Traveler Detained for Anti-TSA Message 1082
scifience writes "A traveler frustrated with recent changes to airport security procedures found himself detained in Milwaukee after writing a message critical of the TSA's leader on a plastic bag presented for screening. The message, which read "Kip Hawley is an Idiot," resulted in a confrontation with law enforcement, the traveler being told that his right to freedom of speech applied only "out there (pointing past the id checkers) not while in here [the checkpoint]." The story, which is detailed in a rapidly-growing thread on a discussion forum catering to frequent flyers, has attracted the interest of the ACLU, an AP reporter, and many others. The incident raises a number of interesting questions and concerns regarding just where our rights end."
It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Our rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you mean "... when our rights ended"?
They end right there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they end right there at the point where people happily exchange freedom for that so called "security".
-------
Born stupid? Try again.
Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
where our rights end (Score:5, Insightful)
Your rights ended on the morning of September 11th 2001 - apparantly the morning of a successful coup of the US government by Al-Queda.
Liberalism (Score:5, Insightful)
In Civilization IV's Civilopedia there is a Benjamin Franklin quotation on article about Liberalism.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
In this context the society is not the State but the airport. Do people feel more secure on security control when a person before them is pointed out because of critisim about the system or are they going to be looking around for the lion in the bushes.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, Duhh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Kip Hawley and the entire TSA are rice-bowlers, collecting paychecks from a spectacularly moronic WPA that spends money as fast as the real WPA ever did but doesn't produce a damned thing.
This guy knows it, and said it in a particularly insulting way. To the people collecting those paychecks, who also know it in their hearts, and are ashamed.
So, yeah, they got angry. The twaddle about 1st Amendment rights applying ~out there, not in here~ was just angry-stupid horking, not worth getting in a flap about.
Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
But what I'm wondering is why people think it's a good idea to go out of your way to be rude or insulting. If you shout "pig" at every cop you pass in the street, pretty soon you will find somone who takes it to heart and will give you a bad time. Maybe this is a violation of your freedom of speech. But why do it in the first place?
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They end right there... (Score:0, Insightful)
He just pissed one man off. That is all. I bet with the proper body language he would not have been detained at all.
Who are these people? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like Doctors - they are expected to be arrogant, aloof and possessing of a certain air of infallibility. But they're not infalable, we know that and they know that.
Same thing with security people, customs, immigration etc etc. We expect them to be rude and aggressive - but in point of fact they have absolutely no right to be.
When planes blow up etc - the individual security people aren't berated for this. The system maybe - but not the individuals. Also, their lives are not a risk - it is we who travel on the planes that are at risk - and if we can be light-hearted about it, why can't these idiots be? (Gotta love the guy with cocaine).
I think it goes back to the same old thing - give a small man a little power and he will abuse it.
I would like to say that a number of these people are actually very nice and endowed with a decent sense of humour. And you know what - they get the job done just as well.
Okay, so the TSA guys... (Score:4, Insightful)
Punishing those responsible isn't going to solve this problem in the general case.
Can anyone suggest a more proactive solution?
Nothing new (Score:3, Insightful)
The TSA is basically a hall monitor in the heirarchy of law enforcement. So they're even more sensitive to taunts, and more likely to elevate an insult to the level of national emergency.
Re:Well, Duhh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems like your rights end ... (Score:2, Insightful)
To be honest, the 'new' laws to support the war on terror are not really that new. The Government (Federal, State, and Local) have laws on the books that are so open to interpreration giving law enforcement extreamly (and scary) broad powers. The burden of proof has been on the accused for a very long time. It's just that the majority of the laws in place are not enforced. Most officers/Govt folks are normal people too.
Rights and wrongs (Score:3, Insightful)
That was regular cops and they seem to have come around since then. These TSA wonks are more like renta-cops - got shot at by one of them, back then as well, and the regular cops that came out said they would have been 'ok' with me shooting back.
Amazing what a little taste of authority will do for an otherwise flimsy backbone.
where our rights end? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the usa, what rights we had left pretty much ended on 9.11.01, when the government seized the opportunity to grab the rest of them after a tragic event.
Re:Nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
This was hardly that personal. Hawley is the director of the TSA, and these were grunts at an airport. This was akin to telling the average private in Iraq that "Donald Rumsfeld is an idiot".
This reminds me of an old saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidently philosophical acumen apprently isn't high on the list of qualifications for being a TSA screener.
That said, I fly a great deal, and TSA personnel seem to be fairly representative of the rest of the human race; some are automatically grouchy and unpleasant, some are tempermentally helpful and friendly, and the majority are like most people, they give you back what you bring them. When you're snide or difficult, the grouchy ones return with interest; when you are pleasant and courteous, the friendly ones return that with interest.
Speaking of philosophy, in Plato's ideal state there were three classes of people, rulers, who required the virtue of wisdom (sophia); soldiers, who required the virtue of courage (andreia); and the rest of the people who required the virtue of sophrosune, which is translated often as moderation, but is perhaps better thought of as temperance. The Greeks thought of this as a kind of self-control over pleasure seaking, but it applies to the negative emotions like anger and suspicion as well. In a modern democratic republic, people (even soliders -- possibly especially them) are called on to excerise the virtues of all three Platonic classes of people, although in different measure.
TSA is above all a civilian agency, although security is its function. And the civilian virtue of temperance is critical to the efficient execution of its duties. Consider the grouchy, aggressive and irritable inspector, on one hand, and the overly friendly one on the other. These are both bad, not because the travelling population is comprised mostly of decent people (it is) on one hand, nor because the travelling population contains dangerous bad people (it does). The reason these characteristics are bad in a screener is that they are both forms of distraction from the actual job.
TSA was cobbled together pretty much overnight, so its a mixed bag. But consider the benefits of moderation. If you're too suspicious, you jump to conclusions and you dwell on irrelevant details. If I were a terrorist, I'd want to be a couple of people behind the guy with the Kip Hawley bag, so I could pass through while everyone was dealing with the First Amendment brouhahah. Likewise, you want the inspectors to be pleasant, but not too friendly. Pleasant behavior is a social lubricant; it makes things run faster. That means more people inspected in a given number of time, or the same number scrutinized in more detail. But you don't want pleasantness to rise to outright friendliness. Chatting and making small talk would get in the way of business.
Of course, you need a wide selection of people if you want to consistently pick the ones from the middle of the deck. For better or worse, security is just one of those things we think anybody is able to do; we don't see it as a job with high professional or personal qualifications. By paying accordingly, we don't a work force which is consistently fitted to do the job with excellence. We end up with a workforce that is representative of the population, and have to accept the natural variations in performance that involves. Perhaps that's good enough. Freedom isn't going to fall apart because of some hot-headed TSA employee taking it upon himself to impose loyalty on the citizenry. Society isn't going to unravel if the occasional airplane is hijacked. We don't like to think of it this way, but we really treat these things as part of the cost of doing the business of society. If we didn't, we'd do what was necessary to have a more consistenly professional TSA.
Re:Who are these people? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's just you. All those people are generally very polite and friendly to me - maybe because it's because I'm polite and friendly back?
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
WWII *had* an end (Score:5, Insightful)
How will we know when the War On Terror is over? George W. Bush said, on 9/20/2001, that it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". How the hell are we going to determine that? Who can possibly predict how long that'll take?
Similar problems present themselves in Iraq. "Major combat operations" officially ended over three years ago, when that banner was unfurled on the aircraft carrier. But we're still there. We've been hearing phrases like "as the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" and "the next six months will be critical" for years now, with no end in sight.
We have no definition of victory. You can't compare this current erosion of rights, done in the name of perpetual war, with any erosion of rights that might've occurred during the well-defined WWII, because no one has any idea when we'll even know that it's time to expect our rights back.
Re:Liberalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Read The Fucking Amendment) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:where our rights end (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Read The Fucking Amendment) (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress, and by extension, the government. Most airports are federal government property and the TSA is a government agency. Because of that, the first (and the rest) amendment applies to them.
By your interpretation, someone only has those rights when they are in the congress.
Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, that's how you do it. Mild punishments, not enough to raise major issues about, but still it creates fear among the public and will keep them down. Any smart dictatorial regime will do it like this, as actually killing people would not be taken well internationally. How many people had heavy punishment in east germany during the DDR regime? Not too many, but the rest was scared as shit constantly. Welcome to the Democratic People's Republic of the US of A, people.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
I avoid the US as well, although that's not really a problem for me. I only worked abroad once, not in the US, and for holidays there's enough to see for me in the rest of the world. Since the Bush administration my esteem of the US has declined in a rapid tempo, and it's still going down. I wonder how the next administration will do, but I doubt whether they will be able or willing to turn this trend around (even the democrats).
Re:Our rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that in each of those cases, we're talking about the highest levels of federal government taking overt acts to revoke our First Amendment rights. Compare that with this particular case of some local TSA moron doing something stupid.
Yes, I'm aware of the "free speech zones" at debates and conventions in recent elections, and I think they're a horrible idea, but at least in those cases it's motivated by the inability of police to guarantee the safety of the people both inside and outside the building when a terror target is that high-profile. On the other hand, those events are infrequent compared with the hindrances on free speech rights that take place at our public educational institutions [thefire.org] every day, this time motivated by left-leaning political correctness advocates rather than by right-leaning Patriot Act advocates.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
---
William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
When I start ranting about this kind crap 20 years ago, everyone thoguht I was insanely paranoid.
Well, I guess now the shackle is on the other foot. Arbeit Mach Frie.
Re:Constitution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, because the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper [masklinnscans.free.fr] ©King George the First, Nov. 2005 [capitolhillblue.com]
Re:Who are these people? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
The organisers of any movement that has the intention of altering the government will be treated as terrorists. Organisers of a large protests are already photographed and followed and have their names and organisations put on 'watch lists'.
Re:Enough already (Score:2, Insightful)
K.
It's The Pettiness (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you're a frequent flyer, for reasons of business. If your local TSA supervisor gropes you or someone you know at a bar or on the street, what are you going to do? What if they get in a property dispute with you? What if their child is tormenting your child at school? What if they don't like the clubs or places you want to frequent? What if you want to campaign for a political party they don't really like?
What will you do? Exercise your rights? Do something that might displease the officials? Perturb or them in some small way? You will on your fuck! You will drop everything and anything the moment you smell that this petty prick might make flying more difficult for you. Only fools and people with the right kind of friends will do otherwise.
As the TSA officials and persons like them grow in number and influence, expect such situations to arise. You think it won't happen? The people who set up the TSA, the people in the TSA, they all believe that such a state of affairs would be right and proper. They have a world view, and it does not involve tolerance for yours. If they can find a way to make life miserable for people who don't follow them, they will.
this sort of thing always reminds me of a quote: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Constitution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but so do Cuba, China, and Libya.
Here's a short excerpt from the constitution of the People's Republic of China.
"Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief..."
Constitutions only work when the people in charge feel constrained by their content
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Depressing, but true (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, this is inexcusable. My wife and I aren't going to travel to a cousin's wedding this winter because it has become an exhausting, aggravating, and sometimes demeaning struggle to fly from place to place within the US.
If we (the people of the United States) don't use our right to vote this year and in 2008 to shake up those who imposed these draconian "solutions" to terrorism, well, shame on us all.
Re:Okay, so the TSA guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
You've just described every Systems Admin I've ever worked with.
Can anyone suggest a more proactive solution?
A lot less emotion and a little common sense goes a long way. Recognize when you are in "their" world, and tread softly. Feign respect if you cannot muster up the genuine article. Derive solace from the fact that, at the end of the day, you'll be relaxing at home or in your comfortable hotel room and Mr. Big Stuff will still be patting down smelly old ladies for hair gels or struggling to get the Exchange Server back online.
Everybody wants their 15 minutes of fame, and they'll get it. The trick is not to let them have it on your time.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
If it was 20 years ago then you were way too early and indeed paranoid at the time; however it's nice you can say you told us so regardless. I really like the quote.
Proving once again, no one has the right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone knows you don't make threatening, disparaging, or otherwise inflammatory remarks when you're in an airport. The security there takes things very seriously, as they must. Putting comments like that on a bag going through the security checkpoint is going to make them look at you twice or three times, possibly in a way that usually requires buying someone dinner first.
Re:Who are these people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't worry when our government detains an individual who has not only committed no crime, but has shown no evidence whatsoever of having committed any crime?
We have an absolute constitutional right to peacefully express any opinion we like, whether or not it is productive or mature to do so. This was an egregious violation of that right and that is not something that can be tolerated.
Re:WWII *had* an end (Score:5, Insightful)
It's slated to finish shortly after the War On Drugs.
Straw man. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Constitution? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hence the reason for the second amendment.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if criticize another person, or mention that Muslims comprise the majority of the world's terrorists, or siggest that Christianity or Islam are based in hatred of the other, you will be flayed alive and thrown naked into the Thames. Because in the UK, you only cricize the government. Everyone else is off limits, by law.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:2, Insightful)
more "news for nerds" (Score:1, Insightful)
Some idiot defames the TSA, right in their face, and then is surprised when they give him shit. That's not even news. It's just another indication of the stupidity of much of the human race: the idiot who wrote on the bag, the idiot who confronted him about it, the idiot who submitted this article, the idiot who approved and posted it, and all the idiots who have responded to it.
I am embarrassed for all of us.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
That post is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, where do you get the idea that the airport in question is privately-owned? It's not. Why would you make a statement like that without spending 5 seconds on a google search?
Secondly even if it had been, he wasn't denied access by the owners of the airport, but by agents of the federal government. Since TSA agents are required there by law and answer to the federal government, they're not agents of any theoretical owner of the airport and are not the owner's agents. They have no right to make decisions like that.
Thirdly, even if it had been a privately-owned airport and he was denied access by the owners of the airport, airports are places of public accomodation where your first amendment rights receive some protection.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing new here is the technology - police abuse of power has been around since there were police (and before that it was other people in positions of authority abusing their power.)
Whenever I see these threads about the US going to hell in a handbag I always ask, and how is this different? Sure there are somethings to be concerned about (e.g. domestic wiretapping.) But when people go on about how america isn't what it used to be, they loose at least some credibility in my eyes. Sure america might not be what it was idealized to be - but then again it never has been. (alien and sedition acts, jim crow, japenese internment camps, and the red scare.)
Not that I'm defending any abuses of liberty, but it isn't like it is something new, or to put it away America hasn't changed as much as some want us to think.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:2, Insightful)
Listen, I am a pretty hardcore conservative and what is going on sickens me. The truth is, in addressing the Second Ammendment, that it was originally included in the Bill of Rights for 2 reasons. 1. to allow the populace a means of defending themselves from foreign invaders and the indidgenous population (Indians). 2. to allow the populace a vehicle to control tyrany from within. Unfortunately, the last 100 years or so the interpritation of this Ammendment has be butchered, mostly by liberals (fact not a flame). It was not uncommon, up until the Spanish American War, for private individuals to maintain standing armies, with heavy artillery, even naval vessels. This is no longer allowed by law. If it were allowed I suspect that a wide varity of problems would have been solved a long time ago.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
The 2nd Amendment assures you have access to the tools necessary to overthrow a corrupt government; it does not provide the will to use them.
Re:Who are these people? (Score:2, Insightful)
By your logic, if an FBI agent picks you up, takes you to a bureau office, sticks you in a small room and questions you for a while, the Goverment isn't detaining you, just some "asshole" FBI guy...
*shakes head* -- with mentalities like yours it's really NO WONDER the Constitution's main use these days is for wiping Bushies ass...
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone knows eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
threatening, disparaging, or otherwise inflammatory remarks
Threatening I'll give you. Disparaging? Go fuck yourself you knob-end. Inflammatory? That's all in the ear of the belistener and is too vague to mean anything.
If you don't like the freedoms of the USA including the Freedom of Speech I suggest you piss off to Cuba, China or Iraq.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
The time is coming, if not now, that the people of the USA must take their government to task for the abridgement of the expression of our rights.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously join the American Communist Party and see what happens. You will find it alot harder to get highly paid work and a lot of doors that were previously open will close for no apparrent reason.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
I live and work in London, and even here you cannot describe the surveillance as "pervasive". Most of the CCTV cameras you see are privately owned by the managers/owners of the buildings they're attached to, and are purely for keeping watch on their own premises. There are actually very few "public" CCTV cameras in London, unless you count those on public transport (which is increasinly privately-owned). No, the situation is not ideal, but rest assured that The Man is not watching our every move (at least, not yet - and think of the manpower required to watch the entire population...)
they also have a nasty habit of prosecuting anyone who attempts to defend himself from a criminal attack
Do you have any sources to back that up? I can think of only one case in the last decade or so that made the press - Tony Martin, who shot a fleeing burglar in the back with a shotgun. Believe me, the British press would be all over that sort of story, they've been whipping up a frenzy about the "crumbling, outdated legal system failing victims while being soft on criminals" on and off for years.
Just as Muslims are being tainted in the eyes of many people around the world by the fact that a pack of head-chopping misogynists claim to be Muslims, the anti-war movement in the US suffers from the fact that it's the commie traitors who get the most press.
Similarly, you seem to have decided that we have no right to self defense based on one case that was very poorly reported by the press at the time. We most certainly do have a right to use reasonable force to defend not only ourselves, but anyone who we have reason to believe is in danger of harm.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly even if it had been, he wasn't denied access by the owners of the airport, but by agents of the federal government. Since TSA agents are required there by law and answer to the federal government, they're not agents of any theoretical owner of the airport and are not the owner's agents. They have no right to make decisions like that.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the main point of TSA is that those people would actually be gov. employees, as opposed to the previous clowns they had checking baggage before 9/11 who weren't. At that point, they don't *answer* to the federal government...they are *representatives* of the federal government.
To me, the greater question is, does claiming that a TSA rep is an asshole make you a risk? If not, these people are using their misplaced authority for petty vengeance, which is a massive (and unsurprising) abuse of power.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Our rights (Score:5, Insightful)
"Yes, I'm aware of the "free speech zones" at debates and conventions in recent elections, and I think they're a horrible idea, but at least in those cases it's motivated by the inability of police to guarantee the safety of the people both inside and outside the building when a terror target is that high-profile."
In other words, the threat of terrorism (which, if you look up the statistics is on par with your chances of being struck by lightning) means we have to restrict free speech?
So why don't we have laws restricting people from congregating out in the open when the weather's looking a bit sketchy?
And why should people be allowed into rallies or photo-ops if they look like supporters, but herded into free speech zones if they look like protesters? If anyone was going to bomb the Republican Party Convention do you really think they'd be stupid enough to wander up wearing a "Fuck Bush" T-shirt over their homemade dynamite vest?
This entire rationale is so pathetically flimsy it's completely see-through. There is only one reason to herd peaceful protesters into designated (almost always well-hidden) areas but still allow supporters through, and that's because you don't want people to see the protest.
Unfortunately that's rather the whole point of your right to free assembly, so they have to come up with a pathetic pretext to allow them to needlessly violate your basic rights.
"On the other hand, those events are infrequent compared with the hindrances on free speech rights that take place at our public educational institutions every day, this time motivated by left-leaning political correctness advocates rather than by right-leaning Patriot Act advocates."
I read the article. A religious group thinks it should continue to receive funding from a state school, but should be allowed to only admit individuals who share that faith. The state school thinks that this violates Separation of Church and State, which sounds pretty correct to me.
The school has offered to either stop funding all the religious groups in the school, or continue to fund the Knights of Columbus if it admits non-believers. The group has refused this.
Nobody's denying anyone free speech, and it's shockingly intellectually dishonest to claim they are.
All the school is saying is that if the group's going to exclude people on religious lines, then they (as a state entity) shouldn't be paying them to do it.
As (presumably) a religious person, how would you feel about your kid's school funding a science club that refused to allow membership to Christians?
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly: I'm a Catholic. We are continually vilified in the media; you probably haven't noticed it simply because its so common. Our spiritual leader, the Pope, is criticised no matter what he does, and lambasted by people who fundamentally fail to understand the role he plays.
When a newspaper in one of the Baltic states prints a fairly mild caricature of Muhammad, Muslims the world over stage mass protests and threaten to boycott goods from that country. When similar cartoons of Jesus are printed, do artists lose their jobs and high-ranking politicians rush to make amends? When the Pope quotes a 14th C. predecessor's criticism of Islam and the men who follow its precepts, churches are attacked all over the middle east and Christians in Islamic countries cower in their homes for fear of the mob. When a similarly high-ranking Islamic cleric himself denounces all people of other faiths as apostates deserving of death, do mosques burn? The director of a documentary critical of Muslims' attitude to women was gunned down in a street in Amsterdam. Dan Brown remains in good health, despite The Da Vinci Code.
Feel free to suggest that Christianity is based around the hatred of Muslims (or any other faith); you would be wrong. The converse may, however, be true.
None of this changes my belief that it would be wrong to subscribe to the belief that "Muslims are terrorists," or even "Muslims comprise the majority of the world's terrorists." Timothy McVeigh, the IRA, Basque separatists... Muslim terrorists are just the new Communist revolutionaries, a bogeyman to scare the witless masses into surrendering their rights. Demonising the many for the actions of the few is neither fair nor just, but an inevitable result of the modern focus on the unusual. Just as the fact that a few priests are paedophiles leads people to think that most priests are paedophiles, the fact that some Muslims are terrorists leads people to think that most Muslims are terrorists.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have nothing to hide, they wouldn't pick you up, would they?
The terrorists have won by allowing a regime that wants to do things the same as the countries we accuse of "not being free & democratic". The fear of this irrational thing called terrorism is pathetic. More people die from lung cancer every year in the US. More people have died (or will soon) fighting a stupid war with no real goal, direction or possible positive outcome.
This country is slowly moving down the road of fascism or some other "new" form of dictatorship. When a government keeps it's society in check by fear and hatred, only bad things come of it. How long until we get our Hitler? Stalin? Moussolini?
We are not impervious to failure. The almighty dollar seems to be the only concern in the U$A. Pathetic when a country can spend billions on war and nothing to help the poor and sick.
Jesus wouldn't have voted for Bush that is for certain. War is not the solution to the current problems in the world. Our external policies over the last 50 years or so has assisted in creating this monster. When will people wake up and realize we (the country and our representatives) are not infallible? Hopefully not before it's too late.
Re:Of course, don't blame those responsible (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll conceed your point that violent acts change us, however I take issue with how you make that point. You say Muslims did these acts, not radical Muslims. This implys that all Muslims are responsible and condone these terrible acts. Here you are dead wrong, radical Muslims are a very small percentage of the Muslim population thankfully. We would stand no chance agains 1.3 Billion (1) determined attackers.
So yes acts of terror change us, but only as much as we let them change us. In 2005 14,493 people died in terrorist attacks (2) while 43,443 died in traffic accidents (3). So why are we so worried about terrorism when we are more likely to be killed by a jack-hole talking on a cellphone? We are letting a relativly minor problem get blowen way out of proportion.
I don't think most people here are denying that terrorism is a Bad Thing (TM) but that they take issue with how it is being used as an excuse to take away our cival liberties. Sure it probably wasn't the smartest thing to do but a goverment official saying your right to free speach end is scary and wrong. Its not like he was claming that carying a knife or some banned object was protected by free speach. He made a harmless critasism and was punished for it, that shouldn't happen.
1: Major Religious Groups [wikipedia.org]
(edit: Ah thank goodness for reasonable mods. In the time it took me to write this the parent went from 4 Insightfull to 0 Troll, Thank you.) -- I deliberately put misspellings and grammatical errors in my posts so I know who the dumb people are who respond to criticize my spelling, etc.2: Page 4, Table I [blackwell-synergy.com]
3: DOT Traffic Statistics [dot.gov]
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemoeller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... [wikipedia.org]
Bah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Bah I'm sick of this shit. When did we become such a nation of pussies? I'm sure that any of my granparents would have snapped a potential terrorist's neck with their bare hands after 9/11. Heck either grandfather may have done it well before 9/11 (They always get evasive when they start talking about the war and you ask them if they ever killed a guy with their bare hands...) And John Wayne would have kicked the shit out of Tom Cruise all right.
Generations fought to keep the principles this country was founded on going. They fought against the idea of secret prisons and star courts and the government being able to make people disappear in the middle of the night. And we throw that all away because we're so preoccupied with the shit that we have and we're afraid that we might get killed by a terrorist?! Never mind that we lose as many people on a monthly basis as we did on 9/11 due to traffic accidents. We lose 10 times that number to tobacco related deaths. You're more likely to die from a paper cut than in a terrorist attack. It's a pretty thin excuse to let the Republicans destroy the foundations of our country. And the Democrats are no better. They may eventually lose on any given piece of legislation but they don't need to roll over and take it up the ass like the Republicans' inflatable love doll every time the Republicans try to ram one through.
I say we send them a clear message by voting all those retarded pig fuckers out of office in every single election until we get some leadership that's more interested in our well being than in sucking at the teat of the lobbyests and corporate sponsors in Washington. Register to vote, get out there and vote against the incumbant. If there's a third party running, vote for them. Don't whine at me about electronic voting machines being easily subverted either -- if you suspect that then find out how and subvert them! Vote Gary Coleman governor of California! And if you don't vote, don't complain. You didn't do so much as the least you could do to try to prevent this mess in the first place.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:2, Insightful)
How convenient. Extremists don't seem to follow their respective books very much.
State's Secrets (Score:5, Insightful)
Then your lawsuit (usually) disappears.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:2, Insightful)
They will do nothing more that create opportunities for those protesting to be arrested and assaulted, and in the end discredited.
Figure out how to make enough people care more about who is in office and what they do than their favorite TV show or video game, and you might have a shot at improving things.
The problem here is that most people in the U.S. are willingly abdicating their right to hold government accountable.
Our nations' problems aren't the fault of stupid or corrupt politicians or greedy corporations. They are the fault of an ambivalent electorate.
If the people really cared, the politicians would be held accountable, and the problems (at least some of them) would be fixed.
Re:where our rights end (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. I was never a huge fan of the US but at least they stood for something. They believed they were the best in the world and that their freedoms and rights were what set them apart and above. They instituted the Nuremburg trials... Rather than summarily detaining and shooting Nazis (sorry) they gave them the right of an open trial. (Or at least apparently open). That is civilization and justice.
They aren't a great country because of their size, or economy, but because they truely believed in the power of the individual, and the rights of the individual. And now they are destroying their biggest asset and what made them great. It is sad. They need to remember that they are better than torture, better than imprisonment without trial, better than all that. They shouldn't be comparing themselves to other countries and saying well they do it.... the US used to lead the way. And I hope they remember that soon.
ZKGoing to hell in a bucket... (Score:3, Insightful)
>Whenever I see these threads about the US going to hell in a handbag I always ask, and how is this different? Sure there are somethings to be concerned about (e.g. domestic wiretapping.) But when people go on about how america isn't what it used to be, they loose at least some credibility in my eyes.
I was originally going to write about how different it is now, but you're right that for certain segments of the US population, this is just the same thing that has been going on throughout history. The biggest real difference in what is happening is that in the "good old days" the abuses were publicly condemned, as long as they were against white people. Now that the federal government is treating all of us like blacks under Jim Crow, it's interesting to see how much anger has been roused in just 5 years.
What do you think is the appropriate response? Martin Luther King? or the Black Panthers?
Re:avoiding the airlines (Score:2, Insightful)
Taxes also subsidize automobile travel - you don't pay at the pump for oil wars to keep gas cheap. Roads are paid for partly by property taxes. And we just externalize the costs of environmental devastation.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:4, Insightful)
i would think that their copies of the books seem to be missing some pages.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't blame Iran for pursuing nukes if the information on the matter isn't lie.
A nuclear arsenal is the ticket to respect and an insurance policy against invasion ala Iraq. Look at North Korea; a wild-eyed dictator brags that he can hit Palo Alto with a nuclear missle. His country doesn't get invaded, he gets nuclear talks and diplomacy. Pakistan is a dictatorship set up after a military coup and said to be a hiding place for OBL. Since they have the bomb and play ball with the US, they're allies and can sit at the big kids table with the rest of the nuclear-armed nations.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to read up on the Red Scare [wikipedia.org]. A large number of socialists were jail or deportated. The 1918 Sedition Act made it illegal to speak out against the government. The Post Office was allowed to deny mail to those labeled dissenters. Socialist Party presidental candidate Eugene Debs ran from prison in 1920, jailed for making an anti-war speech.
Don't think it can't happen here. It already has. These actions decades ago pretty much destroyed the Left in the U.S., leaving us with the two right-wing parties we have today.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are millions of Americans out there who are distressed at what's going on, but think we're still ok, because no one has come to take them away for speaking their mind. They overlook the fact that dictatorship is not defined by whether or not they have come to take you away, but whether or not they have the legal authority to come take you away.
Once they have the legal authority when they finally come to take you away you will have no defense; and it is your ability to defend yourself under law that defines a free society.
But don't worry, they aren't likely to slap chains on you, what they do is slap chains on a few select people to make you afraid and get you to slap chains on yourself, like a "good little boy."
And your children will accept without question that you have no rights of speech, because they do not even understand the concept. Be afraid of . . . your children.
Yes, I'm being "alarmist." That's the frickin' point.
KFG
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
OFFICER: You are an enemy combatant. You're under arrest.
PERSON: Why?
OFFICER: There is a very good reason, but it's classified.
PERSON: What evidence do you have?
OFFICER: Oh, we have lots of evidence, but it's classified.
PERSON: Who accused me of these crimes?
OFFICER: Sorry sir, we can't tell you that. It's classified.
PERSON: When can I go home to my family?
OFFICER: When you've been tried and found innocent.
PERSON: How long will that take?
OFFICER: When the war is over.
PERSON: Can I at least call my wife and tell her I'm OK?
OFFICER: I'm sorry sir, you aren't allowed to contact anyone.
This could happen to you. Maybe you did something awful, but maybe you didn't. Maybe you just said something in a forum that was critical of the person in charge. You don't know. Nobody does. You could be in jail for years, and not know any more than this. No lawyer. Your family doesn't know where you are. You don't know why you're being detained. And they don't have to tell you anything.
This new law would make the above scenario perfectly legal.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:2, Insightful)
The end point does not change (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no interesting question about where our rights end. Our rights themselves continue to be what they were. The interesting question is where our rights begin to be oppressed.
If you fail to grasp this important distinction, you are granting others power over your inalienable rights.
our homegrown dictator (Score:2, Insightful)
That happened about six years ago. [whitehouse.gov]
With his executive decrees, disregard for the law and the constitution, secret prisons, use of torture, and his blatant lying to the American public, I think it's fair to say Herr Bush fits the definition of dictator.
People out of touch? (Score:1, Insightful)
First; NOT ALL AIRPORTS are owned by the federal government.
Second; Not all of the security check points are manned by federal government employees.
Third; The biggest problem with Bush is that he is guided by religion in his management of the war against terrorism. Unfortunately wars are won by slaughtering people wholesale, not by trying to persuade them to moderate their beliefs. If people are really concerned about their rights in this country then they should be demanding the systematic de-population of the Arab world.
Fourth; Torture has been proven to be highly effective through out history. In this case it really shouldn't be a problem anyway as the people we have captured, from the middle east, should all be put to death anyways. Might as well get what useful information out of them that you can.
It is nice that everyone is concerned about their rights or at least the rights they have a personal interest in, but people have to realize that there is a culture out there that is entirely useless to humanity. So if you are concerned about your rights, and I'd have to say it is at least a reasonable concern you really have to press the federal government to take brutal action against the forces operating against us in the Arab world. Clearly we should be demanding the nuking of most of the middle east to completely render that culture as a figment of history.
It really has nothing to do with religion, it simply the fact that the Arab world has become such a negative impact on the development of humanity. Burnt out most of the cities over there and educate the people that remain to some sort of contemporary standard of intelligence and we might get some where. To do otherwise is to give up and relive the past couple of hundred years.
Dave
Ave Imperator! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not a lie if you believe it to be true. King George believes in an alternate universe from ours where invading a country without reasonable justification isn't a war crime (even though some Axis leaders were hung at Nuremburg and Japan for the exact same crime) and spending $500 billion on the DOD after the Cold War is over isn't pissing away the taxpayer's money, corporate welfare, or encouraging arms races. Hope your kids and their kids are ready to foot the bill for our national debt.
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You think it's bad now?! JUST WAIT. (Score:2, Insightful)
Since you're the one who so vehemently despises this country and the values we stand for, why don't *you* leave and move to Saudi Arabia or some other country where they already have the system you want to live under rather than working to fuck up our country?
No, that would take integrity which is like Kryptonite to you amoral fascist Republican cowards.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Giving the "President the tools he needs for this war," are only necessary when they have no evidence. If the government has evidence, they can follow habeus corpus. When they have NO CASE AT ALL, they can "use the special tools" and you are in much worse shape.
Notice the number of trials that we've seen? Must be a lot of need for "special tools to fight this war," going on.
Pick up the phone (Score:4, Insightful)
Use the "Find your Senator" box at the upper right. Sorry, Javascript required. If you already know who your Senators are you can skip this step.
Dial the phone numbers given.
Politely (the staff member is not to blame) and concisely (s/he is busy) explain your values about trials and torture.
Unfortunately, not the case. :-( (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, some of the Senate said "Woah, that house version goes too far!" and they tried to tone it down. But once it got out of committee, the Senate as a whole smashed it and has gone on to procedure regarding the full-strength House version of the bill.
You can read both at senate.gov (see the right-hand column).
As I quoted to another poster, this is the most important bit:
"SEC. 6. HABEAS CORPUS MATTERS.
(a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (e) (as added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742)) and by striking subsection (e) (as added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477)); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
`(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien detained by the United States who--
`(A) is currently in United States custody; and
`(B) has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001."
You'll notice that the bill claims to apply to aliens. But once you're picked up as an alien, no court has jurisdiction to review your status. So if they come by your house to pick you as a citizen up, there is no way for you to say "No way, dude, I'm a citizen!" because the moment you're picked up, the courts lose jurisdiction.
If they decide you're an alien, not a citizen, that's it under the law. And who is they? At the top of the bill it spells out clearly: the Secretary of Defense or anyone he designates. So, basically: party members.
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Lately, however, a large number of people like Graham have been standing up and saying things like this, and I'm finding more and more often that the types of social issues I was worred about in the nineties have been peeled off of Congressional work and thrown aside as unimportant because now they're working on legislation that goes to the very core of fundamental beliefs about freedom and rights. Once upon a time what was "important" to me in a Congressman was whether he supported or opposed abortion or what his position was on NAFTA and similar matters.
Now, though, I find that my decisions have become so base, so fundamental, that I'm concerned over whether or not any given politican believes in and supports the fundamental basis of American freedoms. I'm worried about whether or not the person I'm about to vote for truly believes in the rights of people and fundamental concepts of justice. I have no love for many of the policies of people like Graham and McCain, but I would absolutely vote for them anyway simply because we are now at a point in our history where the most important thing is that we elect honest men and women who have a decent, appreciable and active belief in justice and freedom, and believe that even if we don't all agree about abortion or gay marriage, we should all be able to talk about it without fear of violent opression and systematic retribution.
And God Almighty does that ever scare the ever-loving Hell out of me.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting.
I have a different take: there is no such thing as an "inalienable right." Every freedom you enjoy was paid for by the blood of activists, and if you do not constantly strive to protect those freedoms, somebody else will endeavor take them away.
--- SER
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ave Imperator! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:1, Insightful)
This discussion is about how future legislation may be able to be used to strip U.S. citizens of the right of Habeus Corpus at which point any arbitrary arrest is possible. The president has decreed that he can designate any person, U.S. citizen or foreign national, as an "enemy combatant".
The concern is that legislation being worked on in Congress may wind up including wording which would allow Habeus Corpus to be stripped from those deemed to be "enemy combatants" which would mean that U.S. citizens could, for the first time in the history of this nation, lose the right to know the charges against them. For an example, see Jose Padilla.
I'm constantly fascinated by how some people will argue endlessly that we shouldn't worry about and discuss certain legislation because it won't really have any big effect. If there's not going to be any effect my immediate question then becomes, "so why do they need to write it in the first place?"
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
And as long as the Geneva Conventions apply (as they did in WWII) I have no problem with that. Treating these prisoners the same way we treated German POWs would be a step forward from current dangerous policies.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you think this so-called "War on Terror" will ever end? If so, I can only say that I think you
are being incredibly naive.
The Fascists [whitehouse.gov] have done something amazing... they've convinced the
American people that we are "at war," not with a specific state, but with an abstract concept.
As such, they can continue to maintain the illusion of being "at war" indefinitely, thereby
maintaining the support of people like yourself. It's actually pretty close to brilliant.
Re:It used to be your rights end where mine begin (Score:3, Insightful)
I was raised Catholic. My entire pre-college education was at Catholic parochial schools. Catholicism may no longer be my faith, but I have a solid grounding in the religion and continue to respect it.
Hardly. The church got a string of bad news when the pedophilia cases became public, but the evidence strongly suggests that a number of bishops made terribly wrong decisions. Beyond that, what? Hell, when Sinead O'Conner tore up a picture of the Pope, there was nearly universal condemnation of simple free speech. You get occasional bad news, but mostly it gets ignored. There is some real hate speech (See: Chick Publications), but compared to the hate speech against Islam it's trivial.
The Pope is a public figure by choice, he's going to get criticism. Indeed, as Pope it's his duty to speak on matters he believes to be true and important. He should count himself lucky that he is the single most widely covered religious figure on the planet. On the down side it means he gets a lot of criticism, but on the up side it means he gets far more opportunities to share his message. It's like complaining that President Clinton/Bush is criticised no matter what they do. Of course, it's the result of being a public figure bold enough to try controversial things.
(To be clear: those who engaged in murder, arson, and vandalism in response to these statements were completely in the wrong. Those responses are always the wrong response to speech you disagree with. But that's irrelevant to my point.)
And you wonder why the Pope gets a bad rap? When you say that the only news things Muhammad brought were "evil and inhuman," expect to get some flak for it. "I was just quoting someone else" isn't a defense, at least not unless the original remarks were prefixed with "As an example of something I completely disagree with..."
How open minded of you. You bitch that others misrepresent your faith through ignorance, then go on to ignorantly misrepresent other faiths. Islam is no more based around a hatred of Christianity than Christianity is based around a hatred of Judiasm. In both cases the newer religion's basis is that the previous religion was originally founded on good idea, but the people strayed and got confused, so God sent yet another person down to try and clairify things. True, some Muslims take this to the conclusion that Christians are to be loathed, but for much of Christianity's history Jews were similarly hated.
Re:Constitution? (Score:3, Insightful)
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.
Putting aside their incorrect interpretation of the term "militia" (which has a very specific definition in Federal law) for the moment, let's look at the Bill of Rights. The first eight Amendments have to do with the people, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are specific limitations on Congress' power. The ACLU maintains that all of the first eight Amendments, save the Second, deal with individual rights. Why then do they consider the Second does not deal with individual rights as the others do? If, as they say, it's proper for the state to license and regulate the bearing of arms, why then would it not be proper for the state to license and regulate speech as well? After all, they're not eliminating it, right? Why then did the ACLU get so bent out of shape regarding the ridiculous "free speech zones" established when the President visits? If it's proper to license and regulate one civil right, why not another? The ACLU makes the ridiculous statement "If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.", while apparently failing to note that unlike arms, cars are not mentioned in the Constitution.
It doesn't make sense, and I believe it's a deliberate misreading of the intent of the document to fit in line with the politics of its founders.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
God how far we have fallen..