Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press 747
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "The Washington Post is carrying an article about a disturbing Senate bill that could make it illegal to publicly disclose even the existence of US domestic spying programs (i.e. NSA wiretaps)." An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters, but the language is ambiguous at best. From the article: "Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. 'The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,' said Martin, a civil liberties advocate."
Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
The first comment from my friend from Canada, who lives in the US said: "That's it, I'm moving back to Canada."
Re:Typical (Score:3, Insightful)
1st amendment smack down (Score:5, Interesting)
This law will not make it out of committee.
This law will not make it through the House.
This law will make it to the president's desk.
Should this law actually somehow become law, it absolutely will contested and struck down by the courts.
Re:1st amendment smack down (Score:5, Interesting)
Allowing ANY direct contributions to a candidate/party allows them to be bought by the highest bidder. The people giving the money will get preferential treatment in congress, and the actual american people will get screwed. No, giving money to candidates is not free speech, it is putting nails in the coffin of the people's right to representation and building the coffin of democracy.
All elections should be funded by "Central pool" - say there are 3 candidates on the ballot in a race for a senate seat - a central pool of money should be setup and the 3 candidates should get even thirds of that money. If you think that election is important you give to the pool - your candidate gets to be heard more, but so do the others - but hey if your candidate is so great his 1/3 of the money should be more valuable to you than the other 2/3s that went elsewhere. Basically a candidate should have to prove themselves on issues: not on who can buy more ad time.
What a 527 can put on the air should be tightened up to so that slander/libel can be pursued against them much more easily as opposed to how it is now where it's harder to pursue libel against someone if you're a politician.
Hey, I want in on this! (Score:5, Interesting)
A requirement that they show up with some evidence that they stand some chance of getting elected can also be discriminatory - look at what happened to the petition signing for Nader. He was kept off ballots because of petitions that were disqualified, thus again restricting the pool of candidates.
The candidate is going to give up at least a year of any sort of employment to run for election. Lately, in the US it has become almost a two-year commitment. To prevent this from being a "you gotta be rich" sort of thing, the funding for candidates have to include a healty stipend for their support and for their families.
So, why can we not have 1,000 candidates for mayor for a city, each receiving a fully-funded free ride for a couple of years? How long will it take before every citizen in the US understands all they need to do is run for every office possible (think 25,000,000 candidates for president) so as to be fully supported by the Federal Election Commission?
Come on, is that where you really want to go? Or is it that you think it would be better if the candidates were narrowed to just a few "qualified" candidates selected by the incumbents?
Re:Typical (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Typical (Score:3, Informative)
Most of it, no. For reference, the southernmost point of Great Britain is about level with the northernmost point of the USA (not counting Alaska, obviously...). Most of the population of Europe is further south than this.
Re:Typical (Score:5, Informative)
Not true anymore. If it ever was. See McCarthyism [wikipedia.org] or other examples from the history of civil rights in the US.
I think that the verse continues as "Home of the Brave".
Not true either. See how squeamish the US people get when soldiers die in wars and occupations that their elected government chose to enter.
Here's a hit from the big clue stick:
If you don't like the government that you have then don't re-elect it!
And I'm not just talking about the president that you have over there.
I'm talking about all of the elected officials.
I must say things are not any better here in Finland.
Our former Prime Minister resigned because she leaked confidential information during her election campaign.
She was elected anyway to the European parliament after her resignation.
People should realise the power that they have and make responsible decisions when voting.
This has to be opposed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or they could arrest people, hold them in jail for a while, charge them, and then before the courts can make a decision, drop charges and let them go with stern warnings.
That way, the courts don't get a chance to shut them down since they have to have a real dispute, but the administration can use it to silence opponents.
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note to self: never vote for this guy.
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're being invaded? If so, where are the front lines? I'll be going there right after I go to the gun store to arm myself. Surely there are volunteer units being formed, and they may not have enough extra guns/ammo for everyone.
What's that you say? The front lines are in another country? And it doesn't border us, nor does it have the capability to project an invasion force (or, indeed, any military force at all) to this side of the world? And we already destroyed its military anyway? So, all these threats to our nation are of a criminal rather than a military nature?
Huh. When you said that the President has special powers in time of invasion, I thought you mean when we're being invaded, or at least when an enemy of ours is doing some kind of invading. I had no idea that this applies when our side is the only one invading other countries. How strange.
Re:This will never fly... (Score:3, Informative)
Article 1, section 9:
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll use the ol' copyright trick. Keep extending the deadline each time it's about to expire. But it always has a limit yes? See, temporary. See also the PATRIOT act.
Welcome... (Score:5, Funny)
Your's kindly,
George W. Bush
Re:Welcome... (Score:4, Interesting)
Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe this at your peril (Score:5, Insightful)
It is convenient for people to have you think that the press is free, because it is convenient for you to be suitably mislead.
The press is being lead around by the nose. Remember folks that these days the press (and other reporting media) are not primary there to bring you the truth. They are there to provide infotainment to piull in the advertising revenue etc. Need nice snappy "news" to compete against all those other things trying to get a slice of your time. So what happens? Reporters that don't play the game soon get blacklisted. Nothing openly stated. Just a few extra minutes delay in returning your call (so your story gets scooped) or instead of being embedded with frontline troops giving scenic footage of night rocket attacks you get embedded in the crew washing trucks down at the transport park (makes for real high viewer rating footage!).
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case we are all in trouble. The media has long abandoned any sense of purpose or duty. It's now completely sycophantic to the politicians. Often it's just acting as a PR arm of a political party.
Radio led the way but now all media does very little besides amplifying whatever talking points come out of the politicians.
It's all over but the shouting now.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:4, Insightful)
They can eat the cake, but they'll no longer have it.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure we know about it now. That's done a lot. Perhaps we can use those Diebold voting machines, or try to vote in Florida where they deliberately send people away that statistically will vote for the opposition.
Yeah whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
And the patriot act wasn't aimed at drug enforcement, but that certainly didn't stop it for being used for exactly that purpose.
Re:Yeah whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yeah whatever (Score:5, Interesting)
If supporters of a bill, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, dismiss the concerns as purely hypothetical, they are lying. They intend to use such a law exactly that way as early and often as possible.
Re:Yeah whatever (Score:3, Informative)
And, googling further, it seems to have earned a +5 every time it's been used in a political discussion on /. ever since. I suppose it's too late now to ask about royalties... :-)
How about a proposing a bill (Score:5, Funny)
Orwell, eat your heart out!
Re:How about a proposing a bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Orwell is spinning in his grave. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We are always at war. We live in constant fear of terror attacks.
The dystopian future I studied in high school is coming true. He erred only by two decades.
Coup (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Coup (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just a facist takeover through a manipulated electoralprocess
I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then... 2004. Having been lumbered with that idiot for a president, with his cabal of fascist hangers-on pulling the strings, and having seen the horrors they perpetrated together on America, and on America's global standing, and on the world in general, what did the American people do?
They voted him in. For real this time. No question about it, Bush won that election. They looked at the record of Bush's first term and said 'Yes. This is what we want from our Presidents. We like Bush and approve of what he has done, and want four more years of the same.'
At which point you can't blame a corrupt fascist takeover. The fascists sneaked into office via a very dodgy election, but you had the chance to get them out. But you endorsed them and voted them in again with an authentic mandate.
It's your own stupid fault now. And the world knows it. What America does now, the ordinary American people can be directly and personally blamed for.
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Interesting)
You make some interesting arguments and while I don't completely disagree, I'm not totally convinced GW won in 2004. Ohio still looks awfully fishy to me. When was the last time you have seen exit polls so out of line with official results? And none of it auditable? We all know about Diebold.
Yes, far too many Americans voted out of ignorance and fear, and are reaping their rewards, but the process was corrupted
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I used to think that. (Score:4, Insightful)
All I'm saying is that the post I'm responding to is one-sided and more beligerent than insightful. Although I disagree with the Bush's treatment of civil rights and his foreign policy, there were also other factors acting on people during the 2004 election. Perhaps if the Democratic - or any other - party would produce a good candidate, American's would have a better option than "choosing the lesser evil". And what you call "the lesser evil" is different for everyone anyway.
Re:I used to think that. (Score:4, Informative)
We (they?) are just very very good at breeding consent through means of public manipulation. A shitload has been learned over many decades on how to manipulate public thought. Now, I'm not talking about intellectuals, or even
And remember, Bush won by only a few percentage points. The "rest" of us were so completely stunned, that therapy and Canadian visa applications were headline stories. If you feel you must blame somone, blame the ill-informed and the reasons for their inability to become informed. Our media is a laughing stock. Our workforce has barely the time to watch American Idol, let alone watch meaningful discourse (no car crashes? forget it...). Half of our country merely doesn't realize that there is anything wrong. They are convinced that power equals safety, and that gaining as much power as possible at any cost is worth it. What they don't realize, is that this very thinking is what we as Americans used to despise. In fact, that train of thought was thought to be a precursor for war by those same ill-informed masses. What a change has been made... kudos to the greedy. They've won hook line and sinker, and it's coming to a country near you!
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
51% of them did. Us remaining 49% don't like your sweeping generalization.
-Eric
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like it, then it's your responsibility to change it, not mine. And as long as your government continues on the path it's been then I'll keep saying what I feel needs to be said.
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we were watching different elections. 2004 seemed largely a referendum on whether gays should be allowed to marry, based on the exit polls they showed on TV.
From where I watch (Canada,) a large number of voters in the US seem to be single-issue voters; voting for the candidate who agrees with their view on:
Also remember, although the people in office may change every few years, the lobbyists don't.
Re:Coup (Score:3, Insightful)
It's laughable to hear Americans such as yourself beating your chest over the superiority of your so-called 'democracy', completely oblivious to the fact that your 2000 elections were anything but democratic - even by the embarassingly lapse standards your constitution calls for.
"All Animals are equal..." (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose the next thing the will want to do is confescate all of our "controband" and "propganda".
If this is the future of America then I suggest a scishim and a sucession from the Imperial American Empire! Save the REAL United States of America from the New World Order.
Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law. Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
Any Senator or Congressman who signs this bill should hang for treason. I am not joking. Signing this bill would be high treason. Full Stop.
Re:Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a "lesser of two evils" issue, because any evil is too much. It's a "Freedom is good, this bill is evil" issue.
Did anyone else... (Score:4, Funny)
Illegal to Complain About Crime?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk about stupid. Hopefully the Supreme Court would see fit to nuke this bill from orbit (should the US suffer the misfortune of this insane bill not being stillborn).
Press is not the issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Press is not the issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, Great! Reporters Are Exempted! (Score:5, Insightful)
Spineless Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
If George wants this one, it'll pass too, probably with half of the Democrats voting for it.
Doesn't the last 5 years seem almost surreal? WTF happened to our country?
Feingold is the only one with a spine (Score:5, Interesting)
Feingold, however, is the Eliot Spitzer of the halls of Congress. The guy should run for Emperor, errr Potentate, errr... what's Bush's title today?
i.e. vs. e.g. (Score:5, Informative)
"e.g." stands for "exempli gratia" and means "for example".
The article summary should have used e.g. instead of i.e. I see this mistake all the time and it irritates me.
It's OK If You Are A Republican (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's OK If You Are A Republican (Score:5, Informative)
Lese-majesty anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like the Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
And the Patriot Act is only used against terrorists.
Bah, I have an idea for a law... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I think that this law inspires me to want a law of my own. Let's call my new law the "three strikes, now stop fucking with the constitution" law. Any congressman that votes for three laws that are later over turned on the grounds of it being unconstitutional should have their seat revoked for their absolute and utter incompetence in upholding the constitution of the United States.
These worthless fuckers have sworn an oath to the constitution, and it really fucking pisses me off when they promptly turn around and drop one of these shit for laws. Not only does it piss me off that they are so incompetent as to not see the clear violation of the constitution that they are proposing, but it also pisses me off that my tax money has to be pissed away overturning these steaming piles of shit.
Would a "three strikes, now STFU and stop messing with the constitution law" be great? Sure. It won't happen, so let's do the next best thing. STOP VOTING FOR THESE DUMB FUCKER. I am not sure who to be more pissed off at, the spineless incompetent politicians that seem to think that upholding the constitution is optional, or the worthless and lazy voters that blindly support their parties candidate and vote for these dumb fucker.
Bah. This crap will be shot down. Thankfully, the court system still mostly works and takes its responsibility to the constitution seriously. It still pisses me off though that it even needs to go that far.
Re:Bah, I have an idea for a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at how the republican judges in the supreme court betrayed all their principles of states rights in the florida election. They even wrote in the decision that this case can never be used for precedent because they don't want it thrown back in their face.
I have no faith in the court system anymore. It's just another partisan branch of the govt now. I can predict with greater then 99% accuracy how the supremes will vote on any issue. They all simply vote their party platform.
Outsourcing (Score:5, Funny)
Any other time I would wonder if it was April 1st (Score:3, Insightful)
Under President George Sr., Yeah This is a bad joke
Under President Clinton, Yeah this is a bad joke
Under Emporeror Bush, this fucking scares me.
A fitting quote from Sid Myer's Alpha Centaury
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Librarian's Preface"
Blah, reread more closely people (Score:3, Informative)
I read about a page of comments all basically saying the same thing "I hate this" "Bush's fault" "It won't get past the courts, move along" etc etc. Too bad there weren't any "why I hate this" comments backing up their opinions.
I wish the Washington Post had included a link to the original wording of this proposed bill. But they didn't so all we had was this:
Meaning, the law would make it illegal to disclose information that might harm ongoing legal investigations. How is that a bad thing? It would still be legal to report surveillance that is being preformed illegally. The key words are "conducted under a 1978 surveillance law". If this is the actual case the other quote they gave us:
is contradictory and incorrect. One of them is wrong. The important question is which? Likely this law wouldn't affect law abiding citizens at all. The media has brought this crap upon themselves though. By reporting anything whether accurate or not in the name of revenue and ratings.You not hearing about legal wiretapping will not affect your life. You not hearing about illegal wiretapping is a different story. In the haste of the Washington Post to produce a story, they have reported contradictory opinions without facts to show which is true.
Eventually... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll go out on a limb and say this law won't pass.
But I'll point out another fact my friends from back home used to say. You have the government you deserve. You recalled Gray Davis just to hire a movie star as your governor, why not recall Bush to hold a new election? It worked in Canada
Fact of that matter is this time around if you're american *you did* vote for Bush. Even knowing what sort of assclown he is. Sure John Kerry wasn't much of a choice either but what about all the independents? Despite what CNN says you're not in a bipartisan country. It is *legal* to have a third, fourth and even fifth option on the ballet.
If enough people stole seats from the "holy bestowed party of two" they wouldn't get away with these sorts of laws and lobbying activity. But no, you guys take the easy road, do zero investigation and don't question anything.
Oh and another thing I have to say to Americans. You really should learn at least one Chinese dialect in the next 5 or so years. With the raising of your deficit it just means less and less of America actually belongs to Americans [well the USA at least]. Canada on the other hand is in relatively good hands.
Canada is certainly not perfect and Harper has yet to make the news for something really positive but at least I know all 14 spies we have aren't pointed at me.
Tom
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
"1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are mani
Re:The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd be happier if it had been published in (say) 1975, so that it was predictive rather than reactive.
(For the record, I agree with the author's point of view, however.)
Slow down here (Score:4, Insightful)
This article might be reactionary, but there's not enough information to tell. I'll wait until the actual text is available before making a judgement.
Re:bill... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony of the NRA is that they continually argue that guns are vitally important to protecting our rights, but they've never used guns to achieve their aims. Instead, they show just how effective writing letters, donating money, and voting on the issues can really be.
If people out there really want to protect our rights, it's really simple, and it doesn't involve threatening
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't believe me, I want you to try something for me. Wait until the Democrats get into power and for the post-election BS to wear off. I'll bet you a soda that they'll be pushing the same sorts of laws for the same sorts of reasons.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
the pen is mightier than the sword
I'm not a gun nut, but this makes some sense to me. OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc. I guess if you'd really rather be dead than have your freedom taken away, though, go for it.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget that the military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution. If ordered to fire on American civilians, many of them will refuse.
I guess you don't remember the ruckus that was raised when the Clinton administration gave a survey to Marines asking if they'd be willing to fire upon American civilians in order to enforce gun control laws. Long story short, 75% of them said no. It's kind of alarming that 25% said yes.
LK
broken promises (Score:5, Insightful)
So did the President.
Re:broken promises (Score:5, Insightful)
So did the President.
Yes, but the President is only one man. It is much easier for one man to become corrupt than a few hundred thousand. Not impossible of course, but much less likely. Especially considering the freedom of the society we have now, and have had in the past. For those freedoms to degenerate and eventually be lost leaving a tyrannical government where there was once a democratic republic, and for a few hundred thousand military personnel to support the tryanny, would probably require a recruitment program that actively searched for corruptible, or stupid, people interested only in power and wealth. Good luck keeping that one a secret.
As frightening as the ideas in Orwell's "1984" are, I don't think the scenario is realistic. There are too many people who are too aware of and attached to their freedoms to let things slide quite that far. I'd bet even the most gun-shy Democrat would be willing to pick up a gun if it came to that, regardless of whether they thought it should be legal in times of peace and stability. Under a tyranny, all bets are off. A tyranny doesn't the citizenry, even if they are trustworthy, so why bother trying to follow their laws?
I'm not too worried about the U.S. government decaying into tyranny. I am worried, however, that the U.S. could lose our global position and end up back where we were in the late 1800's... That is, hardly a force to be reckoned with, either militarily or economically.
Re:broken promises (Score:5, Interesting)
Which would propably be a good thing for everyone, even the US. It would make the US stop being a target for terrorism, letting you put your economy and society onto healthier ground than the current debt-taking production-outsourcing trend with constant warmongering thrown in for bad measure. But there's likely to be a lot of grief when the house of cards crashes.
A situation where a single power completely dominates the whole world is simply unmaintainable. The question is not if the US empire will come down, but how bad the collapse will be. You better hope that you get a smart president next, someone who dismantles it peacefully, before it will collapse violently. A peacefull dismantling, if combined with a sharp reduction in military budget and a large upscaling of social services, still lets you keep a good standard of living, while a violent collapse resulting from the foreign money lenders refusing to give you anymore, or all the places you've outsourced production to from nationalizing the production plants to reap the rewards themselves, or the countries currently engaged in "free trade" with you simply realizing that it is in their best interest to quit those deals and protect their domestic production with tariffs, resulting in sharp decrease in your ability to export your products, will result in complete economic chaos in the US, whose economy is heavily in debt to begin with.
Basically, you are not going to stay a superpower for long anymore, you just don't have the resources to continue dominating the world. Better abdicate peacefully and keep some of your power and riches than being thrown out by force and facing the guillotine.
Not trying to troll or bash the US, just pointing out what I think is the truth. Every empire in the history has fallen eventually, US is no different. I simply think that the fall will happen pretty soon, since the US economy is based on taking debt and is already heavily indebted, and its military hasn't managed to pacify Iraq and doesn't seem able to, in the near future, putting that much more strain to the economy. Add heavy corruption in both government and major corporations, and you have a pretty nasty mess brewing.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at Iraq. It seems that, if they really want it, the handful of civilians have a reasonable chance.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible to defeat an army with only a handful of people. It's extremely messy but possible.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
if the US were invaded, the civilians fighting against the occupiers would be terrorists. they would organise and form networks, if that's your distinguishing point.
causing pain is always wrong.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually most of the people causing trouble are ex-military, disenfranchised civilians and those who have lost out on the regime change to the point where it is better to fight. TBH actual terrorists like AQ would make a small percentage of that.
>The civilians are the ones getting stuffed by a war they didn't want
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html [harpers.org]
Its a good read. Would like to see an update on it though.
A better phrase (Score:4, Interesting)
Why you let the citizens arm (Score:5, Insightful)
First, bad guys will arm themselves like it not. Making arms illegal hampers their ability to arm, but they will always find their ways. Honest citizens who do not break the law on the other hand, and so when firearms are made illegal it leaves the criminals armed and the honest citizens unarmed. This is hardly an ideal state of affairs.
Second, allowing your citizenry to arm prevents the police from holding a monopoly on force. A citizen should not have to wait for the police to show up to save them if a criminal is breaking into their house or threatening to harm them. A citizen should have the means to defend themselves, and the truth is that a firearm is pretty much it when it comes to self defense. Only a gun is going to allow a 100 pound woman be able to fight off a 200 pound man. Certainly not all citizens will choose to arm themselves, and this is of course fine, but if someone feels that their life is in danger and they do not trust the police protect them, they should have the option of defending themselves. Banning firearms is in affect telling your citizens that they can not defend themselves against criminals in any other manner then waiting for the police to show up.
As far as revolution and the like, an armed citizenry is a populace that can inspire a little fear in politicians. In this day and age that means almost nothing because, as much as we like to bitch, our government is pretty evenhanded and fair. Most people have the things that they need to survive (and then some) and the thought of 'revolution' in the violent sense of the word is about as far from anyone's mind as you can imagine. We still have plenty of political options sitting around that we have yet to use to change things if we really want to. When the constitution was being framed this really was not true. The threat of an outside force conquering the country or even an internal force mucking things up was real. It certainly could be a real threat again in the not-so-foreseeable future.
I consider the need for revolution remote and really don't weight it much in the gun issue. The simple right to self defense is a far more important issue to me then the need for the tools of an unlikely revolution. But, as the grand parent poster pointed out in his own lovable red neck NRA fan way, it isn't a bad thing to keep a few guns around... just in case.
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are saying is very fine in theory, but there are a few issues:
Just look at that neighbour you hate. Do you really want him to carry a gun? The only thing more dangerous than an idiot is an idiot with a gun.
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:5, Informative)
No, parent was right. Domestic disputes - a term for 'fights within the home between relations', including spouses, signifigant others, parents/children, etc. - cause more gun violence than armed robbery does in the US.
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe why you do... (Score:3, Interesting)
So while your interpretation is the one unsurprisingly advocated by members of the government, I think it's completely unrelated to the intents of the framers.
Shooting burglars should be criminal vigilan
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:5, Insightful)
All other ancillary benefits, such as an ability to hunt or protect one's self from crime is incidental to the real reason, to overthrow tyrants. If you research quotes from our forefathers and various influential persons from our country's history, you'll see that their attitudes bear this out.
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Really, what good would a GUN do? (Score:4, Funny)
Are you sure? Just a minute, I gotta check this...
Re:Really, what good would a GUN do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the students at Kent State....
B.
Re:Really, what good would a GUN do? (Score:3, Insightful)
40 years ago some idiots did some stupid stuff. BFD.
Re:Really, what good would a GUN do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like with your 2nd amendment rights...you may now exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech after the requisite 3-day waiting period from the day you file your application to speak freely.
Don't forget to bring a valid national identification card. Your application for free speech will not be processed without valid ID.
We just want to make sure you have a reasonable cooling off period and won't say anything dangerous to society. We'd also like to make sure that you've had no prior convictions related to saying anything dangerous before granting you permission to speak freely.
We have preserved your rights. Now move along before I arrest you.
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
They've [feddies] already tried to subvert public protests in the 50s through 70s remember?
Recent governments have already enabled things like the Patriot Act and the DMCA which are blatantly illegal. Make your time.
Tom
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
The innocent have nothing to fear... (Score:5, Insightful)
So either the "innocent people have nothing to fear" argument is flawed for the surveillance program, or the US president is far from innocent...
"WE MUST DESTROY AMERICA!" (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet America, Domestic Spying Programs expose YOU!
Then it's even worse. (Score:4, Insightful)
I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Ring a bell? It bloody well should, unless you're a big fan of Franco, Mussolini, and Stalin.
If any of our countrymen's freedoms are being taken away, whether we agree or disagree with them and their views, we are all poorer and less free for it. Silencing dissent weakens the commonwealth by encouraging ignorance and mindless assent. It is time to take a stand, and not budge one micron until the traitors who propose this have been excised from the fabric of the legislature.
Re:Then it's even worse. (Score:3, Insightful)
There must have been a large turnout of fans for those people in this article [slashdot.org] because many people actually supported the restriction of speech outlined in the article.
I wonder if those same people will turn up in this thread to defend this bill.
Re:And if it is amended to include only leakers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In about a year from now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few differences in capabilities. The US has high-tech weapons, whereas the middle-east has oil.
More importantly... (Score:5, Insightful)
And in the Middle East they have plenty of people who are willing - and indeed eager - to die for what they believe in. In the US they have people who are willing - and indeed eager - to give up everything they believe in to avoid the risk of dying.
Re:Anybody up for thoughtcrime today? Thought so (Score:3, Insightful)