Some Rights May Have To Be 'Eroded' For Safety 665
Turn-X Alphonse writes "The BBC is reporting on a speech given by the head of MI5 in the UK. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller claims in the future some civil rights may have to 'erode', in order to keep everyone in the country safe from terrorism." From the article: "MI5 has recently let it be known that it is in favour of making telephone intercept evidence admissible in court. Previously the intelligence and security services had expressed concern such that evidence might reveal operational details. Meanwhile, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has been calling for EU states to keep mobile phone and e-mail records for longer, to help fight terrorism and crime."
Personal Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to it? So many of our problems are rooted in everyone's attempt to pass the buck: the populace's willingness to give up civil liberties in order to get a nanny state in return, the abundance of frivolous lawsuits, corporate scandals, twelve step programs, people who constantly bitch about politicians but never vote, people who bitch about their jobs being offshored but don't do anything to increase the value of their own career, Karl Rove, etc, etc.... I just don't understand what has happened in my lifetime.
My father grew up within a society that valued "being a man": being responsible for your own station in life and your family's welfare, admitting your mistakes, and genuinely trying to be honorable/noble. If we had more personal responsbility in this world governments wouldn't be able to get away with attitudes like this.
Where's Sartre when you need him?
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Voting is accepting the nanny state. Forcing 49% of people who disagree with you to accept your views as law is anti-civil liberty.
If we had more personal responsbility in this world governments wouldn't be able to get away with attitudes like this.
Right. This is why financial liberty is far more important than civil liberty. Cut off authorian access to your pocketbook and they'll be unable to affect your civil rights.
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Except when they come and take your pocketbook with guns. Like these guys. [irs.gov]
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that we already have a nanny state, it seems to me that not voting is representing the nanny state - it says "go right ahead - I don't care enough to oppose you".
And you know what? If the nanny state was the worst we had to worry about I might even agree with you.
But we in the UK live in a country with more surveilance cameras per square foot than any other in the world. We have a a government that has introduced curfews, travel restrictions, has done away with the right to silence, wishes to remove the right to trial by jury, has instituted detention without trial and without evidence, that lies to its people to justify foreign wars of aggression, has no compuction in victimising journalists that speak out against it, that plans to force through expensive identity card schemes in the face of both public opposition, and a total lack of evidence that thes scheme will benefit anyone at all.
And one that apparently condones shooting commuters in the head at point blank range without evidence and with no warning.
So I think there's just a wee bit more at stake here than the Nanny bleeding State.
Don't you?
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Which have a strange habit of breaking down exactly when they are actually needed.
We have a a government that has introduced curfews, travel restrictions, has done away with the right to silence, wishes to remove the right to trial by jury, has instituted detention without trial and without evidence,
Claiming that all this is about "prevention of terrorism". Is there any evidence that the meme of "reduce civil liberties (of the common man) to increase safety and security" actually has any basis in reality in the first place.
that lies to its people to justify foreign wars of aggression, has no compuction in victimising journalists that speak out against it, that plans to force through expensive identity card schemes in the face of both public opposition, and a total lack of evidence that thes scheme will benefit anyone at all.
To find out who it benefits you'd need to "follow the money".
And one that apparently condones shooting commuters in the head at point blank range without evidence and with no warning.
Then sending the shooters on holiday, rather than to prison.
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Informative)
Okay - it's a very late reply, so you'll probably be the only one to read this, but I suggest you read some of the more recent reports of what happened, such as this one [itn.co.uk].
A choice quote is:
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Informative)
It'll be interesting to see the final results of the investigation since we've clearly got two very different sets of eye-witness reports.
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
And when you have a choice between Dictator 1 and Dictator 2 then voting just says, "hey, I agreee with your repression of me!"
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not wrong. However there are more than two parties. Buy into the trap of binary thinking - that it's an either/or choice, and you're still playing their game - only now they can dismiss your discontent as "apathy".
The only political issue that should really matter right now is electoral reform. We need to change the system so that two parties cannot dominate any election each through fear of the other being elected.
http://www.electionmethods.org/ [electionmethods.org] is a good place to start.
Re:voting (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad analogy - voting does not result in broken bones, ragged skin and blood poueing from your hands.
I agree with the GP - don't vote for the lesser of two evils, vote against the two party system by choosing an outsider.
Think about that 51% (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to affect change via democracy at least 51% of the population must be intelligent enough to vote so as to actually affect that change.
My experience of my fellow human beings does *not* support this as a realistic possibility.
Most people, well over the 51% they require, are sufficiently docile, sheeplike suckers that they actually believe the advertising in the media which very effectively instructs them on ho
Re:Prevalence is no justification (Score:3, Informative)
Apathy is the word of the day. It's a creeping, sublime disease that permeates the psyche of more people in the US every day. Very occasionally, (9/11/01, more recently in the early days of the hurricane flooding), large numbers of people awaken from their malaise, and try to do something...feel like taking action.
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do people go to get the drugs you take to make this shit up? Seriously!
Authoritarian access to your pocketbook is the least of your problems if you can't vote. Financial liberty only works for the ultra-wealthy. This isn't hard to figure out. Civil liberty works for everyone, because you can't collect additional votes in a bank somewhere. No matter how much money you have, you still get just one vote. And I have no idea where you get the idea that voting imposes a "nanny state" on you. Many of the checks and balances of a modern Democracy are designed to thwart the tyrrany of the majority, and permit both individual civil rights and the needs of the prevailing majority to be figured into the scheme of things.
Financial parity is probably more important than financial liberty. Keeping the wealthy from becoming so wealthy that they are above laws and social norms is, I think, more important. It's also been a part of America's system since the beginning, most notably in things like the Estate Tax, which was specifically designed to keep an aristrocracy of worthless blueblood heirs from arising. It probably needs to be increased, and the top tax rate definitely needs to be jacked up. Our nation's wealthy have no reason to do anything but hoard their cash right now, which is, IMHO, most of the reason why worker wages are stuck in the 1970's.
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
The Libertarian party believes that the only justified function of government is the protection of the lives, rights and property of its citizens [lp.org]. Thus, your strategy might not work too well as the local police would come and remove you, the local j
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that is a pretty big over simplification. Native American tribes did for the most part have established territories. As white hunters and settlers attempted to seize that "property" native Americans did vigorously defend their it. Unfortunately they were just outgunned by your Europeans. There wasn't any civilized concept of property in it, the Europeans just had better weapons technology, and their enforcement of property rights came down to "might makes right" which is what it still is today. Your government can sieze your property in a myriad of ways through force:
- The IRS can seize it for failure to pay your fair share of the staggering tax burden placed on Americans since the passage of income and estate taxes in 1918. Estate taxes are in fact a blatant case of government seizing your property.
- Your property can be seized as part of many criminal prosecutions.
- Your property can be seized by the government under the recently dramatically expanded eminent domain. You will get paid for it but they government will decide how much, not you. They can now use eminent domain to take you property and hand it over to another private individual who is held in better favor by the government.
It would seem the government you seem to cherish so much can do pretty much the same thing to you that you want to do to the Libertarian.
"Libertarians are such a joke..."
Libertarians aren't the joke here its your complete misunderstanding of Libertarianism [wikipedia.org] that is the joke.
First off you seem to think that Libertarians are out to abolish government and police forces. That is a complete distortion. From Wikipedia "all individuals should have the liberty to do as they wish with themselves and their property as long as those actions do not infringe on the same liberty of others."
You see when you seek to kick someone out of their house at gunpoint that is "coercion" and Libertarians will call up the local police force and have you arrested just like anyone else. Libertarians are for small government, not NO government. They keep police around to prevent one individual from intruding on another person's liberty and property. A key axiom, is that just as one individual can't coerce another, neither can government engage in coercion against an individual who is not impinging on the liberties of others. This would be a very welcome thing in the above case where governments in the U.S. can now seize your property and give it to someone else. It appears Libertarianism is very much needed in the U.S. these days.
In my personal opinion Libertarianism is right on when it comes to individuals and their freedoms. In economic terms its a little hard to figure. The current system is letting large corporations acquire way to much power at the expense of individuals, though much of that power grab is aided and abetted by government, not in spite of it. I'm not sure if Libertarianism would remedy this or make it worse. You would need sufficient regulation to insure corporations don't continue or expand their current very coercive role over individuals.
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
What the heck is a civil right?
Every important to me is my property: my body and my material possessions on my land. I have no need for civil rights within this sphere.
Let's go for a walk outside my property. If I come onto your property, I live by YOUR civil rules. You can tell me, in your sphere, to shut up, disarm, or leave. You can use force.
Let's both walk on public land. What civil rights are needed here? None. Before I go on public land or another's priva
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:5, Funny)
In Hell, sharing a small room with two other people.
There passed a long time since the last decent PM (Score:5, Insightful)
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
---- William Pitt, 1783Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Eliza Manningham Buller is saying that it might be necessary for EVERYONE to lose well-established rights in order that SOME people MIGHT be protected from a possible threat. There is a possibility of tens of thousands of people having their rights abused if human rights legislation is weakened. Is this a fair price to pay for The War Against Terror (tm)?
f we're going to keep salami slicing our rights to protect ourselves from terror, when will someone in power start asking who is the bigger threat - Osama bin Laden and his cronies, or the government of the day?
There is also a question to be asked about her politics. Traditionally, Britain's spooks have been generally independent of government. They've also kept their mouths shut when their work is a matter of political debate. All of a sudden a speech she made some months ago is published, talking the same language as Blair, Clarke and Blunkett. Published just before Parliament is reconvened to discuss ripping up our human rights. Published just after Charles Clarke stood up in Brussels to tell the EU that the European Convention on Human Rights was helping weaken Western civilisation because it prohibited such useful judicial tools as torture.
Just watch the politicians now say that they have to do these things because the spies need these new powers to keep us all safe.
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Hermann Goering in comments to Gustave Gilbert, 18 April 1946.
Mike.
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Personal responsibility is the preeminent value of a free society comprised of individuals who don't turn reflexively to bureaucrats for "help" and "protection." If those bureaucrats happen to be part of the state security apparatus (i.e., MI5,) then they are controlled by, and operate for the benefit of the elite.
Unfortunately, the elite is dominated by sociopaths. Sociopaths, by definition, never take responsibility for anything. So, i
The problem is not gov't, but the role of gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, we need a strong government, but we also need strong civil liberties. These are not at odds with eachother. Only a weak government would feel the need to infringe upon these liberties.
A strong government exists to build a strong social infrastructure. This can include such things as commercial infrastructure (highways), information infrastructure (my county owns a fiberoptical network through which I get telephone and internet service provided by my choice of private companies, and besides, what else do you call the public school system), economic infrastructure (protecting the freemarket from the likes of Microsoft), etc. We also need a strong judiciary, and many other portions of the government.
Whether we need wealth distribution programs is a subject for another debate. Personally I think we do need some form of wealth redistribution even if it is only an attempt to help make sure that everyone has the opportunity to get a quality college education and narrowly scoped to achieve that end. But that is beside the point.
When government starts to infringe on our civil liberties as a way of keeping us safe, we are sliding back to the circumstances which spawned our great republic, where fundamental rights (habeas corpous, trial by jury) were suspended in the Colonies in order to help maintain security. Already, the case of Jose Padilla threatens to at least partially overturn the right to a jury trial and the right to habeas petitions.
Welcome to the world of 1770.....
Re:The problem is not gov't, but the role of gov't (Score:3, Insightful)
I have faith in those who agree with me. "There should be a law" is the worst thing someone can say.
I'd happily give up 100% of what government offers in a minute.
Dubai has grown like a forest fire with almost no government intrusion. Hong kong did very well with less government.
I'd like to rename 'government' to 'force' as I can't see any reason for it.
Re:The problem is not gov't, but the role of gov't (Score:3, Interesting)
firefighters: Insurance company provided or volunteer.
road construction: You're kidding me. Private roads funded by businesses on those roads or by homeowners who use the roads in their area. My subdivision's road
Enforcement (Score:3, Insightful)
> pink flamingos on their lawns, I can prevent it by living on 100 acres away from nutcases.
And if you can't afford 100 acres?
If your system only works for the rich, it's not a very useful system.
> Before I enter into an agreement with you, I'll want a contract. We'd
> agree on an arbitration system and a neutral mediator. Why is government needed?
Enforcement.
If we enter into a contract, agree on Bob the Arbit
Re:Enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
You're generally right because we don't need arbitrators as much, but I do forsee a better arbitration based on e-bay and slashdot's karma.
First, arbitration companies and contract insurance can guarantee payment. If either or both parties have "bad karma" or "bad feedback" on previous contracts, the insurance will be higher, naturally. If they both have GOOD karma or good feedback, then the insurance will be lowe
Re:Personal Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:learn from history (Score:3, Interesting)
My attitude? What is my attitude, then, since you seem to know so much about it?
If I misunderstood I'm sorry but I got the impression you didn't care who the US supported as long as it suited it's purpose without regards to the consequences.
What I really object to is the "we helped make them, so we can't unmake them" argument that your earlier post suggested.
Now I think it's you who have the misunderstanding, I don't onject to "unmaking them", I do prefer to try to being active and avoiding making o
Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:5, Insightful)
Reducing inherent rights is an impossibility in the States. It is tyranny to trample on our right to be secure in our person and property when no warrant has been issued for a specific investigation into a specific crime.
Letting government infringe on our inherent freedom from witch hunts is scary. I know it is happening, but I'm not understanding how it protects us. Real criminals know the law and can get around all these government intrusions. That leaves only 'innocent' citizens as the target. With so many vague laws criminalizing behavior, you may be committing a crime without realizing it. Let your elected officials keep a log, just in case you forget to notify them of the crime you unknowingly commit.
It is unjust and unacceptable, and I am unwilling to be part of it. Should I mimic criminals now to keep myself safe from [i]government[/i]? Disposable phones, anonymous mailers, and all that?
Be sure terrorists already are safe from these injustices.
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:5, Insightful)
Guantanamo Bay.
That is all.
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:2)
Read our Constitution. It rarely says [b]citizen[/b] except where it means it.
You vote, you accept. Stop voting.
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:4)
or... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:3, Insightful)
"You vote, you accept. Stop voting."
You stop voting, your voice is never heard. The government assumes you don't give a shit, and carries on with whatever it was doing before, or gets even worse.
Vote for someone else, like the opposition leader, or a third-party candidate. Politicians will cheerfully ignore voter apathy (in fact the more corrupt ones bank on it), but the second votes start going to someone else, they have to take notice.
Fuck it,
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:3, Insightful)
However, foreign enemy combatants are granted no such rights by the Constiution or by our government. Foreign enemy combatants serving in the state militaries of Geneva Convention signatories are afforded rights by that convention, but no others. Guantanamo Bay v
Forget the Gitmo. Look at Padilla (Score:5, Insightful)
This means no trial by jury, no habeas petition, no access to a lawyer, merely because the government says so. Furthermore the 4th circuit stated that they were going to apply the Hamdi standard here and state that anyone accused of being an enemy combattant might have the burden or proof in proving that he is not, perhaps against a military tribunal. This is very scary indeed.
To see where this leads, I would direct everyone to read Scalia's dissent in Hamdi (in which Stevens joined). He states that the Hamdi standard would lead to an attrition of our due process rights as American citizens. And after reading the 4th circuit's opinion, I have decided that Scalia and Stevens are clearly right here...
Re:Forget the Gitmo. Look at Padilla (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forget the Gitmo. Look at Padilla (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually agree with you. He gets flack for some of his views on some issues (most notably abortion). But his overall judicial philosophy is good and he has a strong sense of preserving civil l
Re:Forget the Gitmo. Look at Padilla (Score:3, Insightful)
If you ever wondered how Padilla ended up in a Navy brig in South Carolina its precisely so he would be in the jurisdiction of the 4th circuit. It is the most right wing circuit in the U.S. which is why the Bush administration does everythi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, most countries consider allowing executions, particularly of minors, to be a crime against basic human rights.
When you put Bush in court for war crimes I'll take your God-given rights to every human born, US citizen or not seriously.
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:4, Insightful)
Sophistry. In the US, such rights as you have that are enumerated by the man-written Constitution exist or defined/interpreted by the Supreme Court. Rights that are not enumerated/defined/interpreted don't exist, pure and simple. God doesn't enter into the equation.
In fact, what you say is demonstrably false. For almost 100 years in the USA, citizens defined as "slaves" had no right to freedom. The man-written Constitution said so, and consequently, God's feelings had no force. And once they were freed, their owners had no "right" to compensation for their "property." Probably in violation of the Constitution, but nevertheless, God did not speak up. So just as in other countries, your rights are granted and taken away at the stroke of a pen, which is why it is just as important in the US as in other places to elect leaders who will respect the freedoms that you deem important. Ignoring that and taking false comfort in some doctrine of inherent rights will lead very much to the situation we see today, where rights outlined in the fifth and sixth amendments have just been eviscerated.
"Let them eat inherent rights."
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
The rights are granted by God or by birth. The Constitution gives our government very restricted enumerated powers. Government grants us no rights.
Go read your pocket Constitution. 1st Amendment says nothing about "Congress grants you the freedom to speak." It says Congress shall make no law taking away your ability to do so. And so on.
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:2)
The reason the governments of the USUK axis want to erase the lines that protect personal liberty from government power is that freedom is a threat to their absolute authority and a check to their autonomous capacity to concentrate global wealth.
Consider: If you could be shot at any time by a conscientious objector to wars of aggr
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:4, Insightful)
1. It is possible for the state, given good reason, to take those rights away;
2. #1, but with possible replaced by permissible.
Only #2 is wrong, and #1 is already happening. Claiming otherwise is just absurd denial of truth and ultrapatriotism.
Pocket Constitution? WTF is wrong with you Americans? Stop treating your 1) Constitution 2) Founding Fathers as gods. They are man-made, erodable, and not so superior to everything and everyone else if you just care to take a look.
Re:Lawyers should not be allowed in government (Score:3, Insightful)
Well a lot of that jargon is really just a standard interpretation which has been reached over time as to initially ambigious terms. Once upon a time, people could probably argue a lot over what what was meant by 'negligence' in tort law. Nowadays we all agree that negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that would be exercised by a hypothetical reasonable person in roughly similar c
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the Constitution and its Bill of Rights were meant to allow regular people with little knowledge of the law to trump the semantic knowledge of the lawyers when their rights were trampled. I'm no
Re:Read 'erode' as 'trample on' (Score:2)
Government dosn't grant *any* rights. Its function to is protect our pre-existing rights. All a state can do is either protect our rights, or attempt to deny us our rights. It cannot *grant* rights.
Fight this (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I urge anyone reading to fight the erosion of their civil liberties in a so-called trade for their "security". I'm especially worried about the UK putting forward an equivalent of the PATRIOT Act because if they do, it sets a precident for all of their allies and will likely put pressure on them to do the same (which includes Canada, where I live).
I know I'm preaching to the converted here on Slashdot, but I wish there was a way I could make people see what we do: that the PATRIOT Act in the US allows the Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests, spy on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) without a court order, and most concerningly, allows law enforcement to issue search warrants that do not force them to tell the subject that he was searched. (Source: EFF [eff.org])
The word needs to be brought out to the streets.
Re:Fight this (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely, and it does nothing about the real killer, governmental incompetance. To fix that we need MORE civil rights. And after that's done, the terrorism problem should dry up on its own.
The laws are worse than the terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology changes the balance between victim and attacker. Fact. Occasionally, it is prudent to create new laws to redress the balance. At first, breaking into a computer wasn't a crime. The laws in many countries decide (rightfully, imo) to make this an offense.
The problem comes when the law makers don't really think through the consquences of the laws they write. The start with the assumption that criminals are dumb. Most of the time this is actually a fairly good assumption. However, it is a mistake to right off all criminals as being stupid. The people behind 9/11 were certainly not dumb and it's these type of people we are drafting laws to stop.
. The first question a legislator should be asking themselves when faced with a security decision is "How could an attacker make this law useless". On the subject of wiretapping the first thing that springs to mind is encrypting the connection. How can you wiretap an encrypted connection? Of course, they could try and use RIPA to get the keys off you but RIPA is badly drafted (as I discuss here [ckwop.me.uk]) and can be circumvented easily provided you use a signed Diffie-Helman key exchange to determine the session key.
Give the fact that the law can be dodged completely it only serves to make us all less secure. It removes a check and balance from our society and opens up to abuses by the Police and other government organsiations. (As an aside, Law should be drafted in that they should fail in the safest possible way when being used by a corrupt Police force).
I'll finish this comment with a point I feel is important. In July, fifty or so people were killed by terrorists. That was the first major terrorist attack since the IRA declared a cease-fire and it was alost the biggest terrorist act in (recent) British history. As much as it is a tragedy that those lives were lost, is it worth changing the relationship between citizen and state for the sake of fifty dead? The same can also be said about 9/11 or the madrid bombings. Yes four thousand people were killed in 9/11 but four times as many die per year in US due to gun fatalities. In terms of a threat to the average citizen of any particular state, the threat posed by terrorism is right down in the noise level. It is my belief that a greater threat to our liberty is posed by the onerous legislation being passed worldwide than by terrorism.
Simon.
Re:The laws are worse than the terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, and it's funny how people almost never think of this. How so many other dangers are more present and deadly than terrorism, but aren't seen as important. Where's our war on smog, bad driving, and gun proliferation?
Before the 2004 US elections I saw quotes by people saying things to the effect of 'who cares about the economy when we're at war with terrorism'. Yet far more children are going to die from poverty induced things like exposure and malnutrition than from any acts of terror.
Re:The laws are worse than the terrorists. (Score:5, Interesting)
If terrorists had killed 4000 random people with a selective virus, sure it would still be nasty but there wouldn't be any video to watch or a great big hole in the ground afterwards.
Gun deaths are the same thing: not visible, so ignored.
Re:The laws are worse than the terrorists. (Score:3, Informative)
You obviously didn't experience the sniper shootings in the DC area a few years ago. I used to live a couple miles from and went shopping at the shopping center where one of the shootings took place. Though I moved a couple months earlier, I still had many friends in the area, and those "gun deaths" were anything but ignored!
Re:The laws are worse than the terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the 2004 US elections I saw quotes by people saying things to the effect of 'who cares about the economy when we're at war with terrorism'. Yet far more children are going to die from poverty induced things like exposure and malnutrition than from any acts of terror.
I agree. Terrorism is a insignificant problem, 3000+ at the world trade center, a few hundred in london. Compared to car accidents this is a minicule death toll. Also compared to violent crime, pollution, heart disease, cancer, ect... The roots of these terrorism is as much about ideological differences as they are about foreign policy. The only thing you can do about it is to tighten security and make it hard.
A war on terrorism is stupid, because it's a war on a tactic. you can't have a war against flanking, you can't have a war on spying, so why is there a war on terrorism?
It's a threat they threw at the american public to justify their current impearlist ideas and to throw off of the fact that the current administration is incompetent from beuracrat to president.
As a financial conservative/social progressive I find Bushes policies compeletly offensive. He is not a financial conservative and he's pretty backwards on social policies. He's runnigng up debt and introducing regressive policies on science and religion.
Re:The laws are worse than the terrorists. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The laws are worse than the terrorists. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just nitpicking but few causes of death are not miniscule compared to car accidents. For instance, leukemia has a miniscule death toll every year compared to car accidents. So, should we not try to fight leukemia?
We have an entire department of the federal government dedicated to traffic safety while a few speacialized branches of the medical researchers put time into fighting leukemia, it seems proportionate. Fighting terrorism does not. Just imagine a 250 billion dollar Federal project dedicated to fighting Sudden Infant Death syndrome (3000 - 5000 deaths a year, more then terrorism in the states) and you will realize what this "war on terrorism" looks like in perspective.
The War On Poverty (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, we're trying to bus them out of the hurricane area. But, where were the buses before the hurricane? We certainly knew well ahead of the time that level of a storm would devastate New Orleans. If leaving the area was the best option, then why wasn't this option given to the poorest citizens before disaster struck? The answer has everything to do with money and the fact that they don't have it. Certainly, the city, state, or federal government could have spent a little money to use local school buses and move those people out. I have a sneaking suspicion where that money actually went...
Re:The War On Poverty (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, enough of that.
There are so many things that went wrong about this hurricane. Busses and trains should have been kept running to the last minute, getting people out. Hell, if the companies are that greedy and uncaring about human life, then use some of that disaster money to pay them for th
Re:The laws are worse than the terrorists. (Score:3, Insightful)
> citizen and state for the sake of fifty dead?
Yes. The citizens should disarm, defang, declaw, and cripple the state so that it stops creating enemies by committing crimes against humanity.
Problem solved.
The US proved that when great power comes great (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at the patRIOT act of all things. It gives government carte blanche for whatever they want, AND your not allowed to even know about the laws. How can this prevent terrorism? Eroding away liberties and personal rights of privacy and general freedoms will never solve terrorism, it wont even make a dent in it.
Mr $100 (Score:4, Informative)
Then again, his countrymen don't seem to take him seriously, so why should anyone else?
Re:Mr $100 (Score:3, Insightful)
As bad as terrorism may be, the number of deaths due to it are dwarfed when compared to those due to poverty (or even just those due to preventable traffic accidents).
More people died in the US in September 2001 from auto accidents than from acts of international terrorism.
More amazing to me is that the response has been so irrational and disproportionate.
You're right. Lets send the army to Detroit in our War against Automobiles....
I'd much rather keep my rights and have all of the 'homeland security' mone
Brazil! (Score:4, Funny)
On the plus side (Score:4, Funny)
Re:On the plus side (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad (Score:4, Insightful)
I admit that governments need to make a compromise, but they shouldn't so easily show it off.
Re:Sad (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, it's usually the actions of the government, not the people, that they are trying to influence. Sure they may think Americans are debauched and stupid, but so does everyone else. That's not the reason you fly planes into buildings.
The point of inspiring terror in the average person is to get them to exercise their influence to get their government to do what the terrorists want. It's not at all playing into their hands to make
Obligatory FDR quotation... (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory FDR quotation... (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory FDR quotation... (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory FDR quotation... (Score:3, Interesting)
Another question is why Franklin would believe that the willingness to give up some of one's own essential liberty merits a loss of safety. Did he really mean that people who would feel safer with a constant overbearing police presence should instead be thrown to the wolves (rather, to the criminal
Re:Obligatory FDR quotation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for being about the only voice among the masses that seems to be thinking rationally about this! I've been wondering for a long time about the obse
Re:Obligatory FDR quotation... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe. Of course it might also be a sum of a number of fairly random factors, including relative isolation from other countries, the cultural heritage of the British empire and complex international politics that just might have favore
Bah. Send Double Oh Seven on the job! (Score:3, Funny)
And this Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller? Is she... M?
Re:Bah. Send Double Oh Seven on the job! (Score:2)
Yes Next question
Where is freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
"1984" could be a reality. "Brazil" could be a reality.
Don't people realize that part of the cost of freedom is by definition risk of being hurt.
Fear is what drives us to give up liberty, and it is only fear that we have to fight. Fear is worse than death, beause it traps us in our minds, afraid to move, afraid to live.
If we want to represent freedom to the world, I believe we ought to stop being afraid and stop lashing out in fear.
If we give up our freedom, doesn't that mean the terrorists are winning?
Why can't anyone see the truth here?
The truth is: we must do our best with the knowledge we have, defend ourselves as best we can, and let go of our fear.
Raydude
Re:Where is freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fortunately, this is exactly what they get. They lose their liberty - because they've given it up. And they don't gain safety - because terrorists don't care what the law says, and if they're that determined will either find a way around it or find a way to avoid being caught in the first place.
As history has taught us, terrorists tend to be pretty determined people.
Re:Where is freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well said. Did you feel a particular need to post anonymously?
Terrorists try to destroy our way of life (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of letting them destroy our way of life, we destroy it ourselves.
Thanks for your insightful comments Dame Edna...
Eroded freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course no government would think that way, by design they are out to control the public and absorb their rights and freedoms.
Our founders here in the US knew this all too well, and tried to prevent it from happening *again*.
They failed of course, but they were right.
People have forgotten what government is for. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hah (Score:4, Interesting)
"Western countries' obsession with individual rights has often been seen as a strength, but in the modern world it has become a weakness. When these rights were developed over the preceding centuries it was never envisaged that they would be exploited to shield those who wish to annihilate those very rights and the society that gave them birth. We should wake up and curtail some of the more excessive freedoms, in order to preserve those that are more fundamental."
What a complete idiot.
Re:Hah (Score:3, Insightful)
But how about trying to justify your points, preferably by means other than 1) quoting your beloved Constitution as if it were god-given 2) quoting Founding Fathers as if they were gods.
"What a complete idiot" is just quite a rough thing to say about anyone without justifying your point of view.
Re:Hah (Score:3, Insightful)
"Living in London and with sons using the Tube daily, my human right to be free of worry of them being blown to bits takes precedence over everything."
How idiotic do you have to be to post that? Apparently "CC, London, UK" is willing to sacrifice human rights in order to reduce his risk of death by a miniscule amount. Even if terrorist attacks manage one a year, he is still 10 times more likely to die of drowning than by being blown up. 100 times more likely to die by being run over while walk
Same ill logic as in the US. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
Joanna Baillie, Basil (act III, sc. 1, l. 151)
"Fear is not the natural state of civilized people."
Aung San Suu Kyi [wikipedia.org]
"Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Variations on a meme (Score:5, Insightful)
Karl von Clausewitz [wikipedia.org] is perhaps best known from his statement: "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." This oft quoted statement was part of a dialectic argument set forth in Hegelian [wikipedia.org] terms to examine the properties of war. IIRC von Clausewitz also was the first to characterize an oppresive, desparate state as insidiously furthering their power by pointing to an enemy without. Declaring war on the enemy without allowed a state to cast blame on the enemy for the shortcomings of the state within. In our present case the war on terrorism allows the state to truncate our civil liberties.
The interplay between the rights of the individual and the security of the collective is an ancient argument. In the west Jeremy Bentham [wikipedia.org] presented the struggle in terms of Utilitarianism [wikipedia.org], "the greatest good for the greatest number". (I've had a fondness for Bentham since, as a schoolboy, reading he was stuffed and sat at the entrance to his club.) At the other end of the stick were the Romantics, best known, perhaps, in the writings of Jean-Jacuees Rousseau [wikipedia.org], a Calvin [wikipedia.org] in Rebellion (and in my opinion a second rater), and F. Nietzsche [wikipedia.org].
The argument is ancient and each of us has to reexamine it to find our own place.Good luck with that.:)
US Heading in same direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascism: A social and political ideology with the primary guiding principle that the state or nation is the highest priority, rather than personal or individual freedoms.
I believe we had a world war over this.
Then the terrorists have won..... (Score:3, Insightful)
How many times will the governing officials tell us this old lie that our liberties are blocking their jobs and they get away with it? Could they post examples rather than ringing the old fear mongering bell?
Would the tragedy on 9/11 not have happened? I thought the whole impetus and sudden motivation for increased airport security was 9/11 itself. Not a sudden decrease in liberties (fuck the so-called Patriot act).
How about the London Bombings? How would decreased liberties have stopped them where over 15,000 cameras in London couldn't?
It is easy to hold up Liberty when in good times, but how in the world are we to "teach" the rest of countries Democracy/Liberty when our goverments perservere to constantly restrict ours?
Now, this is going to be the most cold-hearted assessment of all to most people - but how many people died in the London Bombings (or even 9/11) versus how many people die of heart attacks each year?
Should we outlaw McDonalds now? Wouldn't outlawing fast food save more lives?
Because restricted freedoms affect nearly 100% of the population minus a lucky few at the top of the hierarchy.
Re:Then the terrorists have won..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to clear up some apparent misconception about the thousands of security cameras in London: Very few of them are controlled by the police (The only ones I know of are on the "ring of steel" around the city, dating from IRA days. I'm sure there's some more in strategic locations). Most of them are controlled by private organisations - if you walk around the city, most buildin
But Freedoms should be Maximized (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, individuals can take measures to protect themselves from all these problems, but it is 1000 times harder to protect yourselves from a government that is out of controll. In times of chrises, freedoms need to be maximized, not minimized? Individuals don't need safety, they need controll - when the later happens, the former takes care of itself. Without the later, the former can be revoked at any time.
"A society that will trade a little liberty... (Score:3, Insightful)
The price of eternal vigilance (Score:3, Interesting)
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Erode this. And the horse you rode in on, bitch.
As a taxpaying citizen, if my hired protectors can't protect me without infringing my rights, then they're fucking FIRED. The People can find someone else who will. These assholes forget who they're working for. The government is for the people, by the people. Their right to govern comes from MY consent to be governed. Do the job you're given, or get the fuck out of the way for someone else who can.
This just pisses me off. Some rights must be eroded? Bullshit!
Re:Before everyone takes the normal ./ angle... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before everyone takes the normal ./ angle... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, deaths due to terrorism (even now) are such a microscopically small percentage of the total that it's either a weak excuse or shortsighted to the point of blindness to restrict the rights of the entire population to counter it.
For example, I did a little research a while back, and did you know that in the UK you're more likely to be hit by lightning than die as a result of terrorism this year? Even after the recent two rounds of tube/
Re:You're ignorant of history, a coward and a fool (Score:3, Insightful)
You: And neither is a collapsing skyscraper?
No.
A collapsing skyscraper does not fundamentally change our lives. Our reactions after the fact changes our lives. The current administration have done everything in their power to convert America from a free democracy to a police state. Just this morning, I read that Bush has been given the right to arrest a US citizen and hold them indefinitely withou [nwsource.com]