Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws 507

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the shot-down dept.
Coryoth writes "The Canadian parliament has voted against renewing anti-terror laws that had been introduced after September 11, 2001. The rejected laws included provisions to hold terror suspects indefinitely, and to compel witnesses to testify, and were in some sense Canada's version fo the Patriot Act. The laws were voted down in the face of claims from the minority Conservative government that the Liberal Party was soft on terror, and despite the fact that Canada has faced active terrorist cells in their own country. The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada Rejects Anti-Terror Laws

Comments Filter:
  • Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deadhammer (576762) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:46PM (#18184958)
    I'd like to say that, as a full red-blooded, maple syrup-sweating, moose riding Canuck, I've never been prouder of my country. These sorts of laws always seem good in the panic moments when they're pushed through, but cooler heads will prevail. We've said no to bad, kneejerk legislation, and I'm proud to be a voter.
  • by Zeebs (577100) <rsdrew@ g m a i l . c om> on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:47PM (#18184968)
    Negative, the cell that was arrested intended to attack Toronto.
  • Hold the phone... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by micromuncher (171881) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:53PM (#18185036) Homepage
    The anti-terror legislation was TEMPORARY to be evaluated every 5 years. So its 5 years was up, and the majority of opposition (not just liberal) voted against renewing the measures. These measures are CONTRARY to our charter of rights an freedoms, specifically to detain and search ANYONE WITHOUT EVIDENCE on SUSPICION of terrorist activity. And the caption here is WRONG. There are at least 5 individuals (I know of, not personally, just through the CBC) here in Canada that were placed in jail without arrest because of this legislation. SO...

    Its a good thing this abhorent measure is gone, because it was a crutch to avoid the due dilligence in proving guilt before innocence.

  • by cowwoc2001 (976892) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:57PM (#18185100)
    Virtually every Canadian news agency that covered this event highlighted how the law was voted down purely for political reasons, not for morale ones. The law was originally introduced by the Liberal party which is the exact same party that voted against it this time. The Liberal party is simply trying to bring up the minority Conservative government for obvious political reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with moral objection, as many Liberal members broke rank from their party and actually voted *for* the bill. You can be sure this bill will come back in one form or another introduced by the Liberals if not by the Conservatives. You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist and those advocating such an approach are ignorant in my view.
  • Oil pipelines? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Erioll (229536) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:59PM (#18185134)
    How about the fact that Canada is the USA's #1 supplier of Oil? This information [gravmag.com] is at least two years out of date, but that's not very far out of date at all. If somebody has a more recent link, great, but it won't have changed a whole lot.

    Lots of targets up here that WILL hurt you.
  • by Phisbut (761268) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @03:59PM (#18185140)

    In that case, are the terrorists stupid? I thought the US was the Great Satan, with Great Britain as our sniveling lackey and Israel as the evil demon sitting on our shoulder. Guess they didn't get the memo (or are REALLY bad with maps).

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US import most of its oil from Canada. Hitting Canada would have a dramatic effect on the US.

  • by Plekto (1018050) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:03PM (#18185190)
    Of course, it's *not* happening in the U.S. - so... same old crud here as usual. Sigh.

    Sometimes I really wonder how long this country has at the rate we are going. Just take a look at Democracy Now or any alternative site - or better yet, just go to news.yahoo.ca/ for a slightly less baised mainstream news look at the U.S.(far less filtering than the stuf we get from Reuters/CNN/Fox/etc main newsfeeds). The sad thing is that it's the working class what will take the brunt of any retaliation for what we are doing - be it military, terrorist, economic, or otherwise.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mdielmann (514750) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:04PM (#18185206) Homepage Journal
    As another Canadian, I entirely agree with you. While I'm generally a supporter of the conservative party (parties in some places), once again I'm vindicated in my opinion that minority governments are best for the average citizen.

    <rant>
    My theory goes something like this. No matter what you do, it's most often politicians and not visionaries who get voted into office, if for no other reason than they lie better. This leaves you with leaders who are more concerned with their best interest rather than the people's, which results in a corrupt government. Also, majority governments can ram through just about whatever they want, whereas minority governments have to negotiate and compromise. Another way to say this is majority governments are effective, while minority governments are ineffective. So given the two likeliest choices of a corrupt effective government and a corrupt ineffective government, I'll choose the latter. At least they have a harder time shafting us.
    </rant>

    Hey, if you can't rant about politics, what can you rant about?
  • by CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:05PM (#18185220) Journal
    You can't close your eyes and pretend that bad people don't exist

    We are fully aware that people like you (the bad people) are out there trying take away our liberties for the smallest and most false sense of security. Thats why we applaud this. Its a victory against you bad people. Don't worry we know you exist!
  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:12PM (#18185308)

    A good day for all Canadians.

    Heh... true in a funny way. A good day for law-abiding Canadians who don't want to let the terrorists win by tricking them out of their civil liberties. And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada. Both groups win by their own measures of success.
  • by Coryoth (254751) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:12PM (#18185320) Homepage Journal

    "a cold molson"?
    A real Canadian would use the term "beers".

    Come now, I think calling Molson "beer" is being a bit generous. Sure, it has less resemblance to water than the mainstream US brands (Budweiser, Millers, etc.), but calling it "beer" is just taking things a bit too far.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Coryoth (254751) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:16PM (#18185396) Homepage Journal
    If you think minority governments can be a good thing (and indeed they can be), then support proportional representation for Canada. I'm a New Zealander now living in Canada, so I've seen how proportional representation effected politics in NZ (with both pros and cons) and realistically I believe it would be a significant step forward for Canada.
  • by bberens (965711) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:19PM (#18185420)
    You're right, it doesn't make sense but not for the reason you're likely professing. Terrorism is not a threat. People need to see that in print more. Terrorism is not a threat. More people die from the use of non-prescription anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin every year in the U.S. than have EVER died from terrorism on U.S. soil. Seriously, think about that for a minute: Aspirin kills more people than terrorism in this country. If the government has more powers to go after drug cartels than terrorists then the solution should be to trim the powers available to go after drug cartels, not grant more powers to after some other random type of criminal.

    /Yes, I know that the drug cartels you were referring to have nothing to do with Aspirin. I merely used them as an example because Aspirin is generally considered 'harmless' by most people.
  • by natophonic (103088) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:23PM (#18185496)

    And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada.
    If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and terrorist cells in Canada were disrupted and dismantled during the five years this legislation was in effect, then that's a pretty shallow victory for the terrorists.

  • by Malakusen (961638) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:26PM (#18185534) Journal

    One should not be allowed to abuse Freedom of Speech to spread hate literature

    Yes, they should. And everyone else is free to spread anti-hate literature that points out the small-minded flaws of the hate literature. It's a good thing for hateful people to make known the extent of their insanity, so that the rest of us can guard against it. Make it illegal, and they go underground, and they feel that their rights are being oppressed, and they are more likely to become violent. Picture a water balloon, with the balloon being the hater and the water being the hate. Leave it alone, and nothing is likely to happen. Squeeze it, and it'll pop.
  • by 11011001 (710307) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:33PM (#18185654)
    This is one of those times where I am proud to actually be Canadian.
  • by CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:33PM (#18185658) Journal
    Where to begin? For one we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others. You may not realize it but you have also lost this guarenteed right. If you wait until the loss of that right actually personally effects you ... well, it'll be too late. You'll be locked up some where and you won't even be able to complain about it on /.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:39PM (#18185766)

    If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and terrorist cells in Canada were disrupted and dismantled during the five years this legislation was in effect, then that's a pretty shallow victory for the terrorists.

    By the same token: If the powers granted by the legislation were never used, and civil liberties of Canadians were never effectively squashed, then that's a pretty shallow victory for citizens.

    Really I think this is an insignificant victory in any sense if you're looking at real world impact. It's a victory of principle, and an important victory of principle. As a Canadian, I'm glad to see that many politicians are doing a good job in preventing civil liberties from sliding away. Admittedly the bill was defeated out of politics rather than principle, but nonetheless, principle did win a victory.

  • by kinglink (195330) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:41PM (#18185796)
    "The anti-terror laws have never been used"

    I love when someone claims that a policy doesn't work. I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

    Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.
  • funny (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cybrthng (22291) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:46PM (#18185860) Journal
    They have been like that for decades, yet we have had president after president support them. Why change now? I guess when you create turmoil it creates inflated prices from products that come from the region and thus we artificially pay more for oil than what we should because of the risk involved.

    Really, terrorists only mean something when you choose to give them that much credit. Your giving them power by recognizing them as something they're not.

    Christians, Catholics and many other "mainstream" religions have all fought holy wars that killed millions of people. This is simply a situation we are doomed to repeat because it works well for a select few. Its all about power, politics and money and absolutely nothing to do with "terror" or "fear" unless your gullable enough to actually BELIEVE THAT
  • by IceDiver (321368) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:51PM (#18185966)

    I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."

    I would argue that, since the laws have never been used, they were unneeded, not untested. Furthermore, key provisions of the laws were recently struck down as unconstitutional by the Canadian courts.

    So, not only were the laws not necessary, they contravened the highest law of the land. It's no wonder Parliament voted them down! I'm just surprised that the same hasn't happened yet to the blatantly unconstitutional laws that have been enacted since 9/11 south of the Canadian border!


  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @04:51PM (#18185974) Journal
    No, this was an expression of the fact that increasing centralized control erodes freedoms of the individual but empowers the state, and there are emergencies that can arise where that is in everyones enlightened self interest.

    It had an inherent recognition built in that the emergency is a transient state and the measures are not intended to extend beyond that. The reaction wasn't "knee-jerk" at all, it was very wisely implemented.

    The attempt by the Conservatives to exploit this emergency measure in a grab for more power over the citizenry wasn't knee-jerk either.

    I think the idea of all laws being required to be re-ratified on a regular basis has a great deal of appeal, personally.

    They all ought to come with a specification of what societal problems they were originally intended to compensate for.

    Really, the very existence of a law represents a problem in society. In an ideal system, there would be no motivation to behave in an anti-social fashion in the first place, because it would be so well designed that there wouldn't be a person in it who felt they'd be better off going it alone than participating.

    Not to suggest that we're ever going to live in an ideal world, build an ideal system or get rid of laws, but it's a useful yardstick nevertheless.
  • "Soft on Terror" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SandwhichMaster (1044184) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:00PM (#18186094) Homepage
    "...that the Liberal Party was soft on terror"

    How is it that everyone not willing to give up Civil Liberties is considered "Soft on Terror"? People are cowards if they don't vote for every anti-terrorist bill? If you ask me, the people who will so readily give up their freedoms, and even send a nation's youth to war, are the real cowards.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:19PM (#18186408)
    I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too much. As much as I think this is an excellent ruling, the Harper government is working to change the way judges are selected [thestar.com]. This way they have fewer problems stepping on civil liberties and fewer problems with the courts striking down laws (see same sex marriage [wikipedia.org])
  • Mod parent UP! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IgLou (732042) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:27PM (#18186496)
    What irritated me about this was that people somehow think that these unproven laws are needed? WHY?? Let's review, to protect you Joe Canadian we are going to strip away a fundamental right or two and then remove the need for due-process or accountability. RIIIGHT. I agree with you completely these laws are unneeded, unconsitituional and unnecessary.

    What makes matters worst is Mr. Harpers response to the opposition and declaring that they don't have Canada's security in mind. Talk about spreading FUD; our PM is good at it.

    I feel for anyone who lost a loved one in 9/11 but this legislation was never a solution just a stop-gap knee-jerk response.
  • by Sciros (986030) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:31PM (#18186570) Journal
    Heh, well don't go ahead making up differences between you and me. I think the U.S.'s entire approach to combating terrorism is pathetic and ridiculous. Capturing data on citizens, as you put it, is a tremendous waste of energy and needless invasion of privacy. We know where terrorists are funded from, we know where they go for training. And instead of acting on that knowledge, our government agencies spy on us. WTF. When all we're left to deal with is secrets, then I can maybe understand doing some more snooping around. But we are a LONG way from resorting to anything of the sort.

    The War on Drugs is also dumb as heck, I totally agree. I think your point is really about how wasteful our government is, yeah?

    As for the Aspirin comment ... well, Aspirin may be "more deadly" than terrorism but that's a bit of a skewed way to look at things. Hippos might be "more deadly" than terrorism for all I know, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING because surely no-one is going to send U.S. troops into the Nile river to bring about democracy to hippos and/or kill them good. You know, whatever awesome strategy our government would come up with :-) The point is, it's in my personal power to prevent death by hippo/Aspirin, but it can't do anything about terrorism. That's where the government (and our troops) comes in. I just wish they'd be more competent and focus on some better solutions.

    I once made a comment.. maybe on Slashdot but I forget: if terrorists really want to piss us off, all they have to do is "leak" a "plot" to blow up an airplane using explosive undergarments. Instantly we'd all have to fly "commando" for the next couple of months. Yay for security personnel being too rubbish to do their job and instead trying to cover their asses.
  • by Onan (25162) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:44PM (#18186730)

    Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

    Oh, that's an easy one. Those two positions are not contradictory at all.

    Invasive, authoritarian laws like the PATRIOT Act do greatly increase the risk of terrorism (in addition to having many more deleterious effects). But terrorism is a trivial problem in the first place: something that happens with negligible frequency, and harms (on a national scale) a miniscule number of people.

    So, yes, the Bush administration is actively working to destroy the Bill of Rights in order to make a trivial problem slightly worse. I do have kind of a problem with that.

  • by kabocox (199019) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:45PM (#18186746)
    Just curious. What liberties have you lost due to anti-terror legislation in whatever country you are living in?

    I ask because I keep hearing about how the US has become a police state. Well, I'm in the US and as far as I can tell, this new Bush police state looks exactly as it did under Clinton, except the economy is better. I think it is only fair that I stand with my fellow Americans and suffer as they have, but before I do that, I need to know what it is I'm missing.


    You missed the memo. We are living in a near Nazish, police state that started a religious crusade only because a Republican is a president and that Democrats didn't control congress at the time. If Gore were President, the same or similiar laws would have been passed. He'd would have been declared a Nazish forcing us into a police state by all the republicans, but you wouldn't hear that on slashdot though because of our liberal bias. We'd declare a Democrat's anti-terror measures to be protective for the general citizenry similiar on how network admins need to implement policies to restrict users access to most resources for their own good.

    If Gore didn't "do something" after 9/11, then he'd have been impeached since both the Democrats and Republicans would have been forced to nail him for their own political good. Of course, Gore would have "done something" to really hit the entire middle east by spending $100+ billion on sustainable non-foreign based power plants instead of the war on terror. I could easily have seen a campign "Let's not spend a penny on foreign oil!" under Gore that would have had more drastic short and long term changes for the US and the globe as the US virtually stopped buying any middle east oil. The public anger would have taken much longer to work out of our system, but we'd all be feeling like we were indirectly hurting them rather than directly hurting them.
  • by jorgevillalobos (1044924) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:47PM (#18186780) Homepage

    It sure is nice to come to Slashdot and get unbiased news coverage, eh?

    Well, blame the poster, not the editors. I don't think they changed the original post one bit, although I would like to replace("fo", "of"). Spell checkers people, if your browser doesn't have them, well, it sucks.

  • by DiscoLizard (925782) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:49PM (#18186804)
    Because the US suffered huge amounts of terrorist attacks before the PATRIOT act and the Homeland Security bureaucracy came into being.

    I've never been attacked by lions, I guess it's because I have this lucky anti-lion rock in my backyard.
  • by Proofof. Chaos (1067060) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @05:55PM (#18186888)

    I love when someone claims that a policy doesn't work. I don't know where the synopsis gets this but from the sound of it it was never used, that's called untested, not "doesn't work."
    RTFSynopsis: "The anti-terror laws have never been used, and it was viewed that they are neither relevant, nor needed, in dealing with terrorist plots. Hopefully more countries will come to the same conclusion." The government didn't renew the laws because they decided that they weren't needed. If you're cleaning your house and find something you bought five years ago and have never used, what do you do with it.
  • by why-is-it (318134) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:01PM (#18186998) Homepage Journal

    A good day for law-abiding Canadians who don't want to let the terrorists win by tricking them out of their civil liberties. And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada. Both groups win by their own measures of success.

    Once your knee has finished jerking around, perhaps you should read a bit about what really happened.

    There are plenty of laws on the books to combat crime. I don't believe for a moment that the police need to detain people for any significant length of time without charging them. If someone has committed (or is planning to commit) a crime, let the state press the appropriate charges and make the case for a conviction in a court of law.

    Honestly, if the war on terror needs gulags and kangaroo courts, we deserve to lose because our values of peace, order and good government are less than worthless platitudes.

  • It matters not (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Loundry (4143) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:05PM (#18187046) Journal
    Beer contains alcohol and is thus haraam. Hence, your pro-Canadian comments are Islamophobic (pbuh).
  • No, you're wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by baboo_jackal (1021741) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:13PM (#18187164)
    Where, indeed, to begin, with your statement?
     

    we've all lost the right of habeas corpus along with many others


    1) We "all" haven't lost the "right" of Habeas Corpus. The Nov 13th 2001 Presidential Order made it legal to detain non-citizens suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. So unless you're a non-citizen suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism, you haven't lost anything.

    2) Habeas Corpus isn't a fundamental right - it's a procedural privilege. (before you respond to this point, make sure you understand what a fundamental right is, and is not, and please read a little about procedural (derived) rights, too.

    3) You (or anyone else, for that matter) hasn't even names "many other" rights that we've lost. So what are they?

  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:27PM (#18187338) Homepage

    Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.


    Well the last attack by foreign terrorists on US soil before 9/11 was in 1993, so eight years. Clearly the policies initiated after 9/11 were not necessary to provide 8 years of no attacks. Arguing that 5 years of no attacks since in any way validates those policies is the most falacious of reasoning.

    And why have attacks not been more frequent? Well first there is the planning involved -- again, 8 years between the failed WTC bombing and 9/11. And more importantly, since 9/11 there has been no need to attack the US on its own soil!

    Let me make this as clear as possible: Afghanistan and Iraq have caused more harm to the United States that a hundred attacks like 9/11. In response to 9/11, the U.S. did to itself more than al Qaeda could ever dream of doing just on its own capacities. Not only in material costs but in the all-important propaganda war. The credibility the US has lost in the last 5 years is a huge boon to our enemies. Our status as world leader is

    It's a classic strategy, and the same one used by Hezbollah against Israel. You can't effectively attack the giant on its home turf, so you poke at it to enrage it and lure it into your home turf where the giant is at a disadvantage. In their attempts to stomp you out, the giant innevitably stomps on the innocent and thus further increases resentment of the giant. Two wins, military and PR, from one strategy.

    The whole purpose of terrorism is to make your enemy crazy-stupid with fear. The U.S. is still behaving crazy-stupid, and paying for it. Why attack again? It would be a waste of resources; they are still getting everything from the one attack 5 years ago that they could hope to get from a new one. If we ever get our heads out of our asses, if we ever get people to think longer than "well no attacks it the last 5 years, so USAPATRIOT must work!", THEN maybe they'll see a need to attack us again.

  • by flyingsquid (813711) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:39PM (#18187478)
    Why is it that there seems to be two responses from these anti-Bush/anti-patriot act groups? "Terror laws don't work" where as the last full scale terror attack on our country was 5 years ago. The second response is usually "Well the world hates us" and you look again and there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11. So why hasn't terrorism reigned supreme here if everyone hates us and Homeland security isn't working? We aren't fighting the three stogies here.

    There are three answers:

    (1)They don't have to strike on our home territory to hurt us- in fact, they can hurt us a lot more easily, and more effectively, by attacking us abroad. If I were a fanatical Saudi Arabian suicide bomber, I could bomb a Starbucks in Topeka, but it would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to plan, and it would have a low probability of succeeding. On the other hand, I could just head to Iraq. It's a lot easier to get across the unsecured Iraqi border than through American customs, and once I'm there I look like everyone else and speak the local language, so it's much easier to operate and blend in. And the Americans have done me the favor of shipping to my front door- at the cost of billions of dollars- their young men and women. Praise Allah!

    (2) They are busy attacking our allies -as they did in Madrid and London- to isolate us. And quite effectively. Notice how small the "coalition of the willing" is these days?

    (3) America is pretty good at integrating its immigrants, so Al Qaeda has very few sympathizers in the United States. Muslim immigrants to the United States tend to like America, identify as Americans, and to pick up our values, and their kids are very well integrated into the culture. They may not like the government but they like the country. However, Muslims in Europe much more often end up isolated, economically disenfranchised, and pissed off at their host countries. That makes them more likely to look to radical Islam and hatch bomb plots, as in London. The way we treat our immigrants, and not the Patriot Act, is probably our strongest defense against domestic terrorism.

  • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:53PM (#18187650)

    A UCLA/Stanford media study found Fox News to be the most centrist, so yeah, you would read Fox News.
    Citation or reference, please.
  • by kinglink (195330) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @06:54PM (#18187670)
    Let's ignore the attacks on the USS Cole, and the bombing of the Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania, those don't count because they were under the Clinton Administration? Or are we just forgetting them because they happened more then 6 years ago? Terrorism has always been a problem in the world yet now we are looking for it and it's just not there.

    The fact is we have had terrorism all along, just because it's dropped off after 9/11 doesn't mean there wasn't attacks before. And from the sound of their own recordings they'd like nothing more to strike us again on American soil. So if it is so easy to get across the borders like everyone says... what gives? Apparently Homeland security IS working at some level.

    The simple answer is to claim the lions rock idea, which does make sense, but you probably don't live next door to a zoo, do you? Statistically you can predict that we should have been attacked in the last six years if we took no precaution, so that means in all likely hood the DHS works.

    Allow me to make an alternate example. Assume I live in a city with another person called Joe. Joe is a murderer and a thief. I own a lot of expensive items, however I also am careful and carry a handgun on me at all time, and have a security system at home that can't be broken into. So one day after 10 years of peaceful living, I think to myself, well I've never been murdered or robbed, why don't I get rid of my gun and security system? Joe finds this out. Do you think I'm going to be safe the next day?

    This doesn't mean I SHOULD have a gun and a security system, or that it's the best way to handle this. However it was effective in avoiding the problems with Joe, just as the DHS is one solution to solving terrorism.
  • Re:Looks to me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by multisync (218450) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @07:50PM (#18188366) Journal

    Seriously folks, the moderation system doesn't contain +1 Agree and -1 Disagree for a reason. Try not to use it as such.


    Yeah, cause there's nothing inflammatory or trollish in this post, [slashdot.org] or this one. [slashdot.org]

    (Actually, the second one is kinda funny but that's not the point).

    Seriously, quit whining Mr. Coward. There are good mods and bad mods, just like there are good posts and bad posts. Put away your conspiracy theories, dazzle us with your insightful commentary and let the meta-mods do their job.
  • by Jherek Carnelian (831679) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @08:10PM (#18188642)
    Your attitude is the root of fascism. -- If people are not competent to take care of themselves, the state must do it.

    At least you are consistent in your beliefs, just don't start pretending you put any value on personal freedom.
  • by Chris Burke (6130) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @08:12PM (#18188670) Homepage
    I believe the point of attacking America isn't to kill Americans. It is to change our way of life. They have done that by attacking us on our own soil.

    Yes, they turned us into the frightened hateful warmongers that all their propaganda said we were. Again, the reason they don't have to attack us again is because we gave them exactly what they wanted.

    As for no need to attack the US directly since we have made it so easy to attack us abroad, isn't that a good thing? Keep the battle off our soil?

    Uh, I wouldn't call one one attack every eight years a "battle". This is exactly the kind of crazy-stupid illogical thinking that led us to attack Iraq as part of the War on Terror. What, you think that if we didn't invade Iraq, that we'd be facing exactly the same degree of warfare over here? Are you really that crazy-stupid?

    We have created a net increase in the amount of battle going on in the world. Some would consider that a bad thing. If the tradeoff was attacks in the U.S. that killed between 6 and 3,000 people every 8 years (average: 375/yr) then I'd say that was a good idea.

    The analogy that we are the giant lured from our own land is totally rediculous.

    That's a weird way to spell "apt". But hey, let's just keep getting beat up in Iraq, a land we don't understand and can't blend into so we're constantly harrassed by insurgents, losing people, money, and influence every day. It isn't an analogy, it's a strategy, and it's working perfectly for our enemies.

    As for killing innocents, that is only a rule that the US and Israel must follow, or apologize to hell for should someone "innocent" die. Terrorists kill innocents the majority of the time. They TARGET innocents.

    WRONG! It is not a rule the US must follow, it is a REALITY that the US thinks it can absolve itself from. Everyone knows that when you kill innocents, the survivors will hate you. Al Qaeda knows they're fucking hated by every Shia (and many Sunni) in Iraq, but they don't care. Pratical countries like Israel or Russia just deal with the fact. The U.S. is the only one who thinks that the survivors should love us even though we killed innocents, because we're the good guys! The U.S. is the one who thought that the people of Iraq would thank us for bombing them! It's insane.

    You really want to prove how morally superior the U.S. is? Do you believe that we are? Well I do to, but the only thing that can possibly show this is actions. So how about this: When terrorists kill innocents, we don't kill any innocents in return. I know it sounds crazy -- what, don't lash out randomly in a blind rage when someone hurts you? -- but I think it would work.

    But that's ok, cause if we stick our heads in the sand maybe it won't be us that gets attacked. Unfortunately for you, it was us.

    You aren't paying attention. If you follow what I'm saying, I'm saying that if we ignored the terrorists, if we stopped invading Arab nations in the name of terror, then we WOULD be attacked again. If we stopped giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted in response to 9/11, then it would be worth their while to attempt to do it again and get the crazy-stupid behavior that we've been showing for the last 5 years.

    So when that happens, you have to ask yourself: Are you going to give the terrorists what they want? Are you going to dance to their tune? Are you going to become, once again, that which they say you are?

    And the blame for all our actions, right or wrong, is the fault of the terrorists.

    Well, you could certainly call the invasion of Iraq an effect of the terrorists' actions, for sure. Yet I don't think you're going to win any hearts and minds in Sadr City by telling them that soldiers are shooting at them because of Osama bin Laden.

  • by AlHunt (982887) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @09:02PM (#18189212) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, really - there almost ought to be a law against passing any new laws for 30 days after a disaster. Politicians always want to jump n some kind of bandwagon after something like 9/11, pass garbage legislation and then we live with it forever (except in Canada, apparently).
  • by DerangedAlchemist (995856) on Wednesday February 28, 2007 @09:43PM (#18189564)

    "policies that dont work get revoked"

    They don't work? Was there a terrorist act in Canada that the laws failed to prevent?
    No. We prevented the terrorist act without using laws that destroy freedom.
  • by ArcherB (796902) * on Thursday March 01, 2007 @02:20AM (#18191372) Journal
    Let me try on that shiny hat you got on there!

    Again, are you sure he's the only one whose rights were violated ?
    No. Are you sure that this started with the war on terror? Are you absolutely sure that the kids you see on milk cartons are not kidnapped for IRS experiments?

    How could you be sure, if our judicial system is no longer transparent
    What makes you think the judicial system was EVER transparent?

    Do you simply trust the government and 'intelligence data' it receives ?
    Not since I've put on this shiny hat of yours

    They are the same people who either lied about Iraq WMDs or were actually dumb enough to believe in those WMDs - either way they were dead wrong based on 'classified intelligence'.
    OK, let me pull the hat off.
    Since the director of the CIA risked his career on telling the Prez that WMD's in Iraq was a slam dunk, I'd say that they really believed it, which would eliminate the liar angle I hear over and over and over and over again. Since we all know that the Prez and CIA director Tenet sincerely believed that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD's, that kinda makes those that call Bush a liar liars themselves, doesn't it. (I stress stockpiles because we did find WMD's there. But the press ignored it because it wasn't giant warehouses full). As to the being dumb enough to believe in those WMDs, unfortunately, that goes for the world's intelligence services as well.
    The kicker for me, however, was that Bush received a message from Putin saying that Russian intelligence had intel that Iraq was planning to attack the US. Now, less than two years after 9-11, the President is told a sworn enemy of your country that tried to kill a former president, is known (albeit incorrectly) to posses chemical and biological weapons and is not afraid to use them on civilians, is planning to attack your country, do you REALLY want a president that will sit back and do nothing? Do you want a president that will NOT unleash the most powerful military in the world to defend its citizens? Not me.

    But if that's the kind of president Americans want, and it looks like the press has done its damnedest to see that through, then the citizens deserve whatever they get.

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.

Working...