Senate Committee Votes to Authorize Warrentless Wiretapping 927
LividBlivet writes, "The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that not only authorizes, but extends, US warrentless wiretapping. No accountability. No oversight. No definition of 'terrorist.' No record of who voted for what. Great way to devolve a democratic republic into a fascist theocracy. Me worried? Yea." Here is the text of SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (PDF). Confusingly, the committee also voted out two other bills, one of which "all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal," according to Wired.
Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your first chance, should you disagree with these strategies (rights erosion, elimination of civil liberties, etc...etc...etc...) is to exercise your Constitutionally given rights (for now) and vote this November for a change. Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad. Make these people responsible for what they say and do by linking their jobs to their implemented law and take back your country.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
Please define "no oversight" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
Exit polls were the gold standard of election forcasting...until 2000. Funny...that's when all the trouble started, isn't it?
No worries here. (Score:5, Insightful)
A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know, I'm guessing here, but it sounds like an attempt to label the "other side" fascist, in order to evoke towards them the anti-fascist feelings that survived after the WWII, and also to avoid to be labeled themselves as fascists.
Anyway, it is a lame expression (meme) and I doubt there is an equivalent for it currently in use in any other country/language.
Re:Bedtime for Democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Ave Caesar!
KFG
Filibuster (Score:5, Insightful)
Senator contact list [senate.gov]
It looks like filibusteris the only realistic option [crooksandliars.com] on this one.
Oh, and vote however you prefer to end this destruction of personal and public liberties in November. I'd HIGHLY suggest Democratic in most cases this election.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
When is the last time you were directly threatened by a "islamofacist"?
Yup, me neither.
Gues we know the answer to that question, then.
"No definition of 'terrorist.'" (Score:3, Insightful)
While I realize the author's complaint regarding the law, it should be noted that the definition of terrorist has changed at least a dozen times since the term was coined in the 1790's - scholars who study terrorism for a living still don't have a working definition of what it means to be a terrorist that is widely accepted, and most books I've seen on the matter take about a chapter to come up with a loose working definition but ultimately apply a "you know it when you see it" approach.
Defining a term whose meaning moves a great deal - and has strayed so far from its original meaning - is no easy task, and present USG definitions from State and DoD aren't too satisfying either.
Re:My Favorite Part of the PDF (Score:3, Insightful)
They let Bush have his way for so long, I don't even think they realize how pathetic they've become.
In the good old days (Score:5, Insightful)
GWB is trying to take the country in the direction of Caesar-like rule, in that a leader under the pretense of fighting defending the empire/country could act with total impunity and a complete lack of accountability. He's actively fighting the constitution itself, even though he twice swore to defend it. Separation of powers in a standing government isn't just a hallmark of democracy - its a sign of being a civilized society.
Also, its one thing to temporarily alter the separation and balance of powers laid out in the US constitution during a time of war - but in this case war has not been declared, and it also a 'war' with absolutely no end in site. As long as there is one terrorist group "plotting and planning", the undeclared war will continue. This is clearly a grab for permanent power, and he's using the pain of 9/11 to do it.
How Congress works (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy question to answer. More money and more power.
The problem with American-style "democracy" is that it is all too easy to control the tyranny of the majority. It is easy to move from tyranny of the majority to simply tyranny. The major problem is not the people in power - they simply exploited the flaws in the system to their advantage. The major problem is that the system can be gamed by profiling voters, media control (did you see that extended ad by the president that he did from the Oval Office a few days ago?) and so forth.
The sad fact is that despite this administration's incompetence on everything from Iraq to Katrina, it is still going to be a tight race. If the Democrats happen to take back a piece of Congress, they might become a minor thorn - but these guys will never see the jail terms they so richly deserve. Further, they have set the precedent where this will happen again a few presidents from now - and it will likely be even worse.
So, let's not pretend that voting this November is anything major shall we? Yes, people should vote and we should do what we can to deal with the immediate problem - but it does not solve the bigger issue.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My Favorite Part of the PDF (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the whole "party" crap that's the problem. These people supposedly have important jobs to do but instead of trying to do them to the best of their ability their busy playing the most moronic games you can imagine based around whether the president, or a potential judge or whoever, is a member of their gang or the other gang. It's stupid, it's pathetic and it's dangerous.
To War, Or Not To War (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I see. So I guess Congress no longer needs to declare war, what with all the bureacratic trivialities of debate and voting; as long as our "enemy" says we're at war, we are. Ah, that should be a real time-saver. I sure hope that's a troll, but I fear you were serious (albeit terribly misguided).
Yes, Congress grants special power to the President in a time of declared war, but only when Congress agrees indeed there is a war. The "war" on terror, the "war" on drugs, and the "war" on child pornography are all marketing campaigns at best, not actual legally-declared wars.
Re:but you shouldn't worry! (Score:3, Insightful)
And I haven't travelled to the Paranoid States of America since 2001. Nor do I have any plans to travel there in the forseeable future.
Just keep off my damn lawn.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
War on Terror is hardly a war in the definition of the word. War on Drugs is the same way.
Who and what are we at war with right now?
Afghanistan? Didn't we win and pull most of our troops to Iraq?
Iraq? I thought Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"
Terror? Terror comes in all forms, including saying things like "if we pull out of Iraq, we will be attacked again."
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Insightful)
This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.
and I'm left thinking..... which side of this "war on terror" does this sound like?
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:5, Insightful)
The saddest part is that, at least down here, people took 30 years even to realize what was happenning, and even if the military regimes came down, people in politics are still the same, only changed the party names.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the modern world has problems that were not anticipated when the constitution was written. However, the behavior of the current administration IS the type of thing the constitution was designed to protect us from, and those protections are getting thrown out. OK, as far as I know, bush is not an evil dictator and probably has good intentions. But how do we know the next guy won't be? Or the one after that? What about behind the scenes abuse of a system challenged only in "secret" courts? WTF? New laws enacted without record of who voted for them? WTF? Now that I think of it, your post must just be an attempt to stir the pot. I guess that makes me a sucker for responding.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely you aren't so blind as to think this is a republicrat vs. demopublican issue. They both approved the war, they both approved the patriot act. There's no real dissent, except for a handful of folks -- like Ron Paul (Libertarian in Republican clothing)
As long as YOU keep voting for either one of the two halves of the dominant party, we're all screwed.
The "football team" voters that root for "their" team regardless of what they stand for, and rationalize everything their team does, are the real cause of all our problems.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. It is your right.
If you are not willing to do what is *right*, then you have already lost any moral high ground. There are times that one needs to stand up for what is good and reject efforts to take from others what we have written into our governing documents. Conflicts can be resolved and yes, sometimes fought much more effectively with creativity, thought and carefully planned action. However, with a culture of doing what we are told and not questioning or thinking, we appear to be willing to cede power to those who appease us with thoughts of fear and shiny things.
I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.
This is a fundamental problem. What happens when you get caught up in this because one of your co-workers does something unacceptable to whomever might be in power. The thing to realize is that this government as it currently stands, may represent you and your beliefs, but individuals change and governments slowly morph and the constituency changes (and the US is changing). So, if you are willing to give your government so much power, what happens in 50 years when they do not represent you or your beliefs? Think down the road just a little more...
No, I don't believe the sky is falling, EITHER.
While the sky is not falling, the US is only a couple hundred years old. There have been stable governments in history that have persisted for much longer than we have been around because of principals of government. When their principals changed or altered beyond a critical tipping point, those governments failed.
Re:No worries here. (Score:5, Insightful)
No special tactics are required here. By and large, this isn't framed as an issue of civil liberties, this is framed as an issue of national security. The majority of democrats in the House and Senate are too frightened to be called "weak on national security" to come close to opposing this. The republicans have been extremely successful in narrowing election topics to exactly what they want. The only issue that matters in November? War on terror and national security. Other important issues such as health care, the deficit, education, etc. are barely mentioned if mentioned at all. Iraq is often discussed, but the republicans have been very adept at morphing the war in Iraq into some sort of larger world war against terrorism (and thus any criticism of the war in Iraq is a tacit support for terrorism).
The democrats will lose once again in November, because they never learn their lesson. Instead of choosing their own political battles, they willingly march right into the trap set up by the republicans. The campaign slogan of, "Look at me! I'm just as tough as that guy when it comes to terrorism! I'm just like him but I have a "D" next to my name!" isn't going to work.
Re:Please define "no oversight" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Insightful)
As an American, I'm starting to feel like those were the good old days--when US officials were sufficiently embarrassed by torture that they tried not to get the blood directly on their hands.
And I thank God that Bush is not as smart as, say, Pinochet [wikipedia.org] or Stroessner [wikipedia.org]....
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
This happened not because we rattled our sabers and conquered the oppressors. It happened because we made a shining example of what democracy can be, and because we convinced the world of our sincerity for a united world in peace. We earned the world's respect, and that made all the difference.
Bush Junior has destroyed all that. Now the world arms itself to defend against us. We are no longer trusted. We no longer exemplify freedom, democracy, and human rights. Hopefully the EU can continue the cause while we figure out how to fix our broken democracy.
There is exactly one person in Washington who represents your district in the House of Representatives. If he's a Democrat, his vote does not count. If he's a Republican, his vote will be whatever Bush wants, so again, his vote does not count. Is this a working democracy?
Re:To War, Or Not To War (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can I have my country back? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, the two geysers in the back said no.
The young hipster who listens to NPR said "Leave me alone you facist, I'm trying to protest a highway here".
The under educated rural American could not be reached for reply. Allthough one of her 7 kids did throw a rock at my car.
The middle class family I spoke with said, and I quote, "what are you talking about, this is America you left wing commie pinko terrorist supporting liberal". Well, at least the Father did, between commercials of Fox and Friends. The mother had no idea who her senator was, and the kids were trying to talk to me about government responsibility and all kinds of neat stuff, but who cares what they think, they were only 11 and 13. Not old enough to have purchasing power, or vote, so they don't exist.
Well that's about your voting population. All 15% of em.
Yea, so your answer is... no.
Democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
From the article: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill." It sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that "freedom-loving Americans" are spreading their open and accountable flavour of democracy arould the world - not!
According to the US Constition's 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now is the time to start helping the ACLU [aclu.org] and EFF [eff.org] to bring this unconstitutional fascism before a federal court ASAP!
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've lived, studied and worked in London for 13 years now. I was on my way in to work when the bombs went off last year; I walked past police officers leading some rather shocked looking people away from (I assume) a bus. I was here when the IRA were still actively targetting the main land, I was here when some nutter was detonating nail bombs (one in a pub just round the corner from where I worked), I was here when a bus blew up outside the BBC building, etc.
I guess I must be stupid though, as I certainly don't take the threat personally. Nor do I support some of the more egregious measures that are being taken in the name of the so-called war on terror. I refuse to allow myself to be cowed by the vague threat of being involved in an attack. I have far, far more chance of being killed crossing the road than I do of being blown up.
Sure, the threat is real, and should be taken seriously. However, it seems to me that a lot of the things that are being done are knee-jerk overreactions that we'll be lucky not to regret in the future. I worry about the sort of world my daughter is going to end up living in, as much for the direction my country seems to be heading in as for the threat of terrorism.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I just never understood why, when the exit polls said one thing, and the actual counted results show something else, it MUST be the counted results that were wrong, and not the exit polls that had incomplete data in the first place.
That said, I'm convinced there were shennanigans from both sides in 2000 and 2004 -- but taking exit polls as fact is fundamentally flawed.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Your position seems based on ideals rather than rationality.
Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available, choose to throw their votes away and allow the conservative side to gain a numeric advantage are the real cause of all our (political) problems.
Note: Neo-Con takeover of the republican party. Salient point: existing parties can be almost completely reformed to new goals and ideals. Conclusion: possible to work within the system to achieve a goal.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
You are a coward. You can't deal with the fact that freedom means that danger is sometimes unavoidable.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
I always wonder when one of Bush's apologists trots out this arguement, just how far are you willing to take it?
Your statement, "The President is tasked in times of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit," is a tremendously broad interpretation of the actual wording of the Constitution [usconstitution.net]. Before we get into those facts however, taking you at your word, since obviously to Mr. Bush he is the only person with the ability and vision to press this "war" to a conclusion, would you support his suspending free elections until the conflict is over? After all, one of those cowardly, treasonous Democrats might win a popular election, and obviously that would bad for the country. Why letting that happen, when Bush could stop it, might even be treasonous in itself by your, and his, arguement. Are you willing to take it that far?
Now to burst your tiny little neocon bubble (inflated with the blustering breath of Limbaugh and Hannity), the Constitution, Article II only grants and requires the Exective to perform the following actions related to this discussion. Section 1 - "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'" Also, Section 2 - "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" Now, where in those words do you see the authorization for the President to "do as he/she sees fit"? BTW, since you are obviously so sincere in your respect for the Constitution, Article II - Section 8 makes it very clear that only Congress can declare war, to enable the Executive to exercise any extraordinary powers possibly granted in any other portion of the laws of this country. Congress has not done so, despite the rhetoric of the far right, and therefor your entire arguement about this being legal for the President is absurd.
It's called checks and balances. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Take the threat seriously by all means, but keep it in proportion. I heard the other day that you are more likely to kill yourself than be killed by a terrorist.
Let's not forget other things more dangerous than terrorism, I'll just list a few.
- Heart disease
- Cancer
- Drunk drivers
- Not drunk drivers
- homicide
- AIDs
- Firearms
- ladders
- Drowning
- ...
Fear can lead to the destruction our country. Something terrorist could never accomplish.Re:A question (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask yourself, if the framers had had telephones, would they have included them in the forth amendment or not? My thinking is that they absolutely would have, as the British would have been tapping them like crazy to get those 'Colonial Terrorists'.
Re:U.S. belongs to americans no more ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the parent poster's point is that until 2000, exit polling did jive with the actual result of the election. After 2000, it did not. Regardless of how flawed exit polls are, the dichotomy indicates a problem unless public behavior radically changed (and I don't think it has).
Re:Vote! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fun" Fact: Public offices have minimum age requirements. For example, you can't be President unless you're at least 35 years old. Therefore, at least in terms of national politics, the scenario you describe can never happen.
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Like war? No problem. Jesus came to bring war. (Matthew 10:34)
Hate war? No problem. Jesus warns you not to live by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
Whatever you want to support or condemn, from candy to stem cell research, there's a Bible passage for you. Pull it out, generously sprinkle on some interpretation, and BAM!--a religious belief of your very own.
-Eric
No one's trying to block wiretapping (Score:4, Insightful)
You really aren't paying attention to what the issue is, are you?
You've fallen hook line and sinker for the Neocon talking points.
This isn't about the government's ability to get a wire tap and listen to those conversations. No one is trying to block that.
This is about the fact that the constitution requires the government to get a damn warrant.
During the Clinton administration, laws were passed allowing them to get those warrants after the fact, up to 72 hours after placing them!
Tell me, how is requiring the government to be accountable for it's actions going to give the terrorists a leg up?
How the HELL is requiring the government to follow the constitution, to actually leave a damn paper trail of who they're spying on, going to help terrorist?
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your premises are wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only while people like you continue sitting on your arse doing nothing but insisting that the status quo is the best that can be expected. Politics is a participation sport.
You're making the assumption that it matters which of the two main parties you vote for, the policies remain the same. The biggest difference seems to be the way they want to pay for things, either taxation or inflation.
I fixed that for you (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't give me any malarky about voting for the "lesser of two evils". If you do that, you are VOTING FOR EVIL, and you deserve this broken government.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're more at risk of dying of the flu. Get a sense of perspective.
What, do you think warrants are "quaint"? (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the whole "It has to be renewed every year" nonsense, all it takes is one rider in one bill to remove that Sunset clause. We saw that happen with The Patriot Act.
All the more reason ALL communication should be... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. The only thing that bugs me is I cannot get a good, wireless, portable encryption platform. My GSM cell phone might as well be an open book. Other than that, my SIP communication, and my GPG e-mail should be moderately difficult for the "powers that be" to crack.
If all communication was encrypted, even if that encryption is breakble, the computational needs of large scale data mining would be impossible. If you need an NSA super computer to crack every e-mail, and it takes 1 hour of processor time per e-mail, you can't very well analyze one billion e-mails a day.
I did read the PDF (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider the following Facts:
1) The FISA Court has the authority to hear and issue decicions in a completely secret manner, so that if the court chooses, neither the case or its decision will be made public. The FISA court has, on very rare (and mostly recent occasions) occasions chosen to state its decisions publicly, but this is quite unusual.
2) From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligenc
3) FISA already has provisions which allow for the President to temporarily bypass the 11 member court, in cases that he deems of sufficient need, as long as the case is brought before it soon after. The President (via U.S. AG Alberto Gonzales) has acknowledged this provision but essentially said that it is too much trouble to have to go back to the FISA court every time he wants to start a new round of spying programs or make changes to them.
Why then, is it neccessary to make any more changes to FISA?
I did read the SB2453: like most bills it is full of very specific verbage and definitions. From what I could digest of it it has a lot of room for a President to wiggle through (IANAL, but the ACLU which has plenty of them and found it "stunning"). I also read the wired article. SB2453 makes me nervous precisely for the reasons you cite, listed below:
"1) It's for people communicating the terrorists"
Duh. And Who has the legal authority to define what terrorist is? While congress could define such security terms narrowly they usually do not, deferring to President, the DOJ or the Department of State. The DOJ and DOS heads are nominated by, guess who? the President, and rubber stamped by Congress. Judging by how many people in the US are subjeced to this domestic spying program, the current President has shown he thinks a lot of US citizens could be terrorists. That bothers me, but even more is the idea that FISA courts can be ignored completely here.
"2) It's being overseen by a court."
See my above comments.
"3) it's ALSO being overseen by Congress."
As I stated in the beginning, FISA is already under the jurisdiction of Congress but as a whole it has demontrated remarkably little oversight to the public with respect to the current domestic surveillance. Their "solution" to the President's illgal wiretapping of citizens has been to propose this bill, which purports to make it legal. So much for the concept that no one is above the law. I doubt the courts will allow it to stand. That is, if they even get the opportunity to review it; under the proposed bill normal citizens will no longer have the right to do challenge it, only the FISA court will, and it rarely lets us know what's going on.
I think our best hope is for SCOTUS to declare the current program unconstitutional, but because Judge Taylor was so left wing in her outspoken criticism of the program, I think the strength of her decision has been weakened by it; IMO there was plenty unconsitutional about the program without having to spout so much left leaning platitudes.
To sum it up: your argument is a Red Herring.
Republicans are always so good at talking about how Government is intrusive and bad, but are almost always the first in line to vote our civil liberties away, one bill at a time. Then enough meek Democrats follow along for fear of being labled "soft on terrorism." The whole thing disgusts me.
I know who I'll be voting for in November.
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Insightful)
We have one: Republican
Paranoid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In the good old days (Score:4, Insightful)
But I see some frightening parallels to the Reichstag Fire Decree [wikipedia.org].
Re:Reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Much more likely that they would be too cowardly and deceitfiul to admit to their hatred and contempt for freedom and their eager support of torture and murder as cowardice, blind ignorant hatred and a lust for murder are the defining characteristics of Republicans. Just look at the world today and realise that those sick animals voted for it twice.
No sanity or morality could be involved in that choice.
Oh, no, it's really their fear of harassment. What an idiotic statement.
Presumably, somewhere in the black core of their souls, Republican voters are ashamed of their purely evil, hate mongering, murderous, theiving attitudes and therefore are embarassed to admit that they despise American values, freedom and the like.
The simple fact is that they do support torture, murder, and the destruction of the great experiment. If they didn't wholeheartedly support those things over any sort of decency then we would not be in the situation that we are in.
It's no surprise that such a vile, amoral cowardly lot as them would be too afraid to admit even to themselves what deeply and wholely evil scum they have proven themselves to be at every opportunity.
It's basic simple common sense. No sane, informed person believes or has ever believed that Bush was a better choice than any of the alternatives. It's not possible to reach that conclusion as there is nothing to support it but a trail of lies and murder.
Re:Poor Understanding (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of "among these" do you not understand? And more to the point, what part of
(AKA the 9th Amendment) do you not understand?!!Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Their stated goal is often times to have a islamic government, like Saudi Arabia, or Iran. I would argue that these are definately fascist governments. Fascists typically are authoritarian (check), highly nationalistic (in an islamic state the nation is suposed to represents the religion - so check), and anti-communist (see the Taliban.)
I am tired of hearing this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, if the democrats actually defended civil liberties, then I would start considering the lesser of two evils. But they are just as bad as the republicans when it comes to throwing out our freedoms to appear tough on crime or terrorism. Furthermore the progressives have gotten as bad as the religious right when it comes to forcing everyone to live the way they want them to. The only civil rights issue that the democrats still defend are equal rights for gays, and other minorites. While I give them credit for this, it doesn't matter much if you are systematically eliminating everyone's rights.
As an aside, you cannot blame liberals voting for third parties for the result of the last presidential election or for democrats poor showing in congress. That is due to more people voting republican, not third party.
I vote for the candidate I think is best in almost every election. The only time I vote for the lesser of two evils is when all the following are true:
The last presidential election was the very few times that has happened in many years.
If the only "realistic option" is to vote for a major party, then we might as well admit that there is no solution to the problems that are facing the country today, because they are the ones who created them and they show no signs of changing track. I don't think that voting third party is a waste, but even if it is, I would rather waste my vote than be complicit in the destruction of our country.
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Both bloody parties are OWNED by the powers that be now.
It doesn't matter which side you vote for except on trivial side issues (like abortion).
For everything that matters, we have one party, owned by big business and the wealthy.
The republicans choose from 5 to 7 candidates *chosen* for them.
The democrats choose from 5 to 7 candidates *chosen* for them.
Then we all get to vote between the two "candidates" to pick a "winner".
Re:Your premises are wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who thinks the US two-party "democracy" is superior to multiparty systems in Canada, Europe, or Australia is clearly in need of education.
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
Please tell me how these US actions make them the "good guys"?
Re:To War, Or Not To War (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in your dream world where we are at war with every nutso who waves a rifle and claims so, Iraq was not part of Radical Islam (and in fact was our last real buffer against it in the region) and therefore the attack on Iraq was not justified by that. Since the terrorists did not flood into Iraq until we created the power void by removing its dictator with no plan whatsoever for future control of the country, you cannot claim that the terrorists there now are what authorized the attack initially.
So the President directed the army to attack a nation that we were not at war with, that he was not authorized to attack. That sounds like an impeachable offense to me.
Re:cause of terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
What should we do now? Just a minute...
We should never have invaded Iraq, removing the keystone preventing the country from sliding into a civil war based on long established rivalries between Islamic factions. We SHOULD have continued to focus on Afghanistan, and evaluating our mid-east policies.
What should we do NOW? We should impeach GWB, vote out nearly all the incumbents, and force our government to once again operate for and by the people. And then, and only then, can we make any informed decisions about the problems we are facing today. Because as it currently stands, most of our information about our supposed enemies is coming from known liars who act solely in their own interest.
Yeah, I admit it, it's a fucking pipe dream. Pretty much, we're fucked.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election. I generally favor the ideas of non Dem/GOP candidates as they are more realistic. However, the 3rd party groups need to win some local elections before they can lay any claim to being a superior choice.
Lets talk when there are more than 30 Libertarians in the House....show the country you actually have convinced some people to vote for you and they will listen. Until then deal with the choices you have, not defacto electing the worse of the evils by claiming to vote 'better'.
Re:Vote! (Score:5, Insightful)
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I though you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Sigh. Not again (Score:3, Insightful)
1) If you are forming your opinions of the US based off of what you read on Slashdot, please stop. Slashdot is a decent source of Linux tech news but, in case you haven't noticed, rather alarmist and given to poor reporting. If you want a real picture of what's going on you need to get your news from multiple sources and try to avoid sites that have open bias (which
2) Please take some time to learn about the legal system in the US. Your statement of "but the way he's amending the Constitution" shows that you don't have a very good understanding. Bush hasn't amended the constitution. The last time it was amended was 1992, the 27th amendment which states "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened." I think you are confusing the questions over the constitutionality of some of the laws that have been passed with actual constitutional changes. Also, the president doesn't amend the constitution, congress and then the states do.
3) Critically examine your own country and others you consider free to see what kind of big brother stuff goes on there. There's actually more of it than you probably think, some of it may even seem quite normal and sensible to you. None of that means you are anywhere near a dictatorship, but it's easy to lose sight of the fact that all countries grapple with freedom vs security issues. As a common example many European nations ban individual ownership of guns. Now you probably find this quite sensible, as guns can be used for criminal acts. However ask yourself: Doesn't it say something when a government trusts only it's agents with weapons, and it's citizens? The police and such are just people too, what makes them so special, other than being an arm of the government, that it's ok for them to have arms and not the public? I'm not looking for an answer here, I'm not advocating gun laws one way or another, just pointing out something that is often considered very normal and acceptable in terms of restricting liberty to increase security. They take away your right to have guns in order that less people might die from them. Perfectly reasonable, but slightly big brotherish none the less.
So look, I'm not going to say there aren't some disturbing trends going on in the US right now and I sincerely hope the 2006 and 2008 elections bring a real shakeup, but you need to get some perspective. If you read places like Slashdot that are all doom and gloom, sure it may seem like things are horrible. However that's because that's what they like to report. They report the bad news, they do a poor job of reporting, and they tend to be alarmist and exemplify it.
All I'd ask is that if you want to have any significant kinds of opinions on the US, that you take the time to research it and make sure they are informed opinions. "The sky is falling," type stuff isn't very useful. I personally have no opinion on the conditions in Holland. Why? Well I haven't researched them. I know a tiny bit from here and there, but not enough to form any kind of educated stance, so I haven't.
Re:Umm, they were (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that we are not at war, so the president has no wartime powers.
Re:To War, Or Not To War (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm fixating on the lawyer's view on purpose. You know why? It's because the laws which give the President extra power during "Wartime" are based on the legal definition, and should only go into effect when the legal condition is satisfied!
I am the grandparent! If you re-read that post more carefully you'll see that I only quoted the "War" part of the Vietnam "War" etc. entirely on purpose, in order to illustrate that they were not, in fact, legally defined as wars!
This serves to prove my point: Roosevelt understood the distinction between the legal and practical definitions, and therefore realized it was necessary to (legally) declare war despite the fact that a state of war already (practically) existed.
In contrast, all the Presidents since (and most notably Bush Jr.) apparently do not understand this distinction, which is why Bush thinks he has powers that he doesn't actually have!
Re:no instant runoff (Score:2, Insightful)
All the voters have to do is rank the candidates - 1,2,3,etc. That's all - anyone too stupid to tell you who they like best, 2nd best, etc. shouldn't be voting. An individual cannot create cycles with ranks, though you can have "tie" preferences.
All the matrix stuff is done by a computer. It can be verified by hand if needed (and I agree that this is an important consideration!), but it is a time-intensive process. (Instead of varying with V, it goes by V*C*C.) If you mention "matrix" when introducing Condorcet to the electorate, you've lost. But you really don't need to. It is much simpler, and still conceptually correct, to say that you use the rankings to simulate a series of head-to-head matchups, and the correct winner must win them all - after all, a real winner ought to be able to beat everyone else, right?
If IRV isn't a good system mathematically, then it is not a good system practically! It is arguably not better than plurality, because at least with plurality, you know who the "lesser of two evils" is for tactical voting - with IRV you don't, because it becomes almost impossible to correctly guess how the runoffs getting to the final round will go.
Re:Vote! (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a friend that says the same thing to me all the time. Like I'm somehow the reason Kerry didn't win. Funny, at the time of the election my parents told me the same thing, only with the names reversed.
I didn't like either of them. That's why I voted third-party. Otherwise, I wouldn't have voted at all.
Between a Fascist and a Communist I picked neither, and apparently that makes me the bad guy? I may never get my ideal candidate into office, but at least I voted my conscience. Maybe if other people did the same thing there'd be some change in the government.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong!
"Libertarian or any other 3rd party is a complete WASTE in a presidential election."
Wrong again!
The Republicans and Democrats have owned the House, Senate and White House for decades. Each party has also had the opportunity to control all 3 simultaneously. What have they brought us?
Vietnam War
$8 Trillion national debt
2 Iraq wars
GATT
NAFTA
The War on Drugs
20M illegal immigrants
The Patriot Act
ALL with strong bi-partisan support, active or passive.
The only wasted vote is one that is cast for Republicans or Democrats! They create the illusion of choice by squabbling over nonsense issues, but work together to screw us over on the real ones. Once you realize that they are just one big party pursuing a legislative agenda that is detrimental to the vast majority of U.S. citizens the only logical thing to do is vote for an alternative.
What, do you think revolutions are "quaint"? (Score:3, Insightful)
The American Revolution was not the first revolution in history, nor was it the last. The people of various nations have revolted against tyranical government many times. I expect there will eventually be another revolution in the United States. The "Republican" party that presently holds power in the USA seems to want that to happen sooner rather than later.
We should also have learned another lesson from history. A tyranical government cannot successfully control the entire population. If an person becomes mad enough, he or she may do some act of violence against the government. If a sufficient number of people do so, the government cannot stand. That's what revolutions are made of -- just a number of people who decide that they can no longer tolerate the tyrannical government.
The beauty of democratic elections is that a goverment can be thrown out of power without bloodshed. As long as the elections are honest and fair, and each government yeilds power to the next elected government, then a bloody revolution is not necessary.
But, if the election is not honest and fair, then a bloody revolution becomes necessary.
This, more than anything else, is what worries me about our paperless "voting" systems. I believe that our recent elections have not been honest or fair. There is no prospect that the people in power will voluntarily make the elections honest and fair, because they would lose power by doing so. If a large number of people realize that their votes are not really being counted, they may actually start the next revolution.
The only way to avoid bloody revolution is to make the election process completely transparant, so everyone can watch the counting, and everyone can see that the process really is honest and fair.
Re:Look how Mohammad governed ... Islamofascist fi (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever studied the life of Mohammad? Have you ever studied the butchery, slavery, rape that he did and condoned? Perhaps "unthinking drone" applies more to those who are ignorant of history.
In case it matters, I voted against W both times. I've never bought into "the enemy of my enemy" concept. The Islamofacists may be redundant, but it is appropriate nomenclature.
Re:To War, Or Not To War (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I break some law, I shouldn't be punished as long as I stop breaking the law? Or does this logic only apply to Republicans? Over and over I've seen this, whether it's Republicans scrambling to save DeLay by repealing their ethics rules, or the Republicans scrambling to save DeLay's district by challenging their election laws, or the Republicans scrambling to legalize Bush's wiretap program (which cannot be viewed as anything other than an admission that he had broken the law).
Breaking the law can be honorable, or even the right thing to do, but even King and Ghandi accepted and invited the punishement for the laws they broke. True followers of the idea of civil disobedience would accept no less, the remainder are just spoiled rich college kids who think they can do what they want without punishment. The problem is that now the spoiled kids are running the nation.
I understand the "we broke it, we bought it" situation in Iraq, but once the bull has been let loose in the china shop, the correct answer is to get it out or put it down, not to make it the cashier. Bush should be impeached, and whoever replaces him (well, Cheney, obviously, unless he gets impeached too. I hear theres a whole line of people waiting to get that spot, the majority of them Republican, even) should not just turn tail and run.
Re:Vote! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. If there were a viable 3rd party candidate out there that was moderate, I think they'd seriously threaten both sides, and force the Dems to come back from SOOO far to the left, and the Reps. from SOOOOOOOOO far to the right.
I think if a moderate could get the money and TV time and on the ballots, they could clean the clocks of the 2 majors...or at the very least, scare the shit outta them enough to get them back from the fringes....
Re:A little bit OT, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Fascists use the power of government to enrich themselves and their business interests. They usually mouth their love for "free markets" at the same time they pull strings to have their party and government intervene in the "free market" to make them winners and their not so well connected competitors losers. If you want to get ahead in such a system you strive to advance your standing in the party, and the party rewards you with lucrative business, and by punishing your competitors who are not in favor with the party.
Fascism is a decidedly anti labor political system, and very anti trade union, which is why it was often viewed as a bulwark against the spread of Communism and worker centric Socialism.
Everyone is reluctant to use the term since World War II but the U.S., U.K. and especially China are decidedly Fascist leaning governments these days. China abandoned any pretense of Socialism or Communism when all the leading party members deduced they could get rich using their control of the government and economy if they just it coupled with a huge infusion of western capital so they did a 180 and blessed private ownership of capital, stock markets and profiteering. They almost overnight became a Fascist regime when they did.
The origin of Islamofascism as a word in our lexicon is nothing more than a PR gimmick. After using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" in every other sentence for five years the electorate has grown weary of them and they no longer register. No one knows what winning the "War on Terror" means. So the Bush administration is attempting to link the current "war on terrorism" with the glory days of World War II by linking today's enemy with yesteryears boogie man, in an effort to better paint the war as one of good versus evil. In fact it is really just a marketing campaign much like you would use to sell soap. The Baathist governments in Syria and Saddam's Iraq were quite Fascist in character. Al Qaeda has no resemblance to the term. The quagmires the Bush administration is in in Iraq and Afghanistan are no win situations but at least until they midterm election is over they want to pretend like they are noble causes like World War II was. Resorting to the use of the word Fascist in this particular struggle shows how rhetorically bankrupt they are.
Another possibility is its becoming increasingly common for an increasingly large number of people to brand the Bush administration and the Republican parties as Fascists and it is a term that does have a degree of fit. By repeatedly referring to their "enemy" as fascists it creates the illusion the Bush administration must not be. If they are fighting "Islamofascists" how could they be Fascists too. Well its easy they still are, and maybe we need to coin a term that matches and does fit, JudeoChristianFascists".
If you haven't seen it the Wachowski brothers film "V for Vendetta" which is out on pay per view now is a stinging jab at the rise of Fascism in Britain and the U.S. and the mechanisms that are being used to foist it on the ignorant masses.
Re:Sigh. Not again (Score:1, Insightful)
-The reason it is so disappointing that the US is going in the direction it is is just because, like the GP said, the US were seen as a leading country when it comes to democracy and freedom. I have lived for four years in the US, and I came to admire and respect the wisdom of the founding fathers when they made the constitution. It is really sad when you see someone you admired fall so easily for the oldest trick in the book (we need to take away your freedom so you can be safe). And yes, there are many countries in Europe which are more free than the US (Holland is definately one of them).
-We (at least I) do not at all get my information from Slashdot. I watch national and international news (norwegian and BBC) and read International papers. I have even watched american news. Unfortunately, most newssources in the US is extremely biased and untrustworthy. CNN is what I mostly get here, and it is just too sad to even call it news. I think this is the most important problem the US faces - that the media is way too corporate, and there is not much understanding of journalistic integrity or the importance of media as the fourth estate. Democracy does not function without free and independent media.
Re:To War, Or Not To War (Score:1, Insightful)
The legitimacy of my stealing your car is immaterial to the legitimacy of my continued possession of your car.