classes of offenses.
207. Continuing criminal enterprise
135. Homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping
121. Robbery (use of violence or the threat of violence to deprive another of property)
92. Sex offenses
85. Drug offenses
76. Weapons, explosives, arson
67. Burglary, larceny, property offenses
51. National security
38. Immigration
30. Courts or corrections
27. Extortion, fraud, bribery
19. Banking and insurance, counterfeit, embezzlement offenses
Noting that these figures are for federal prisons only (YMMV locally), it seems to suggest that drug offenses are usually punished relatively harshly. If the guy was running a meth lab, and the prosecution actually had a strong case, he would face a significant prison sentence. Possession of 5 grams (about a sixth of an ounce) of methamphetamine carries a federally mandated minimum five-year prison sentence--if it is his first offense. Quite frankly, any prosecutor that has to resort to "weapons of mass destruction" claims to incarcerate a guy running a meth lab for a significant period of time is either lazy or incompetent.
Just like the old Soviet Union (Score:5, Insightful)
Today, in America, we now say due process and freedom is to be enjoyed by all, except those potential or suspected terrorists. Again, the problem is that our terrorist laws being so written that anyone may be charged under them.
And we now have our very own gulogs to boot. What a fitting description for both Guantanimo bay, and for the military brigg in Virginia where several actual American citizens have been held for close to a year now without any rights whatsoever.
Great, now we can go after the *real* criminals! (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
This legislation allows us to go after the real criminals, namely the tobacco companies, and their weapons of mass destruction. It would be easy to argue that cigarettes fall under this loose definition. If a successful case were built against the tobacco companies, their executives would serve time in prison. Even if there wasn't a conviction, the case would bring to light the vague definitions proponents of the Patriot Act use to abuse its power. Tobacco companies may think twice about financing a president which pushes for legislation which could be used to convict them of serious offences against the state.
America.... (Score:3, Insightful)
PA or no, the police can pick you up anytime (Score:5, Insightful)
1) I fail to have any sympathy for a guy who runs a meth lab.
2) The sad fact is, Patriot Act or no, in the US and most "civilized" countries there are so many laws that the police can pick you up anytime they want for breaking the law. They just have to care enough to target you and figure out which of the gazilla laws you inadvertently broke.
The "if you're a law abiding citizen" comment, misses the mark. There are so many laws, none of us can go through life without breaking some law. None of us are law abiding anymore, regardless of our intentions.
Also, the sentencing is so Draconian nowadays that the penalty for fighting the arrest and losing makes a plea bargain much more attractive. Given the choice between a 20 years minimum sentence and a 2 year plea bargain, most people take the plea bargain. The 20 years just scares them too much.
The problem isn't "those damn Republicans." Remember many Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. The problem is the political system. Rarely does a politician get elected because they voted to repeal a criminal law. Rarely does a politician get elected for being "soft on crime." Willie Horton anyone? Left or Right, you get votes by promising to protect "the public" and their children. That means you pass MORE laws, even if the existing laws are adequate, because that shows you did something. You pass TOUGHER penalties, because that shows you did something.
That is why we end up with drunk driving laws that set the blood alcohol level at a value lower than the margin of error on the testing devices. And, when this is pointed out to the legislature they just change the margin of error on the test. Not by changing the test, but by changing the definition of margin of error. (Next up, Congress sets the acceleration due to gravity at 11m/s^2.) Because, we HAVE to be tough on drunk drivers "for the children."
That is just one example of the stupid and unreasonable results of the "democractic" political system. I am sure you have your own examples.
I am not supporting the Patriot Act. I wish it and the system that created it wasn't so. But, don't act like this is new. Don't act like the Patriot Act is an exception. And, don't act like the US and only one party is the US plays this horrible game. It is played by both sides, all over the world, all the time.
Re:PA or no, the police can pick you up anytime (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough. But do you really think that he deserves a life sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that.
Ranting and hating. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really miss those days. When That's My Bush was on television, it was okay to question the government and even though lots of people were unemployed it was still a pretty good time.
In case you didn't note, this is going to be a rant. Two years and three days ago, a bunch of Religious Conservatives hijacked a couple of plains and showed the US (Succesfully this time) that crazy people mean buisness. The largest terrorist attack on US soil was no longer in the hands of a crazed American, but in the hands of a bunch in another country, and thus things became scary.
The World Trade Towers were chosen because not only did a great number of people work there, and that their destruction would be economically crippling for the area and damaging to the US, but because they were symbols of what the United States stood for.
In reaction to these attacks Americans suddenly took up and saw that all of these freedoms which we enjoy and espouse (but don't abide by in countries where we pick up cheap goods from, like China and the Middle East {that's right, gas is cheap in America, come on Europeans, stand up tell everyone how much taxes impat your gas prices}), allow people easy access to pretty much whatever they want. Yup, apparently the fundamental principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were total anathema to the dogma of security. Benjamin Franklin pointed out that fact and the converse, that a society cannot have both freedom and absolute security.
Esentially, 9-11 has been used to pass a Neo-Conservative agenda of global tyranny and domestic oppression. I emphasize the Neo part, because I know many conservatives, they are wonderful and nice people who have many good ideas. These people, a mixed coalition of reps and dems, are responsible for a campaign of silencing all opposition and enriching themselves and their allies upon the spoils of wars.
It is intersting to note how someone brought up 1984 earlier, it is mentioned in that book how war or the idea of such activity is wonderful at putting large populations into subservient moods. Notice how we have gone from a War on Terror (where we didn't find Osama or even put an end to the Taliban, or stop terror), to a War on Iraq (where we didn't find Sadaam and are busy ruling it like fuedal lords and expending 150+ billion on what was supposed to be a short and sweet little engagement). The American people are being manipulated in a very base manner into thinking that anything but pure agression will get us killed, and that if we vote for anyone but this psychotic faction that we will all die in some sort of hellish confligaration of biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.
I for one see that pretty much everything this administration has done has a negative value. They have done much to obfuscate their agenda and to make them appear to be 'compassionate' but those agendas were never pursued, the heavily pushed "No Child Left Behind act" has absolutely no funding and even if implemented it was only going to require more idiotic tests and dropping out of school. Where is the Aid to Africa? Where are the morals and where is the trust that we were promised in 2000? We have simply replaced blow-jobs and S&L scandals, for corporate patronage, more S&L scandals, financial mismanagement, and corruption. And Ari Fleischer and the rest of the crew lies to us as much as the Iraqi information minister lied to the people of Iraq.
Next year, when the fields narrow we need to get out there and force a change or else things will start to head from bad to worse and we will see freedoms and liberties that we once took for granted picked off one by one all in the name of some kind of security that we will never attain as long as our country remains self-centered and militaristic.
More Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. That was sarcasm.
P.P.S. I don't like the Patriot Act(s) either. I don't think its the end of life as we know it. Get a grip. Please. Leftists are so pathetically terrified of Bush and his administration its almost amusing. The amount of paranoia and blind hatred way surpasses the paranoia and blind hatred the right had with Clinton.
Glorifying Mission Creep (Score:5, Interesting)
Underage drinking is illegal. Suggest that random door-to-door searches for alcohol be employed to enforce that particular set of laws, and watch respect for the law diminish to nothing.
This does not mean there is not a critical purpose for GPS-based tracking devices (yes, even covertly deployed) and canvassing a region, for there certainly is. As uncomfortable as Patriot makes us, we cannot deny there are circumstances that indeed justify significantly more zealous investigation and prosecution.
But the circumstances matter.
To those whose powers are wide, their interest must be narrow. To those whose interests are wide , it is a matter of life and death that their powers be kept narrow. A team dedicated to the prevention of nuclear terror must not have their procedures threatened by, say, a "moral police" seeking to police adultery! Gloating about mission creep and the utter inability to keep sacred maybe the only saving grace of Patriot ("really, we just want to go after those who want to kill us all") is astonishing.
This is a slippery slope that costs lives. I cannot believe I am hearing it praised.
Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data (Score:5, Insightful)
You know how Teddy Roosevelt [historychannel.com] was so against the trusts (megacorps that were above the law and beyond mere monopoly, a la Standard Oil) because they were more powerful than the government in so many ways, hence offending his own megalomaniacal sensibilities [time.com]? Apparently, the U.S. Government today is disappointed about the fact that modern megacorps had taken on the role of Big Brother via image recognition, data mining, and monopolistic practices. In the face of such competition, they apparently feel the need to get their anti-Constitution on. Pull out the big guns!
I'm done debating the competency of our current Presidential administration or the legitimacy of the Presidential office. In the face of this perpetually double edged sword, I just want to keep both the terrorists and the government in check.
The Patriot Act, Part III (Score:3, Funny)
Books would be classified in the Terrorist Penal Code as Weapons of Mass Instruction.
It would be illegal, punishable by death by burning, to possess or traffic in any such materials banned by the government. For the convenience of the guilty, the government would offer the choice of being burned at the stake or in a huge bonfire.
To enforce compliance, the law would allow any federal agent, or anybody claiming to be a federal agent, to enter any property, with or without permission or the use of force, to search and seize anything, to beat up, rape, arrest, or kill anyone, and to charge the party being investigated any "reasonable" fee for the aforementioned services.
Of course, under the new law, acts of real terrorism, as in blowing things up and killing lots of people, would fall under civil code, like intellectual property laws. Thus, if you are killed in a terrorist attack, you would have to sue the terrorist in small claims court.
Unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
He could also want to bring back segregation and most voters wouldn't care because he's not going to take their money.
The USA's culture has changed considerably since the 70's. Greed is now God. All anyone cares about is themselves and their possesions. Hell that's what's killing the American Family. Let's see, why do mommy and daddy work 80 hours a week each? That's right so he can afford an upper-middle class life.
Man that's so worth it isn't it? I mean you get to have your kids driven to school by the nanny in the new Lexus. Isn't that the American Dream?
20 years, that's how long I give this society before it collapses on itself. Civilization won't end, but you won't recognize the USA that's for sure. A lot of people aren't going to want to be part of the rat race any more.
The terrorists win? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a second, that's exactly what the Taliban had in Afganistan and Saddam had in Iraq. It's starting to blur the line between who's friend and foe here...
Luckily, the legislative and executive branches can't take away all our liberties alone. The judicial branch still has the chance to strike down any law that goes too far accross the lines of the Constitutional protections. I mean, a court can still order that "the Feds" an give accused terrorist access to question another accused terrorist for evidence to be used in his defense... rule of law hasn't broken down totally around here.
Or has it?
Wonderful, isn't it? (Score:4, Interesting)
But the thing that really frightens me is this... most people are so turned off to politics that things like the Patriot Act slip under the radar. What's worse... a majority of those that actually are involved in our political system choose to be a Democrat or Republican, as if they're their only options.
In 2004, I want G.W. Bush to get out of my government. Sadly, it'll have to be done with a Democrat, and it shouldn't be that way.
After skimming the surface of the German government, I can't help but wonder how different America would be if several parties were in control, not just two. Any Germans care to enlighten me?
Solutions, please (Score:4, Insightful)
What I want to know is if anyone has any solutions to the problems at hand?
Democrats, what is YOUR plan to fight the war on terror? How do YOU plan to keep another 9/11 from happening? If the PATRIOT Act was so bad, then why did the majority of Democrats vote for it?
While I'm at it, what is YOUR plan to stimulate the economy? What is YOUR plan to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan?
Quit complaining and start coming up with solutions.
I do see shades of 1984 in recent events. If the Democrats can't come up with anything more than complaining, Bush will beat Dean (or whoever else gets the nomination) in 2004 like Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984.
People always get... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you discover that your latest rant about your taxes in some neo-fascist political forum gets you a midnight visit from the Feds and afterwards, you are never seen or heard of again, you won't get any sympathy from anyone. You won't deserve any.
One of the few comforting things about the "criminalization of dissent" is the certainty that some people like you will get exactly what you deserve. From a government you're stupid enough to trust.
Re:I'm Proud Too (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you that we need to throw the book at more people (drug dealers, mafia), but I don't advocate throwing out all our old laws that dealt with it, and replacing them with one big "Evil is illegal and subject to death penalty" law.
The Patriot Act (and sequel) is too vague, gives the government powers that are too broad and have no oversight. Don't you remember how Schwarzenegger wiretapped his wife's phones and carried out full surveillance? He had no oversight in that instance. I think we should fix the numerous drug laws, not supersede them all with one vague and broad bill.
I'm worried about the idea that the government can pull up my record of video rentals, phone calls, and library books, and there not being anyone who has to approve of it (like a judge or jury).
Worse, if the FBI came to my place of employment, I would be forced to hand over my pharmacy and health records of any person over to them. They may not have or need a warrant, only a badge. Congress unanimously passed the HIPAA privacy acts for patients, and some guy with a badge can just walk in and take everything without caring about the other laws. How do I know this isnt just some cop who wants to see if his wife has VD?
Re:I LOVE THIS MODERATION SYSTEM (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see a single person crying censorship. Please cut and paste an example. Just because someone moderated it as a troll doesn't mean it's censored. I mean, you could read it... right?
Re:It's a cliche, (Score:5, Insightful)
Vancouver's Pretty Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
But moving there won't do you much good, because that obviously labels you as a Subversive Anti-American, and it's just as easy for them to wiretap you 100 km north of the border as 100 miles south of the border, and the Feds kidnap Americans from Mexico so they'll probably try Canada too, and it's presumed that if you're not going there for Subversive Anti-American Reasons, you're going there because marijuana possession is temporarily not illegal in Ontario and readily available in BC as well, so you must be going there to score drugs for your import business, which still makes you an Illegal Combatant.
Australia's pretty nice, though it's a bit on the socialist side and some of the states are run by right-wing bluenose politicians, and the beer's not any better than American beer, though they do have more of it, and they're more friendly and less polite than the Canadians.
Re:Vancouver's Pretty Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, the American DEA has been threatening to open an office here, and there have been reports of black helicopters flying over the city looking for grow-ops...so maybe you have a point.
Re:How's the weather up in canda? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of standing up and fighting the bullshit going against our freedom we sit idly by and watch it happen.
Who else knew that this sort of bullshit would start coming? I surely did but what did I do about it? NOTHING.
For two reasons... People in my age bracket are not yet old enough to have a strong enough voice. We are looked at as protesters and not as lawmakers. The fear that me protesting (and not lawmaking) against this sort of legislation will land me in prison. Hell, I must already be earmarked on some sort of subvert list. I get stopped nearly everytime I fly. Whether or not you sport a beard isn't the line between normal and terrorist.
Instead of moving away from the problem someone needs to start a movement against it.
I wish it could be me (so everyone says).
Guilty as charged.
Re:How's the weather up in canda? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And everyone loves Republicans right? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand why many Libertarians vote Republican. Republicans are neither fiscal nor social libertarians. The Republican party is full of religious fundamentalists and Big Brothers. It has now been documented that Republicans spend MORE than Democrats. So why would a libertarian vote Republican?
Libertarians (and I consider myself to be one), please look beyond the Republican party in 2004!
Re:And everyone loves Republicans right? (Score:5, Interesting)
yes, I was the original poster. I came to libertarianism from the Left/Greens, so personal freedoms are slightly more important to me than freedoms for "Big Business". That's why I can't bring myself to vote Republican. I gave up on the Left/Greens because they don't recognize how an efficient, competitive market can be used to create good.
I won't vote for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate because I would rather get Bush out of office. I will vote for other LP candidates.
As you pointed out, tax cuts without spending cuts (or with spending increases we have now) are actually tax INCREASES for future generations.
Regarding Republican spending, here is a news article about a USA Today study that shows that Republican-controlled state legislatures spent more than Democrat-controlled state legislatures from 1997-2002. If the state with a Republican-controlled state legislature also had a Republican governor, then they spend even more. most frugal combination: a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor.
"USA Today Study: GOP state legislatures beat Democrats in spending" [thedesertsun.com]
Re: And everyone loves Republicans right? (Score:5, Interesting)
> I want to see some conservatives comment now on how Republicans are "conservative". Republicans want even bigger government than the Democrats. I am tired of this, everytime I read the news paper or watch TV George Bush is asking for more money for stupid shit.
You are on the virge of enlightenment: the anti-big-government, anti-careless-spending rhetoric isn't associated with a political view, it's associated with being the party out of power.
> Hundreds of billions for building schools and hospitals in Iraq, Billions for Africa
Since the current Administration is dead-set against spending your tax dollars for the same damn things here at home, you would do well to ask what he and his supporters think they are buying with all that spending.
> I cant understand the logic of these Republicans, they seem to be far from conservative
IMO, "conservative" and "liberal" aren't very solid concepts, and certainly don't describe the differences between Republicans and Democrats very well. E.g., if I want to 'conserve' our traditional 'liberties', am I a conservative or a liberal?
> Republicans seem to want Global Government which scares the shit out of me far more than the big US gov democrats.
These days the Republican party is a big bed full of strange bedfellows. Principally the Three 2-R's : the too-rich, the too-religious, and the too-right. They don't really have many interests in common, but they don't have too many interests in conflict either, so the party can cater to them all simultaneously. (And golly gee, look who the party has catered to for the past 2-1/2 years.)
But what you're referring to is a pretty small constituentcy, the neocons. They seem to come in several flavors, but the one of concern here is the Wolfowitz clique at the Pentagon (n.b. - civilians, not the military), who have a self-serving idealism that says that the world would be a better place under a "benevolent" hegemony by the USA. These are the scariest of the lot right now, since they're going to get us all killed in WWIII if Iraq doesn't embarass them out of power. (They existed at least as far back as the previous Bush Administration, but they didn't have much actual influence on the governance of the country until 911 gave them a chance to press their extremist views on a feeble-minded President who had surrounded him with advisors from the oil industry... a dangerous combination when the Middle East is the topic.)
Some slight good news is that there is a growing falling out between the neocons and the supply-siders. Sadly I didn't bookmark it, but someone - Slate, IIRC - recently ran a story about the flame war heating up between two groups of conservative editorialists, one that thinks intervention in Iraq is the ultimate good; the other beginning to think it evil to the tune of $87 billion...
FWIW, I read somewhere that one legislator suggested dismissal of the neocons as a pre-req for signing off on the $87 billion. It looks as though this particular brand of extremist is rapidly losing face, and I wouldn't be surprized if they are sacrificed on the alter of public opinion as the '04 campaign heats up and it becomes easier to start looking for someone to blame than to maintain the pretense that everything is rosy. But we certainly do need to run them out of Washington in a hurry, so we can get started cleaning up the mess they made.
It occurs to me that if we can get a Democratic President and substantially Democratic Congress, we may be able to get Republican legistators to turn against the "patriot" act as a manifestation of the bug gum'mit they so heartedly despised when they were out of power, and will surely despise again next time they're out.