Bill Could Restrict Freedom of the Press 747
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "The Washington Post is carrying an article about a disturbing Senate bill that could make it illegal to publicly disclose even the existence of US domestic spying programs (i.e. NSA wiretaps)." An aide to the bill's author assures us it's not aimed at reporters, but the language is ambiguous at best. From the article: "Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified. 'The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,' said Martin, a civil liberties advocate."
fuck (Score:2, Insightful)
Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
This has to be opposed (Score:3, Insightful)
Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
And the patriot act wasn't aimed at drug enforcement, but that certainly didn't stop it for being used for exactly that purpose.
Coup (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Coup (Score:5, Insightful)
No, just a facist takeover through a manipulated electoralprocess
Re:fuck (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, I can't think of a single (successful) revolution in the past couple hundred years that hasn't involved the military turning against its own government. Excluding France, natch.
More evidence of corruption? (Score:0, Insightful)
Movie about 9/11: WTC building 7 fell in exactly the same way as WTC 1 and 2, and it was NOT hit by an airplane. ALL the collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions. Loose Change [google.com].
Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony of the NRA is that they continually argue that guns are vitally important to protecting our rights, but they've never used guns to achieve their aims. Instead, they show just how effective writing letters, donating money, and voting on the issues can really be.
If people out there really want to protect our rights, it's really simple, and it doesn't involve threatening to shoot people, shooting people, or getting shot. Just go to the polls this November, and vote against the Republicans, who have been letting Bush trample all over the bill of rights (I'll give you one guess which party the bill's sponsors belong to). If they lose a few seats in the House and Senate, that will keep them from doing quite as much damage, and tell them they need to clean up their act.
Illegal to Complain About Crime?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Talk about stupid. Hopefully the Supreme Court would see fit to nuke this bill from orbit (should the US suffer the misfortune of this insane bill not being stillborn).
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like with your 2nd amendment rights...you may now exercise your 1st amendment right to free speech after the requisite 3-day waiting period from the day you file your application to speak freely.
Don't forget to bring a valid national identification card. Your application for free speech will not be processed without valid ID.
We just want to make sure you have a reasonable cooling off period and won't say anything dangerous to society. We'd also like to make sure that you've had no prior convictions related to saying anything dangerous before granting you permission to speak freely.
We have preserved your rights. Now move along before I arrest you.
Press is not the issue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, Great! Reporters Are Exempted! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Typical (Score:4, Insightful)
The first comment from my friend from Canada, who lives in the US said: "That's it, I'm moving back to Canada."
Re:Typical (Score:3, Insightful)
Spineless Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
If George wants this one, it'll pass too, probably with half of the Democrats voting for it.
Doesn't the last 5 years seem almost surreal? WTF happened to our country?
Re:And if it is amended to include only leakers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note to self: never vote for this guy.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't believe me, I want you to try something for me. Wait until the Democrats get into power and for the post-election BS to wear off. I'll bet you a soda that they'll be pushing the same sorts of laws for the same sorts of reasons.
Re:Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The draft would add to the criminal penalties for anyone who "intentionally discloses information identifying or describing" the Bush administration's terrorist surveillance program or any other eavesdropping program conducted under a 1978 surveillance law. Under the boosted penalties, those found guilty could face fines of up to $1 million, 15 years in jail or both.
Any Senator or Congressman who signs this bill should hang for treason. I am not joking. Signing this bill would be high treason. Full Stop.
It's OK If You Are A Republican (Score:3, Insightful)
Lese-majesty anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like the Patriot Act (Score:5, Insightful)
And the Patriot Act is only used against terrorists.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
the pen is mightier than the sword
I'm not a gun nut, but this makes some sense to me. OTOH, I don't know what chance a handful of civilians with handguns have against a military with long-range missiles, tear gas, sonic weapons, etc. I guess if you'd really rather be dead than have your freedom taken away, though, go for it.
Then it's even worse. (Score:4, Insightful)
I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Ring a bell? It bloody well should, unless you're a big fan of Franco, Mussolini, and Stalin.
If any of our countrymen's freedoms are being taken away, whether we agree or disagree with them and their views, we are all poorer and less free for it. Silencing dissent weakens the commonwealth by encouraging ignorance and mindless assent. It is time to take a stand, and not budge one micron until the traitors who propose this have been excised from the fabric of the legislature.
The innocent have nothing to fear... (Score:5, Insightful)
So either the "innocent people have nothing to fear" argument is flawed for the surveillance program, or the US president is far from innocent...
Re:fuck (Score:2, Insightful)
Why you let the citizens arm (Score:5, Insightful)
First, bad guys will arm themselves like it not. Making arms illegal hampers their ability to arm, but they will always find their ways. Honest citizens who do not break the law on the other hand, and so when firearms are made illegal it leaves the criminals armed and the honest citizens unarmed. This is hardly an ideal state of affairs.
Second, allowing your citizenry to arm prevents the police from holding a monopoly on force. A citizen should not have to wait for the police to show up to save them if a criminal is breaking into their house or threatening to harm them. A citizen should have the means to defend themselves, and the truth is that a firearm is pretty much it when it comes to self defense. Only a gun is going to allow a 100 pound woman be able to fight off a 200 pound man. Certainly not all citizens will choose to arm themselves, and this is of course fine, but if someone feels that their life is in danger and they do not trust the police protect them, they should have the option of defending themselves. Banning firearms is in affect telling your citizens that they can not defend themselves against criminals in any other manner then waiting for the police to show up.
As far as revolution and the like, an armed citizenry is a populace that can inspire a little fear in politicians. In this day and age that means almost nothing because, as much as we like to bitch, our government is pretty evenhanded and fair. Most people have the things that they need to survive (and then some) and the thought of 'revolution' in the violent sense of the word is about as far from anyone's mind as you can imagine. We still have plenty of political options sitting around that we have yet to use to change things if we really want to. When the constitution was being framed this really was not true. The threat of an outside force conquering the country or even an internal force mucking things up was real. It certainly could be a real threat again in the not-so-foreseeable future.
I consider the need for revolution remote and really don't weight it much in the gun issue. The simple right to self defense is a far more important issue to me then the need for the tools of an unlikely revolution. But, as the grand parent poster pointed out in his own lovable red neck NRA fan way, it isn't a bad thing to keep a few guns around... just in case.
Re:Yeah whatever (Score:1, Insightful)
And yes, this bill would be targetted at the press or giving any info to them.
Believe this at your peril (Score:5, Insightful)
It is convenient for people to have you think that the press is free, because it is convenient for you to be suitably mislead.
The press is being lead around by the nose. Remember folks that these days the press (and other reporting media) are not primary there to bring you the truth. They are there to provide infotainment to piull in the advertising revenue etc. Need nice snappy "news" to compete against all those other things trying to get a slice of your time. So what happens? Reporters that don't play the game soon get blacklisted. Nothing openly stated. Just a few extra minutes delay in returning your call (so your story gets scooped) or instead of being embedded with frontline troops giving scenic footage of night rocket attacks you get embedded in the crew washing trucks down at the transport park (makes for real high viewer rating footage!).
Re:And if it is amended to include only leakers? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are already laws on the books regarding disclosure of classified information. Opposing this new law cannot plasuaibly be interpreted as a call to repeal them.
Until someone's convinced me that further activities need to be criminalised, I will be opposed to that additional criminalisation. Seems like common sense to me.
Re:More evidence of corruption? (Score:1, Insightful)
You think the people that built those towers didn't plan ahead for potential plane crash at all? Sure, the building materials could have been improved to protect against the burning fuel but that would have driven costs through the roof for buildings of that size, and not to mention I doubt many materials would remain strong while being heated to such high temperatures like that.
I'm not a construction worker or anything, but this is how I see it.
Any other time I would wonder if it was April 1st (Score:3, Insightful)
Under President George Sr., Yeah This is a bad joke
Under President Clinton, Yeah this is a bad joke
Under Emporeror Bush, this fucking scares me.
A fitting quote from Sid Myer's Alpha Centaury
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." -- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Librarian's Preface"
Re:What they always say (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How about a proposing a bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Orwell is spinning in his grave. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. We are always at war. We live in constant fear of terror attacks.
The dystopian future I studied in high school is coming true. He erred only by two decades.
Re:In about a year from now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few differences in capabilities. The US has high-tech weapons, whereas the middle-east has oil.
Re:Welcome... (Score:2, Insightful)
How about: In United States, only old people had freedom.
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:4, Insightful)
What you are saying is very fine in theory, but there are a few issues:
Just look at that neighbour you hate. Do you really want him to carry a gun? The only thing more dangerous than an idiot is an idiot with a gun.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case we are all in trouble. The media has long abandoned any sense of purpose or duty. It's now completely sycophantic to the politicians. Often it's just acting as a PR arm of a political party.
Radio led the way but now all media does very little besides amplifying whatever talking points come out of the politicians.
It's all over but the shouting now.
Re:Bah, I have an idea for a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at how the republican judges in the supreme court betrayed all their principles of states rights in the florida election. They even wrote in the decision that this case can never be used for precedent because they don't want it thrown back in their face.
I have no faith in the court system anymore. It's just another partisan branch of the govt now. I can predict with greater then 99% accuracy how the supremes will vote on any issue. They all simply vote their party platform.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:4, Insightful)
They can eat the cake, but they'll no longer have it.
Re:Publish in other countriies .... (Score:2, Insightful)
However if an american comits a crime against the uk then your pretty safe the american senate blocked the pact on the off chance we might want to prosecute the irish terrorists hiding over there.
I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then... 2004. Having been lumbered with that idiot for a president, with his cabal of fascist hangers-on pulling the strings, and having seen the horrors they perpetrated together on America, and on America's global standing, and on the world in general, what did the American people do?
They voted him in. For real this time. No question about it, Bush won that election. They looked at the record of Bush's first term and said 'Yes. This is what we want from our Presidents. We like Bush and approve of what he has done, and want four more years of the same.'
At which point you can't blame a corrupt fascist takeover. The fascists sneaked into office via a very dodgy election, but you had the chance to get them out. But you endorsed them and voted them in again with an authentic mandate.
It's your own stupid fault now. And the world knows it. What America does now, the ordinary American people can be directly and personally blamed for.
Re:Coup (Score:3, Insightful)
It's laughable to hear Americans such as yourself beating your chest over the superiority of your so-called 'democracy', completely oblivious to the fact that your 2000 elections were anything but democratic - even by the embarassingly lapse standards your constitution calls for.
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're being invaded? If so, where are the front lines? I'll be going there right after I go to the gun store to arm myself. Surely there are volunteer units being formed, and they may not have enough extra guns/ammo for everyone.
What's that you say? The front lines are in another country? And it doesn't border us, nor does it have the capability to project an invasion force (or, indeed, any military force at all) to this side of the world? And we already destroyed its military anyway? So, all these threats to our nation are of a criminal rather than a military nature?
Huh. When you said that the President has special powers in time of invasion, I thought you mean when we're being invaded, or at least when an enemy of ours is doing some kind of invading. I had no idea that this applies when our side is the only one invading other countries. How strange.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure we know about it now. That's done a lot. Perhaps we can use those Diebold voting machines, or try to vote in Florida where they deliberately send people away that statistically will vote for the opposition.
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Then it's even worse. (Score:3, Insightful)
There must have been a large turnout of fans for those people in this article [slashdot.org] because many people actually supported the restriction of speech outlined in the article.
I wonder if those same people will turn up in this thread to defend this bill.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget that the military personnel have all taken an oath to defend the US Constitution. If ordered to fire on American civilians, many of them will refuse.
I guess you don't remember the ruckus that was raised when the Clinton administration gave a survey to Marines asking if they'd be willing to fire upon American civilians in order to enforce gun control laws. Long story short, 75% of them said no. It's kind of alarming that 25% said yes.
LK
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at Iraq. It seems that, if they really want it, the handful of civilians have a reasonable chance.
Re:Anybody up for thoughtcrime today? Thought so (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Press is not the issue... (Score:1, Insightful)
the rights that americans have only do them good if they are educated.
giving someone the right to vote means nothing if he/she does not know what is going on in washington.
and what percentage of americans read forein news? like it or not we need the corporate media to get information to the mob. because as history has proven.. the 2004 elections have proven... he who controls the mob, controls the country.
Re:Press is not the issue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
They've [feddies] already tried to subvert public protests in the 50s through 70s remember?
Recent governments have already enabled things like the Patriot Act and the DMCA which are blatantly illegal. Make your time.
Tom
Re:fuck (Score:2, Insightful)
It takes more then focusing on just Math, Reading and Football to make someone a good citizen. It takes a small understanding of the laws that founded this nation, coupled with a well-rounded education that explores, at least lightly, all human endeavors.
Not aimed at reporters (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Coup (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush is only the latest in a long, long line of power-hungry crooks. The problem runs much, much deeper than simply "the wrong person holds power". Ready for this? The problem is power itself.
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
if the US were invaded, the civilians fighting against the occupiers would be terrorists. they would organise and form networks, if that's your distinguishing point.
causing pain is always wrong.
Re:Typical (Score:1, Insightful)
I tried. It didn't work. Next suggestion?
Never mind, I already found my solution. I'm moving out of the country as soon as I get my act together. No offense, but I've decided that life is way too short to spend worrying about how to "improve" government, or even if it's possible to improve government. I've got more important things to worry about.
Re:Really, what good would a GUN do? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to the students at Kent State....
B.
Re:fuck (Score:1, Insightful)
sigh... I remember thinking that's what this country was all about. I haven't felt that way in several years, and no, it had nothing to do with terrorists. The terrorists didn't turn into our president, or for that matter congressmen (or have they?). Last I checked, they were the ones infringing on my freedoms in order to gain control/power (remember, we are talking about those that love both).
More importantly... (Score:5, Insightful)
And in the Middle East they have plenty of people who are willing - and indeed eager - to die for what they believe in. In the US they have people who are willing - and indeed eager - to give up everything they believe in to avoid the risk of dying.
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
"1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are mani
Re:I used to think that. (Score:4, Insightful)
All I'm saying is that the post I'm responding to is one-sided and more beligerent than insightful. Although I disagree with the Bush's treatment of civil rights and his foreign policy, there were also other factors acting on people during the 2004 election. Perhaps if the Democratic - or any other - party would produce a good candidate, American's would have a better option than "choosing the lesser evil". And what you call "the lesser evil" is different for everyone anyway.
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:5, Insightful)
All other ancillary benefits, such as an ability to hunt or protect one's self from crime is incidental to the real reason, to overthrow tyrants. If you research quotes from our forefathers and various influential persons from our country's history, you'll see that their attitudes bear this out.
Re:I used to think that. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will never fly... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps I can make up for my error by adding something not flat-out wrong to the discussion. There are three conditions that need to be met for a Bush's use of this power to be constitutional today. Whether we are indeed being invaded is a condition already being discussed. Whether the public Safety requires it certainly depends on whom you ask, but is probably the least attackable condition. The last condition is a subtle one: that habeas corpus can be only suspended. If the "War on Terror" does classify as an invasion, one which will likely last for hundreds, or thousands, of years (how do we eradicate evil?), how do we differentiate between constitutional suspensions of habeas corpus, which must be temporary, and unconstitutonal permanent debarments?
Re:Typical (Score:2, Insightful)
We'll have to wait and see if Stephen Harper's years of Bush lapdogging were just opposition hype talk... otherwise, we might start closing the gap.
Re:Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a "lesser of two evils" issue, because any evil is too much. It's a "Freedom is good, this bill is evil" issue.
Re:Checks and Balances (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really, what good would a GUN do? (Score:3, Insightful)
40 years ago some idiots did some stupid stuff. BFD.
If you voted republican.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
I only wished it were that easy..both parties have done and will do grievous harm to citizens' rights and freedoms.
History shows that Democrats have been about equally as bad as Republicans about "bending" the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I'm old enough to remember some of the things that *both* parties have pulled off, or attempted to pull off regarding freedom.
I'm sure that's one reason the schools in the U.S. have been allowed to degrade into a giant daycare system. If the populace never learns the history, then there's no need for those in power to think up new ways to subjugate people. Just let apathy and ignorance do all the work for them.
Until some sort of major changes are made to increase politicians' and judges' accountability and decrease the opportunities for graft and power-brokering, I don't see this trend toward a controlled populace stopping, sadly.
Strat
Re:fuck (Score:1, Insightful)
1) not funded or trained by any recognized government or nation. So that whole bullshit about "state-sponsored" terrorism is an oxymoron.
2) having a publically stated political or social reform agenda.
3) carry out acts intended to instill fear and panic in the civilian population.
Fighting back against invasion (whether in the US or in Iraq) is NOT terrorism! Call it an insurgency, call it guerrilla warfare, call it "Shirley" for all I care, but if you are going to start using words that actually mean something, check their definitions first. On a related topic, the men who hijacked the planes and flew them into the buildings on September 11, 2001 were not cowards. Misguided, sure. Evil, maybe. Anti-American, yep. But it takes balls to walk into your own death. I'm not sure I would have the guts to do what they did. So bash them all you want for being evil, etc. but you just come off looking ignorant and foolish when you call them cowards. Cowardice is sending a robot to launch a missle from 3000 miles away...
-Will
Re:How about a proposing a bill (Score:3, Insightful)
broken promises (Score:5, Insightful)
So did the President.
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly a good idea. Applies to any piece of machinery - gun, chain saw, car.
And know how to handle it in a crisis situation. Remember that the bad guy probably knows how to handle a gun better than the victim, and will assume that the victim is armed.
You're right, everyone should give up now. Actually, I'd probably put odds at 50/50 as to who was beter at weapon handling - quite a large percentage of people who carry firearms have either training or a good bit of experience. I also doubt most attackers assume the victim is armed - not in this day and age.
# Most people killed by gunfire (in the U.S.) are done so in domestic disputes. It is a fact: You are more likely to get shot by someone you know than by a burglar/thief/other criminal.
If by domestic disputes, you mean an altercation in the United States, you're probably right. Other than that, I think you're misusing the phrase. I also don't see what your point is - except that you're likely a prohibitionist hoping for a false sense of security via a few useless laws that take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Re:Bah, I have an idea for a law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
An armed populace helps to shift the balance somewhat if you have e.g. a democratically minded populance and an oppressive government. If you have a populace which is ok with being oppressed and supports the government, it's not paritcularly interesting whether they agree with the government armed or unarmed.
Unless you can convince people that the government is wrong, you won't have a chance of changing the government's actions. Currently, if you were to manage to convince people, it would be easy just to vote other politicians into office. However if you fail even with that you better don't put too much hope on a few handguns.
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
After, the military is used in most countries to repress its own citizens.
Consider that 55 million people voted for Bush's policies. It wouldn't be hard to get a bunch of them to join a Gestapo or the military to suppress the rest. Just read the posts here and elsewhere sometime. Most of these morons are wannabe fascists.
The entire issue boils down to: can you get at least five percent of the population ready to either take up arms against the government or support those who do?
In this country - no way, Jose.
But you could easily get five percent to become Gestapo here.
Re:i.e. vs. e.g. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be straightforward to simply use "f.e." for "for example"?
Re:fuck (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. One Democrat voted against the Patriot Act. Of course, the Democrats' excuse was that they didn't read it first and, gosh, who can fault them for that? Three years later, FOUR Democrats voted against the Patriot Act renewal. Vive le difference! Vive la revolution!
Yup, yup, yup. Savage little wild cats like that, the Democrats are real Tom Paines and will bring the Bush regime to their knees and restore our democratic republic to its constitutional foundation toot sweet. You just watch those babies work when the Diebold machines give them their chance.
Re:Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sense and Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
The irony of the NRA is that they continually argue that guns are vitally important to protecting our rights, but they've never used guns to achieve their aims. Instead, they show just how effective writing letters, donating money, and voting on the issues can really be.
This is one of the sanest most sensible comments I've ever seen on any forum.
As the poster says, voting makes a difference. It makes a difference at EVERY LEVEL of government. That means it's important that you know who you are really voting for in your local elections, your state elections, and the national elections. Don't just pull the party lever.
To be fair, it's also important to realize that not all Republicans are determined to destroy the Bill of Rights and not all Democrats are buddies with the ACLU. We need to pay careful attention to the record of anyone who asks for our vote. If they don't have a record, we better find out who their friends and supporters are.
Of course, if we allow bills like the one proposed to sail through the Congress unopposed, we'll send the message that none of us care about our rights. We're just terrified that we'll hear about the dirty stuff our President is doing in the name of keeping us safe. Eventually, Bush and his minions will find a way to shut down all opposition.
Believe it or not, you and your vote are the only way to stop this. I'm probably messing up the quote, but someone once said that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing. Protecting our rights is not the responsibility of politicians, or the ACLU, it's our responsibility. If we don't do it, we deserve to lose them.
Re:Eventually... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, I'm pretty sure at least 49% of us didn't
Re:This will never fly... (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll use the ol' copyright trick. Keep extending the deadline each time it's about to expire. But it always has a limit yes? See, temporary. See also the PATRIOT act.
Re:fuck (Score:1, Insightful)
I guess you don't remember the ruckus that was raised when the Clinton administration gave a survey to Marines asking if they'd be willing to fire upon American civilians in order to enforce gun control laws. Long story short, 75% of them said no. It's kind of alarming that 25% said yes.
Now ask them if they'd be willing to fire upon a crowd of American civilians that are waving guns around shouting about taking control of the government. My guess is that such a crowd will stop looking like defenders of the constition and start looking like targets very quickly. Those that survive wouldn't even get a trial, they'd be "enemy combatants".
It's all very well asking marines abstract questions like "would you fire on people who like the constitution", but put them in a real-life situation where there's just people with guns, and their training will kick in.
Slow down here (Score:4, Insightful)
This article might be reactionary, but there's not enough information to tell. I'll wait until the actual text is available before making a judgement.
Re:Really, what good would a GUN do? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
51% of them did. Us remaining 49% don't like your sweeping generalization.
-Eric
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we were watching different elections. 2004 seemed largely a referendum on whether gays should be allowed to marry, based on the exit polls they showed on TV.
From where I watch (Canada,) a large number of voters in the US seem to be single-issue voters; voting for the candidate who agrees with their view on:
Also remember, although the people in office may change every few years, the lobbyists don't.
Re:I used to think that. (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe it is not they who are blind?
My thoughts had always been much more inline with the parent poster and yourself than G.W and his croonies.
However, after the 2004 election, I began to wonder why so many people would vote him back in. I decided to try to be as honest as I could, and attempt a real non-partisan evaluation of the state of the world.
I took a hard cold look around at the rest of the world and all the strife. SEVERE conflict on every continent(most self-imposed). People of many different ethnicities chanting in the streets to bring down Amercia. Some of them even act on their beliefs, imagine. Burning our flags, celebrating when one of us dies. Even looking at past Olympics to see the world celebrating when we lose ANY event. We push global agendas, affecting every corner of the world. Natually, every decision we make pisses someone off. Even our allies are less and less willing to defend us and our actions. The truth in Iraq is that noone(excusing the Bathists) was really sad to see Sadaam go, but noone is going to say that, too hot of an issue, too political. A Non-muslim country meddling in the affairs of a muslim one, thats what the press latched onto. Thats what the world heard. Right or wrong, it is the case.
The world looks to America when there are problems. We are supposed to solve all their issues. Israel vs. Palestine, America is blamed. Drug pushing nazi's in afganistan blow up 3000+ U.S. citizens, we respond, and the U.S. is attacked for harsh treatment of prisoners. America trys to get countries to adopt tough regulations on fishing, in an effort to maintain world fish populations, and we are labeled as stealing from the poor.
Even when we decide to stay out of a conflict, and ask the locals to take on the responsibility, Darfour for example, the U.S. gets blamed for "not doing enough". I mean, look at the Tsunami and the earthquake in Iran. What country gave the most support for each of these disasters? The U.S. by an order of magnitude. But what was the result of that generosity? Nothing except more hate. There were people stating such insanity that they rather have died than have th U.S. help them.
Now I'm not saying whether or not we "made our own bed", the U.S. is not innocent. We have made many mistakes. But mistakes come with the territory of being a decision maker. The problem is, noone cares about all the good we try to do, they only see the bad we did to them. For whatever reasons(and there are many) we are no longer admired in the world, we are either truly hated or we are envied. So where does this leave us?
two truisms seem to ring out:
"You can never please everyone", and perhaps more importantly, "Everyone hates a winner"
Either way America moves on any issue, more enemies or, a different way to look at it, fewer friends.
Finally making this realization was like driving into a brick wall @ 100kph. We cannot be both strong and popular regardless of motive.
Real Change is Possible (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, we could all buy into the fearmongering and insist that our leaders take our rights away for our own good. Then we'll have what you describe: two parties that are convinced that doing the right thing is the fasted way to defeat.
Terrorists (Score:3, Insightful)
By way of analogy, consider the US war of independence. For the most part (at least at the outset), Americans were a resistance army (later they were uniformed and all that, and so were just a plain old military). There were instances of terrorism, in which over-zealous revolutionaries murdered empire loyalists. But those are separate kinds of things. Interestingly, Canada's only hereditary title is "United Empire Loyalist", which means that one of your ancestors fled from the US to Canada during the war of independence. It's generally considered unwise to put that title on your business cards when visiting the States though.... :P
Re:Why you let the citizens arm (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it is. Unfortunately, there are so many people who do not.
I'll just have to disagree with you on this one, then.
Since I couldn't find "altercation" in the dictionary, I'm unable to argue this point.
Well, duh. Besides, I live in Sweden, so I guess it comes with the upbringing and territory. But having basic military training, I know how to handle a gun correctly. I also know how easy it is to not handle a gun correctly. Just looking at the people populating the firing ranges here makes me glad we have tight gun control.
No, it's the guns that give a false sense of security. But of course you are free to keep on fooling yourself.
And yeah, I'm Swedish so I don't really have to care, but I lived in Michigan for a while.
Re:Clear violation of first amendment? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:broken promises (Score:5, Insightful)
So did the President.
Yes, but the President is only one man. It is much easier for one man to become corrupt than a few hundred thousand. Not impossible of course, but much less likely. Especially considering the freedom of the society we have now, and have had in the past. For those freedoms to degenerate and eventually be lost leaving a tyrannical government where there was once a democratic republic, and for a few hundred thousand military personnel to support the tryanny, would probably require a recruitment program that actively searched for corruptible, or stupid, people interested only in power and wealth. Good luck keeping that one a secret.
As frightening as the ideas in Orwell's "1984" are, I don't think the scenario is realistic. There are too many people who are too aware of and attached to their freedoms to let things slide quite that far. I'd bet even the most gun-shy Democrat would be willing to pick up a gun if it came to that, regardless of whether they thought it should be legal in times of peace and stability. Under a tyranny, all bets are off. A tyranny doesn't the citizenry, even if they are trustworthy, so why bother trying to follow their laws?
I'm not too worried about the U.S. government decaying into tyranny. I am worried, however, that the U.S. could lose our global position and end up back where we were in the late 1800's... That is, hardly a force to be reckoned with, either militarily or economically.
Re:Typical (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fuck (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible to defeat an army with only a handful of people. It's extremely messy but possible.
Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
No government should ever be able to disrupt certain laws. The wise laws, the laws that took hundreds of guys months to create. I think those things supercede some sniveling senator with an agenda, or some other jackass who just has to get their little word in there. Because god knows, they are much smarter then some 100 year old dead guy, right?
Re:I used to think that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not, too easy to spot. What you want to do (if at all possible) is to alter some non-Bush votes into Bush votes after they've been cast via whatever means necessary - saves embarrassing problems with the numbers not adding up. (Alternatively, you can create some new voters and disenfranchise existing ones likely to vote for your opposition, but that's a lot more risky.)
I will also say that there was some gross negligence on the part of the boards of election and our good friend Ken Blackwell. There was a reason precincts that voted Democratic had less voting machines.
s/gross negligence/deliberate sabotage/ - I mean, which do you think is more likely?
Re:I used to think that. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like it, then it's your responsibility to change it, not mine. And as long as your government continues on the path it's been then I'll keep saying what I feel needs to be said.
Re:I used to think that. (Score:3, Insightful)
They looked at the record of Bush's first term and said 'Yes. This is what we want from our Presidents.
I think we were watching different elections. 2004 seemed largely a referendum on whether gays should be allowed to marry, based on the exit polls they showed on TV.
I think it's a far more damning indictment of (51% of) Americans that they think stopping gays from marrying is more important than:
- preserving their constitution
- ending an endless, pointless, bankrupting war
- halting a perpetual state of terror
"Yup, our country's broke, the world hates us - especially them arabs, we no longer have any civil rights, but hey! At least them filthy homersexuals can't be married!"
That is how it looked sitting up here in Canada.
Then again, I suppose those voting against gay marriage have made it pretty clear they don't want civil rights to exist, anyway...
Re:Really, what good would a GUN do? (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear that it took World War I to top the American Civil War's body count. I also hear that it took Nazis and Soviets massacreing each other on the Eastern Front to top the American Civil War in terms of percentage of the population killed. Whether or not what I hear is true, however, doesn't change the fact that it was easily one of the bloodiest wars in human history.
Is there any reason why you believe that we're so different now that such a domestic conflict won't last more than half a decade and leave millions dead?
The United States has a very militaristic culture, moreso now than we were in 1861; it's why we're the last remaining superpower to begin with. Any sort of domestic violence in today's society will not be pretty.
Re:I used to think that. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clinton vs Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh wait
Re:broken promises (Score:1, Insightful)
However, Weimar Germany was a very different place from 20th-century America.
That's unimportant. As Milgram and subsequent psychologists have shown, the obedience to authority is a human trait, not a social trait. There was nothing special about the German soliders' obedience; American, British, Australian, etc soldiers would act in much the same way.
Re:Believe this at your peril (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. I find this view overly paranoid and pessimistic. Although there are plenty of news organizations around that seem to produce nothing more than gossip, infotainment, one-sided news and even misleading press -- not just because they're often too commercially oriented, but also because of who owns them (like Rupert Murdoch) -- luckily there are always others that do attempt to speak the truth. Our task as citizens is to decided which sources to trust. It's always been like to to some degree or another.
The problem now is that it may soon actually become illegal for journalists to reveal certain truths about the government, such as if our rights are being trampled on by the government. If this bill becomes law, it would suddenly become that much harder to discover the truth about the government. America would no longer have a truly free press.
The Soviet States of America indeed.
Re:fuck (Score:1, Insightful)
See Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Unfortunately, it's generally harder to get the groundswell opposition to a regime if it's self-imposed, as opposed to an invading foreign nation. Witness the almost complete lack of armed resistance to Saddam, Mau, Stalin, etc. within their own country. Sadly, I think that the same people who believe guns are necessary for freedom also fall into the dictatorship is good if the leader is good camp...
Re:They're not all accurate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well technically they weren't, they were very Socialist and totalitarian and they actively discouraged private ownership of capital as well as religion. They were theoretically pro labor while Fascist regimes are anti labor and pro business. In practice they weren't very pro labor, they were pro party elite which did create a Fascist tinge. Worker centric states have never really come in to existence.
Fascist states are usually Capitalist economies, and very pro plutocracy. The just aren't really free market either because the government heavily intervenes whenever it suits them and in particular when they see the opportunity to enrich party members using the state's power and wealth.
Russia and China didn't really start their race to Fascism until the era of Yelsin or really Putin, and in China in the last 20-30 years when they abandoned state ownership and allowed private ownership of Capital. As is typical in Fascist states party members grabbed the lion's share of the assets and wealth and became rich overnight with government and party backing. Most big Chinese companies are run or have huge stakes owned by favored party members which is a classic sign of a Fascist state.
This free market economy with massive government intervention to benefit party member's wealth is a leading indicator of the fact the U.S. is turning very Fascist as well.
"8. Religion and Government are Intertwined "
I would say this is a pretty simplistic assertion. But Stalin and Mao actively suppressed religion which is an indicator of a Socialist totalitarian state, and usually not a Fascist one. Fascist states tend to use religion as a means for controlling and manipulating people because it works really well, especially when you play a dominant religion against minorities. Religious bigotry and hatred is one of the most powerful forms of bigotry and hatred. Socialist/Communist states just use different means to accomplish the same ends, propaganda and personality cults, jailing people for unorthodox thought and aggressively controlling what people think using non religious tactics but which achieve the same end.
Use of religion to control people isn't really special to Fascism anyway. Religions are designed to control and manipulate people, in large numbers, by their very nature so all sorts social systems exploit them to that end.
China is kind of an anomaly on the Fascism and Religion fronts perhaps due to their rapid stealth transition to Fascism in the last couple decades. They don't really use religion as a tool for controlling people at all. They are using a mix of old and new tools, propaganda and censorship, mixed with greed.
A bottomline is liberal participatory Democracies are in fact a rare and endangered species. Most political systems gravitate to abuse, where the people who acquire power use it and abuse it to enrich and empower themselves. The old axiom of power corrupting is very true. For a government to not land in various forms of totalitarianism they need to be carefully and aggressively structured to minimize the power and wealth of political leaders and then you need a bunch of people to get in to political positions who are idealists who focus on the common good. This is rare indeed. Most people who reach high political positions are there for the power and wealth they can garner for themselves and their affluent friends.
America's founding fathers made a noble effort to structure a government that would be a liberal representative Democracy but it appears they did in fact fail and this is no more evident than it is today.