House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping 733
inKubus writes to mention an AP article about the approval of a warrantless wiretapping bill by the house. The legislation's goal would be to legitimize the wiretapping program President Bush previously authorized, with a few new restrictions. Despite this victory for the President, "Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections. The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.'"
Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. This isn't about terrorists, it's about my privacy and my rights as an American. The true test is whether or not our leaders are competent enough to defeat terrorism without destroying the laws and rights that made this country great.
Offering other means to fight terrorists is not 'coddling' them. And voting 'yes' just for the sake of being able to vote 'yes' would be an even larger problem. My message to congress: engage brain before voting. I would rather have everything scrutinized than making progress for the sake of making progress. When you gather 100 people from different parts of the country together, there's bound to be more than a few that have reasons not to vote 'yes' or 'no.' That's called Democracy and that's how it's supposed to work.
What is it with Republicans and their extreme views? The world isn't black and white. You can't tell me that by fearing for my civil rights I'm less able to combat terrorism. And what the hell is up with this tunnel vision of one and only one option on nearly every issue? Stop being selective about revealing consequences! This might help you fight terrorism but it's also going to give you powers that the wrong government officials could abuse! You cannot deny this so stop sidestepping it.
So what are you going to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am very glad that many Americans today are seeing the core problems. But what's needed is Americans who will protest. Americans who will take a real stand against the wrongs they see committed in their names. Are you one of those Americans?
What I've Done (Score:4, Interesting)
I did that because it's what I'm supposed to do. This is how it's supposed to work. I feel a bit more satisfied but I still fear for my country. I urge each and everyone of you who are American citizens to do the same, whether you're for or against this bill.
Which one do I have the most faith in? My fellow citizens.
The rest could be hit by a bus and I wouldn't really care.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I find this incredibly insensitive. Do you have any idea what hitting that many people would do to a bus?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Give me a sec man, it takes time to fill the molotov cocktails.
Re:So what are you going to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's got to get much worse before that will happen. Sad to say.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what are you going to do? (Score:4, Insightful)
But what I saw on the news in France some months ago when the government wanted to take job security away from kids in their 20s was that old people, young people, men, women, farmers, merchants, office workers and students went on STRIKE and clogged the streets until the government backed down. The French _people_ stood up to the government, for real, in disruptive ways that immediately affected the economy.
Americans apparently don't give a rat's ass about habeus corpus, torture and the constitution, especially if it'll take time away from American Idol and the World's Series -- so screw them. I mean if the president lobbying congress for the right to torture Americans isn't enough to get their fat asses out in the streets for real America will get the dictator it deserves and many are stupid enough to think they want. Freedom in America is a truck commercial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a republican, this kind of crap pisses me off. These people clearly do not understand the basic principles of a republican take on government - they are interested in power, and give people like me a bad name. I believe in small government, and the maximization of freedoms as an individual, and increasing the amount of power the people have over the government, not the revers
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Interesting)
Amen to that. The question is, how do we take our country back from these yahoos?
I mean, I'm all for voting out the particular yahoos who decided this was a good idea and are telling me the government needs to spy on me without due process for my own safety. No question about that. But does that really effect long-term change in government and how it does things?
Voting for a third party is in the short term throwing your vote away. Is there any way for America as a country to get to a place where it wouldn't be? Is there a better way to bring about reform?
I love this country, but it kills me to see where it's going and what it's doing. There's got to be a way to fix it, but I don't know what that would be.
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
They've made it look that way so NOBODY ELSE does it either for the same reason.
There's quite a few people that aren't really very happy about any of this, but they don't see
any way to fight it (You can't fight City Hall, the State, or the US Government...)
Either you're willing to "throw your vote away" and show people that they can too- or you'll
need to resort to stronger measures. I don't at all advocate the latter, but it's really your
only option if you're not going to vote in the manner your conscience tells you to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would suggest that a better way to throw your vote away is to register for the incumbent party, make a point voting in the primaries. Far too many folks still think of a primary as a non-event, and yet complain that they don't have a g
voting reform (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I can think of. The Duopoly has no desire for reform - the current system works just fine for their interests. Alternate systems such as Condorcet voting [wikipedia.org] offer honest chances to all candidates, forcing them to compete on the strength of their platforms and ideals. To get someone in who wants reform, you have to work within the current system to elect someone outside the Duopoly. But the current system is unlikely to get that person without reform. It's catch-22 - but you'll never get anything if you don't try! Vote for any [constitutionparty.org] party [lp.org] that promises to shrink the size and scope of government and remove power from the gov't to restore it to the people. You may not agree with them 100%, but if the goal is to shrink gov't, they'll have less ability to do those things that you disagree with.
And isn't that the whole point?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Get elected on promises to shrink government.
2. Lie us into war.
3. Expand government like nobody else has before.
4. Blame the expansion on the war.
5. PROFIT!!!
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Interesting)
Before doing that, I suggest you go talk to the nearest rookie representative. You will discover that being a Congress Critter is not so easy.
Actually it is somewhat soul destroying. Idealism burns out very quickly once you figure out that you can't change anything without compromising.
Needless to say, I've talked with a rookie Congressman and have no urge to go into politics.
Why do you think that the Republicans, who are in the majority, are still complelled to call the Democrats "defeatocrats," "obstructionists," or "the party of cut and run"? Hint: it creates a situation where it is easier to force a favorable (R) compromise
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
there's a popular saying amongst the anarchists: "if voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal".
the indoctrination and pressure to conform to the status quo that is applied to elected representatives is very real and goes a long way towards homogonizing government. does that mean you should not vote or run for office? no. but you probably shouldn't think that this vote or that candidate is some sort of magic bullet that will solve the nation's problems.
a better, more lasting solution is to work on building a political culture that respects individual liberties and privacy. hate unauthorized surveillance? encrypt as much as possible, even if you have nothing to hide. heck, especially if you have nothing to hide, lest privacy becomes a defacto admission of guilt. remember that, ultimately, the sate cannot enact any policy without at least the complicity of the people.
somewhere along the way 'democracy' became little more than a multiple choice test once every four years. it should be an essay exam. every day.
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
>the republicans control everything and don't need to comprimise.
The smart ones can recognize the fact that all this power that has been asserted by the executive branch,
will sooner or later be handed over wholesale to an incoming administration with differing partisanship.
Any Bush supporter should carefully consider any authority ascribed to Bush, by thinking about whether they would appreciate a member of the opposition party weilding the same authority. For example, "warrantless wiretapping" -- do Bush supporters of today really want to give "warrantless wiretapping" authority to a liberal democrat president? Really? Because any power you grant to this administration, sooner or later gets handed over to someone else who may abuse it in different ways from the ones they embrace.
Republicans? No Fascists. (Score:3, Interesting)
Voting the rascals out only gives you a new set of rascals any more. And they are setting things up so that you can no longer take to the streets. This is an example of "death by 1000 cuts", only it's our civil liberties that they are cutting.
Go ahead, mark me as a troll or ignore me. But if you don't stand up now, tomorrow will
Re:Republicans? No Fascists. (Score:5, Interesting)
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt
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 fas
Try these ideas on for size (Score:3, Informative)
Feel powerless?
Vote 3rd Party (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting for anyone you don't believe is the best candidate is throwing your vote away.
Voting as if it's a sporting event in which you "win" if you bet on the right candidate, is throwing your vote away. You don't win - you lose because you supported someone you don't approve of, and now they're going to govern you in ways you don't like. Loser!
Your one vote has very little statistical significance - but when you vote for a 3rd party that gets 1/10th as many votes as the major parties, your vote has 10 times the impact.
Voting for a 3rd party sends a message to both major parties that you are fed up with both of them, and that you aren't going to fall for the "throwing your vote away" lie any more. That's the only message they truly fear. If 20% voted for a 3rd party, one or both other parties would try to change to win back those votes.
Millions of people believing the lie that voting 3rd party is throwing away their vote, is how we got where we are today. So tell me - aren't you glad you didn't "throw your vote away"? Aren't you happy that you supported the current situation, either by voting Republican, or be contributing to the idea that others who voted Republican would have been throwing their votes away by voting 3rd party?
Sure it's horrible to have one party dominate both houses and the executive branch. But hoping that Gridlock will save you is a loser's game - gridlock just slows down the rate at which you lose. Your only chance to improve things is to vote your conscience, and encourage others to follow your example.
Re:Campaing finance reform + voting reform (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a simple reform - get rid of political ads on TV. It's long been established that broadcast media isn't as protected as print or speech - hence the lack of boobies on TV. The vast majority (or at least plurality) of campaigning budgets goes to TV ads. Most campaign finance reform goes after the supply - limiting how much donors can donate. That, to me, is a recipe for corrupt end runs around the law. This reform, on the other hand, would go after the demand side. Donors could give as much as they want - or at least as much as they can under the current rules - but the politicians wouldn't need them as much. That hopefully would mean that they would be more willing to represent the people, not the corporations. It would also even out the playing field for grassroots candidates, who have popularity but no war chest - the difference in funds wouldn't make as big of a difference on election day.
The problem with this reform is that you would need an act of congress - I don't see the FCC doing this on their own initiative.
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now it's to the point where congress has really lost any control of the executive branch. The president is doing things that clearly contradict the law, and will continue to do so. Congress can pass any sort of restrictions on his power that they want, the administration will just ignore it. So instead, the republicans are passing laws that retroactively allow the president's previously illegal actions, to make it look like they still have some control over the situation. Part of the democrats follow suit and vote with the republicans, and the bulk of the remaining democrats are too afraid and disorganized to create a loud resistence.
This spying bill is pretty bad, but it's not nearly as big a blemish on our country as the Detainee/Trials/Torture bill that just got passed. If you want to see some real evidence of the terrorists winning against our freedoms, read up on that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, not to be facetious or anything ;), but this sounds like a great anti-terrorism plan to me.
We all know that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. It's simple logic to deduce that if we reduce our freedoms, we will also reduce the number of terrorists.
Bravo
Re:Just Say NO to Democrats with no solutions. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not going to make the terrorists that want to kill Americans go away. The US not doing anything during the 1990s didn't stop them from bombing the Cole or the first unsuccessful World Trade Center bombing. We didn't do anything then, and they just kept coming.
Hello, Mr. Goddamn Liar, nice to meet you.
The criminals who bombed the WTC in 1993 -- 6 months after Clinton took office -- are currently sitting in jail. They were captured, tried, and imprisoned.
At this point, a vote for a Democrat is just to stop everything is the "solution". That's the hope of a lot of those on the left
The solution of the left is to get the fuck out of Iraq. Seeing as how the longer we stay there, the worse things get, the more terrorists attacks there are, and the more this war costs, that seems like a good fucking idea to me. "STAY THE COURSE! CUT AND RUN!" I have an idea! Know what would fight terrorism! You hitting yourself in the hammer! Just once, mind you. Oh wait, that didn't stop terrorism? Try it again! In fact, KEEP trying it! It'll work! GEORGE BUSH said so!So you sorry pieces of shit keep pushing your memes. Maybe they'll stick. Maybe people will forget what a fascist sack of shit George Bush is. Then again maybe it'll turn around and bite you in the fucking ass because while you're all gung-ho over the GOP and parroting whatever it is that Fox tells you to, the values and treasure of your country are being willfully destroyed by those same people you so worshipfully defend.
Have a nice day, see you October 5th.
Mod parent up! (Score:5, Interesting)
A PLAN has things like:
#1. Milestones
#2. Budget
#3. Criteria for success
#4. Timeline
If we aren't hitting the milestones on time and on budget, then the plan needs to be re-evaluated and possibly dumped.
So far, all I've seen out of Bush and Co is:
#1. When we kill/capture Mr. X, things will improve.
#2. When the Iraqis do Y, things will improve.
So, an un-limited amount of money, to follow an un-known plan, to achieve un-stated objectives in the un-defined future.
How much money is too much to spend?
How many lives are too many to lose?
How long is too long to wait?
If you cannot answer those questions, then all you have is a fantasy.
A little "doth protest too much", perhaps? (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, not exactly. For example, there's Abdul Rahman Yasin [wikipedia.org], an Iraqi who came and went between the US and Iraq, helped make the bombs involved, and is thought to still be in Iraq. He is not in prison, and despite ties to international terrorist organizations was not prevented from attempting to destroy those buildings.
Or, there's the Al Queda money-ma
Re:Just Say NO to Democrats with no solutions. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's funny, I could have sworn that by a couple of days into the Normandy invasion, the Germans were gone, the mines were cleared, and the beaches were a pretty safe place to be. And this far out from D-Day, the allies had utterly defeated the Nazis, and were not hemmoraging daily reports of appaling incompetence, cronyism, and nearsightedness Over There. Furthemore, the Marshall Plan was being drawn up to revive Europe's economy and infrastructure, and unqualified cronies and no-bid contracts to American war profiteers did not figure greatly in the plan.
Since Godwin's already out of the bag in this thread, I submit that a different WWII parallel to draw with Iraq is between Rumsfeld and Göring. Both pursued ideologically-driven war strategies (the feasibility of low troop strengths in Iraq and whistling past the graveyard on what to do after the shooting stopped vs. the feasibility of resupplying Stalingrad solely by air) in flagrant disregard of both the reality on the ground and the advice of their best military professionals.
We would arrest a few masterminds, then go about our merry way. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda would just recruit more people in their place and attack us again.
Funny, I recall widespread ridicule from the right when Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at Osama in Sudan and barely missed him. Saber-rattling to distract us from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I believe was the talking point. Oh, and using a million dollar missile to destry a $29.99 tent. I also recall that the people captured in the WTC, Cole, and Embassy bombing investigations continue to be some of our best intelligence sources about Al-Qaeda (and since they've been interviewed instead of tortured, we get information from them more than once, and about things we haven't directly asked them about, and can be reasonably sure they didn't make it up to make the bad man stop.)
we could not let this dictator remain in power after 9/11. He was a thorn in our side.And how's that working out? It sure is a relief not to have Iraq as a thorn in America's side. Makes Iran/Hezbollah, North Korea, Sudan, FARC, etc. really tremble in fear to see our military no longer tied down in Iraq.
You don't seem to mind the fact that the government examines your luggage before you get on an airplane, do you? Your luggage might have your freedom of expressions in it. Letters to your wife, artwork, etc.
If the TSA reads documents in my luggage, I sure as hell do mind, as should you. Their responsibility is to keep weapons and explosives from endangering aircraft, not to be thought police.
The FISA process with its retroactive warrants wasn't broken. The only reason Bush would need to go around it that makes any sense is that he's using wiretaps on political enemies, journalists, or others he has absolutely no business eavesdropping on. And pointing to the internment camps, one of the ugliest episodes in our nation's history, to defend Bush isn't doing him or your position any favors.
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
Woah woah. Don't, for one second, believe these republicans (or democrats) *actually* believe this stuff. Statements about "coddling" terrorists are made to: to polarize the electorate, mobilize their base, and demonize their opponents. It's 100% pure marketing. That's it, that's all. And it's important to understand this, because beneath all the rhetoric, these politicians do have real motivations for their actions, and it's vitally important for the voters to understand those motivations.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you coddling terrorists by making statements like that? And you probably don't
like democracy as well. I think we might have to have your phone line wiretapped.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, it's up to us to figure out why they want this bill, and why they are willing to give away the constitution as toilet paper.
You oppose me, you must be for the Devil. (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to the American Taleban. They are essentially calling people terrorists who oppose them. Replace "terrorist" with "the devil" and you start to see how ridiculous the charge is. Consider the unAmerican things they are pushing and it's no longer funny. Their program is so out of line it makes you wonder what they are really fighting for. Look at what they are pushing with their new found powers:
They have come a long, long way from the party of smaller, less intrusive government and meaningful morals. Instead of competition, they have given us "duopoly". Yes, only government intervention can stifle competition like that. Instead of education, they are buying religion and bombs. Instead of enjoying freedom, people have to worry about Big Brother. There's a whole new agency in charge of strip searches at airports and schools are being given similar abilities. Black lists are derived from phone and email snooping. Our abuse of foreign citizens is starkly immoral. The result is domestic fear and international hatred.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I read that the founding fathers actually had a prediction for how long our democracy would last before reverting to some sort of monarchy. They did their best to put checks in place to preve
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
There's checks and balances built into our government for a reason. Power corrupts, and power without oversight corrupts a whole lot easier.
that old gag (Score:5, Interesting)
But there should be oversight, at the very least a paper trail.
Re:Republicans! (Score:4, Insightful)
wah.
It takes time to drive from New York to Cincinatti, so let's get rid of speed limits so truckers can get through faster?
We pay our cops to do a job.
If they can't do that job within the legal constraints placed on them, then they should be fired and replaced with people who CAN.
Clinton's DoJ busted the 1993 WTC bomber, and put his ass in jail, WITHOUT warrantless wiretapping, WITHOUT torture, and WITHOUT calling his political opponents "terror supporters" - even though they criticized him for trying to kill Osama bin Laden.
It has been CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED, that it is possible to fight terror, without shitting on the constitution, and the beliefs and values of the folks who wrote it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
The police don't have to break any laws to arrest me for shooting someone. They don't have to trample on my rights to figure out that I did it, or when or where or how. They can even legally find out who helped me with it.
Terrorists are no different. Yes, they have the same rights as every other human. No, they aren't 'free to do as they please'. They are free to do all the legal things they want, just as I am, right up until they break the law. Then they must be caught, just as I must.
But this -can- be done without trampling rights. It has been for much longer than I've been alive and it can continue to be done that way. Just because we suddenly have the technologies to trample rights doesn't mean we should.
Re:Republicans! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ohh, prevent everything .. yeah! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask the Secret Service how to prevent someone from killing the president. You get the same answer, you can't.
Ask the Police how to prevent people from killing each other. Same answer, you can't.
The only thing you can do it manage the risk level. Yes, a portion of that is intelligence, and investigation to identify threats. A portion of it is bodies in place to act on the intelligence. And a portion of it is there after the fact to track it back & use it as intelligence twords the next time. Terrorism prevention is like your harddrive, it's going to fail, the only thing you can do is try to do the reasonable things to make the MTBF as long as possible.
Note that the word reasonable is the keyword here. You can greatly reduce the possibility of the president not being assasinated if he were to just stay in the nuclear shelter under the Whitehouse for the entire time he's in Office. They don't do that because it's not reasonable.
Now ask yourself:
- If 10X the number of US citizens who died during 9/11, die every year in homicides, is it 'reasonable' to spend $2B a week on preventing another 9/11, and refuse to spend $10M a year for more police?
- If it is 'reasonable' for the Federal Govt to ignore the 4th ammendment to prevent deaths, why isn't it 'reasonable' for the local police to do the same? After all, they handle many more deaths on a yearly basis than the Feds do in a decade.
- If the Feds are going to be 'reasonable' about the use of the wiretapping, why do they insist that any oversight of their behaviour will impeed their job?
The constitution garantees protection from "Unreasonable search and seasure". Over and over the courts have made clear that 'reasonable' requires either oversight (in the form of warrents) or the presence of evidence of immediate threat of bodily harm (a trail of blood leading into a house). It's hard to argue the presence of evidence of immediate threat of bodily hard, 24/7/365 for years.I do not believe that anyone is stating that the NSA/FBI/??? can't perform wiretaps. Everyone I hear is saying they have to follow the rules, and be subject to oversite if they want to perform the wiretaps. If it's a real investigation, with real targets, and real enemies, then provide the list of people you are attempting to investigate to the FISA board & get the taps. Yes, the provisions say they can tap all calls going to a person, as long as they get approval within 3 days of starting. I find it hard to believe that it takes more than 72 hours to print off a copy of a warrent request, rubber stamp it, and have an intern cart it off to the FISA board. Why do they not want oversite? What exactly are they doing/going to do that people outside the department with top-secret security clearance can't know about it, or it will 'grossly hinder' their ability to perform their jobs?
Re:Republicans! (Score:5, Insightful)
So we should "break the rights" of ALL American citizens instead?
You cowardly piece of shit. People fought and died for our rights and you're ready to chuck them out the window at the first sign of trouble?! If you are so scared of the terr'rists, why don't you go somewhere where the government has utter control over all its citizens. I hear North Korea is nice.
Meanwhile, us true patriots will stay here and fight the REAL terrorists -- the cowards and the fascists who have taken over our country and are busily destroying all our rights and freedoms and everything that made America great over the last 200 years. I refuse to surrender even a single liberty in the face of the fear. If you feel differently: Leave. We won't miss you. For those who are ready to stay and fight, get ready to walk out of work on October 5th -- The World Can't Wait [worldcantwait.org].
Re:Republicans! (Score:4, Insightful)
> to Tora Bora to save your own life, it is the government's
> job to protect the rest of us.
Actually, Article II Section 1 makes it pretty clear that the
president's job is to protect and defend the Constitution.
I recommend you read it.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the whole neat thing about freedom, it won't guarantee your safety, but that isn't something anyone can guarantee in any case..
Re: Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
So in the above list, what makes you think that a statement made against the current government wouldn't be "labeled" as a Terrorist, "just to make sure". Where would your law suite be? Think you would still win? YOU were just labeled a "Potential" terrorist, who is going to back YOU, now.
This is what SCARES the piss out of me. What country do we live in again? The terrorists ARE WINNING. They have the perfect patsy in GW, he reacted EXACTLY the way they expected. He is promoting Terror more than the Terrorists EVER could.
Until he realizes this, they ARE WINNING.
How many freedoms do we have to "Give up" in the name of feeling safe?
Dear Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
does the smaller Government, individual liberty-touting Republican Congress NOT understand?
Calls between foreigners and Americans include Americans and are thus totally covered by the 4th Amendment.
What's so hard about that?
Re:Dear Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
The part where their whole platform is being 'tough' on terrorism and getting elected based on that premise. They have found an issue which scares enough Americans that they can abandon some of their other traditionally 'conservative' agenda items like the ones you mention.
no, no, that's the way it used to be, before 9/11 (Score:5, Funny)
The only way things could ever change back to the way they were, the only way we would have to be cautious about how much power we give government, is if a Democrat is elected. Then, yes, it follows that power corrupts, and is inimical to freedom. But until that day, don't get stuck in a pre 9/11 mentality. If you need me to repeat it a few more times for effect, I can. Sorry about not being good enough at HTML to have a flag waving in the background as you read this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the right to free association was protected. So mearly calling someone in a not-so-normal way means you're upt to something? Bullshit.
Besides, I don't have a problem with them listening in, it's what they do with the information that matters to me.
Well I do have a problem. Even if I'm doing nothing wrong
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, according your rules, if Achmed in Chicago calls Osama BinLaden's phone in Pakistan, it doesn't mean anything really? I think associations mean quite a bit here. Now I'm not saying Achmed should be arrested for calling BinLaden, but I think the gov't should at least know what is being said. For that matter, I don't even think that government should even approach Achmed in this case unless some sort of attack is being planned. But my whole point i
Re:Dear Congress-- (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hence, a warrant so that a judge can decide if the tap has merit. Your argument, like many preceding it, assumes that once they have the information there is any way of stopping them from doing anything with it. The floodgates are open at that point.. it's too late. The information is out in the open and can go anywhere.
Saying that the potential for abuse is reason to do without is absurd. Anything can be potentially abused. The police is a prime exampl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, these are limited to calls overseas. While that is a wide net, it is still limited. And I don't think you have a bank of NSA employees with recorders, pencil and paper listening to every overseas call made. I'm sure the system is automated with a machine listening for keywords and watching f
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:... Checking my date settings.. (Score:5, Insightful)
In all honesty, each and every Senator that voted "Yes" to this needs to be removed
from office ASAP- they took a damn oath of office and they just broke it.
No, you're correct (Score:3, Interesting)
The Senate struck a deal and passed a near-identical bill yesterday, which is the horrifying piece. It appeared as though the two bills were going to be irreconcilable and we'd still have that Constitution thingie protecting us, but in the interest of politics they passed this.
They really have broken their oaths.
This is how I expect it went down:
Pollsters are showing that terrorism is an issue the Repubs "win" on - polls impro
Check Your Rep -- Voting List (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to Soviet Amerika (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how an administration who prides itself in defending freedom is the greatest threat to freedom. Illegal wiretaps, torture, suspension of habeous corpus, secret prisons, and kangeroo courts are the markings of tyranny --- not freedom.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks it's time to update your talking points.
Re:Welcome to Soviet Amerika (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the law retroactive?
Does it change the fact that wiretaps were done illegally?
And have been publicly admitted to?
I imagine a lot of people would like it if everyone just stopped bringing that up.
-Knock Knock.
Congress: Who's there?
-Oversight.
Congress: Oversight who?
-WTF do you mean "Oversight who?"
(Notice how that joke wasn't funny?)
(It's because the lack of oversight isn't funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So congress can pass a law making legal what Bush is doing. But he is still
It's in keeping with current trends. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ch
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/26947prs20
So, a bill legalizing wiretapping would just be par for the course for this government.
Oh, and welcome to the police state . You may not notice any difference at first... but sooner or later it's probably safe to say that you will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing beats a fearmongering president like fearmongering dissent. Welcome to the real new America. Everyone has lost all perspective... Chicken Little rules the day.
Right, so when would you (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Right, so when would you (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. government is here, it has an infrastructure and oversight over communications, the economy, law enforcement, social services, and the most potent reservoir of arms (small and large) in the world. It engages in transactions of every kind (economic, social, political) numbering in the billions every week.
The "terrorists" are an ill-defined, not-very-well-armed group of people that the government would like you to be afraid of. They engage in at most several hundred random transactions all over the world in a given year.
The U.S. oligarchy would like to use fear of the terrorists to keep you and the public from fearing what they are doing. Whether this takes the form of your being so afraid of the terrorists that you can't focus on anything else, or whether it takes the form of your deciding that there is nothing at all to be afraid of/all fears are equally invalid, they don't care.
They're just happy you're not watching to see what they're doing. Anyone who reads the bills in question and doesn't realize that this is a power grab has a truly naive belief in American Exceptionalism and the uniquely benign nature of the American military-industrial aristocracy vis-a-vis those in the rest of the world.
There is a big difference between the government and the terrorists: the government is big, it's powerful, and now it owns you.
Re:Right, so when would you (Score:5, Insightful)
Running around using words like 'tyranny', 'police-state', and 'facism', with virtually no analysis or intellectual honesty is just as bad as running around talking about 'islamofacists' and 'terrorists'. Appealing to fear isn't OK, ever. Just because you happen to agree with the ends doesn't justify the means. I am intellectually offended by people who resort to the same logically fallacious bullshit because they realize that sophistry is the most effective way to convince people they are right.
I'm not going to be scared of the government because someone can call it "facist" and yell about "tyrrany". It's hyperbolic and fallacious and it sets off my bullshit sophistry alarms from three miles away. That rhetorical tactic is fundamentally identical to overstating terrorist threat.
Points. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, on to the show.
"Appealing to fear isn't OK, ever."
Wrong. Appealing to an appropriate level of fear is a moral imperative if the fear is of a real threat. To watch someone face a real threat unbeknownst to them and not suggest to them that they should be afraid and do something about it would be morally unforgivable. What's at issue here is the "appropriate level of fear" that we should appeal to. The government suggests ZERO fear of them, and INFINITE fear of Al Qaeda, which runs not only counter to logic in the face of the size and reach of each, but also counter to actual history of abuse (the government having exercised more of it). The appropriate level of fear to which to appeal is likely a little bit in the case of Al Qaeda (about enough that you can call it "conscious awareness" but not much more) and a healthy portion in the case of the government (enough that you can call it "vigilance and a tendency toward activism" I should think).
"that's the same logic that the President is using to scare people into giving him power"
"logically fallacious bullshit"
It's not logically fallacious at all. You haven't pointed out the fallacy. It is not true that simply because the logic is incorrect in the case of the fear of terrorists, it must therefore also be incorrect in the case of the fear of government abuse. This is because the terrorists are not the government, ergo, an argument about the relative power of the government does not become fallacious simply because a similarly structured argument about the relative power of the terrorists is found to be fallacious.
And the terrorists are not the government. How about a thought experiment:
You post two things on the Yahoo! News discussion board that are not explicit threats. One would make Osama Bin Laden want to kill you if he found out about it, and the other would make Bush want to kill you if he found out about it.
In the case of OBL:
- Osama would likely never find out about it, as he'd have to stumble across it on the 'net during one of his marathon Yahoo! News-reading sessions
- If he did by some obscene cosmic conicidence find out about it, he'd gnash his teeth a lot at the fact that he had no idea where you lived or who you are
- Even if he somehow managed (and this boggles the mind) to find out who you are and where you lived, he'd still have a logistical exercise in trying to set up a hit on you here from all the way over there
- In truth, no matter how angry at you he was, he'd never bother, because it isn't worth the expense, complexity, or small potential reward of carrying out the exercise when compared to the risk of its failure
In the case of Bush:
- Given what we know now, it's likely in the national system the moment you post it, filed under "possible subversive, open up a file on him"
- Given corporate willingness to bow to government requests for data, they'd likely have your real name and address if they wanted it within a day or two, if not sooner
- Given the torture bill that just passed yesterday, they could decide that you are now an enemy combatant and can be picked up and tortured; the moment they decide this, you are legally outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts
- Now all that remains is for them to pick you up; a simple matter, just phone the local police and have them deliver you to the feds
- You are gone forever
That is the difference that makes one source of fear minor (terrorists) and the other source of fear major (government). You have made the mistake of assuming that the structure of an argument was invalid on its face
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exhibit A (Score:3, Interesting)
Instead, many apologists said, in effect, "There's nothing new here, you've lost no rights, your country is just as proud and honorable as she's always been. The President and his well-heeled cronies are not digging up the founding fathers
ummm... uhh... Anyone up for some Fantasy League? (Score:3, Insightful)
And 13 Democrats voted for the other peice of shit rammed through yesterday (the Torture bill). No wonder people are turned off to politics.. Washington is too far removed from the needs and wishes of the average American... or is that the other way around. Hell it works either way.
Suggestion (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally I wouldn't say to vote for or against a candidate based on only one issue. But this bill is unconstitutional and anyone who voted for it is disregarding our rights and the constitution itself and is therefore unfit as a representative. Please vote accordingly.
GET OUT AND VOTE (Score:4, Insightful)
The HP way (Score:3, Funny)
Once again HP shows its technological leadership by being ahead of the curve in warrantless surveillance.
Necessity and FISA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole purpose behind warrantless wiretapping is th
This bill is not a big deal! (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically it will do the following.
- Free Bush from any warcrimes (backdated)
- Remove Habeus Corpus. This means you can be detained for your life and never be charged of any crime or even see a courtroom.
- Allows the use of torture (as long as it is the US doing it)
- Allows extraordinary rendition to continue.
The fun part is that these only apply to non-Americans. But wait theres more! All the US government has to do is declare you a non-combatant and according to this bill you automatically loose your citizenship.
Of course they would only ever use this on terrorists and at least this way we will never need to worry about them ever doing this to an innocent person.
Now we just counter with extra-strong encryption. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
So now we just counter this illegal wiretapping (yes, its still illegal, even though they've passed a law that makes it "legal") with extra strong encryption and Civil [actupny.org] Disobedience [wikipedia.org].
Use TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] with the AES-Twofish-Serpent [security-forums.com] algorithm on your PC (Linux, Mac or Windows). If you want to use something simliar on BSD, look into GELI [freebsd.org] encryption [gnu-designs.com] for those partitions.
For phones, you could look into encryption handsets [qmac.com] or telephone scramblers [spyworld.com]. There's this one [tccsecure.com] too, or the Cryptophone GSM Phone Encryption [cellular.co.za] solution. Google around, there's quite a few hundred solutions in this space... stack them together for even more security.
Disclaimer: I don't personally know how strong these algorithms are on these handsets, so use at your own risk.
With VoIP, you could easily layer whatever encryption you want on top of it. Bounce your call through a few foreign routers, run it through Privoxy [privoxy.org], Tor [eff.org] and i2p [i2p.net] and you should be good to go. Yes, it will incur some latency.. but I'd rather sacrifice speed for security or privacy, wouldn't you? Here is an article [linuxdevices.com] on securing VoIP. Worthwhile reading if you're using it or considering it.
Cat. Mouse. Cat. Mouse.
Now its OUR turn.
You take from us, we take back.
Re:Now we just counter with extra-strong encryptio (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay with Wiretapping (Score:3, Interesting)
On top of this, when obtaining a valid warrant, a private citizen has the right to obtain, inspect, and dissemenate all of these conversations. And on top of this, government entities (FBI, CIA, auditing firms) have the right to these conversations at any time without a warrant, and may, at their discretion release any of this information to the public.
It goes both way. Have a nice day.
Here are facts and here's why it matters (Score:3, Interesting)
A constitutional lawyer named Glenn Greenwald wrote a book which explains the legal and constitutional issues behind some Bush Administration policies.
He used to be apolitical, I mean really apolitical, to the point of not even voting. Then, over the last five years, he's been jolted into action by "theories of unlimited Presidential power which are wholly alien, and antithetical, to the core political values that have governed this country since its founding" (from the preface).
He was living and working in Manhattan on September 11 and eagerly backed the first initiatives against the terrorists. But then, "What first began to shake my faith in the administration was its conduct in the case of Jose Padilla
HISTORY
Congress has cooperated with open requests for surveillance powers. The Combatting Terrorism Act passed without hearings or debate, allowing the FBI to tap Internet communications for 48 hours without a warrant. Congess amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to give the executive branch more flexibility. That was part of USAPATRIOT, which many Congressmen voted for without reading it, trusting the administration to do the right thing in a national emergency. Bush said it was adequate: "This new law I sign today will allow surveillance of all communication used by terrorists". In the same month he ordered the NSA to begin violating the law by spying without even the minimal judicial oversight of the secret and pliable court that oversees FISA taps.
FISA, the 1978 act triggered by scandal after scandal, passed with Republican support including senators like Orrin Hatch. It worked throughout the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and many smaller conflicts. It has specific provisions for use in wartime which still require eventual judicial review.
THE ISSUE ABOUT WIRETAPPING
So why break the law? Greenwald points to the answer: "The only difference between obeying and violating FISA is that compliance with the law ensures that a court is aware of who is being eavesdropped on and how the eavesdropping is being conducted". In a March 2006 reply to Congressional questions the administration admitted that their purpose was to change who made the decisions about probable cause and to eliminate "layers" of review. Certainly the judges weren't getting in the way of normal or even questional eavesdropping: court intern Jonathan Turley said "I was shocked
IS IT ABOUT MAKING US SAFER?
Yaser Esam Hamdi was a US citizen when he was thrown into solitary confinement for two years without being told what he was accused of. It could have been for life, given the likely duration of the "war on terror". The Supreme Court eventually gave the administration a put-up-or-shut-up order, with even Scalia chiming in with "The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite detention at the will of the Executive". So what was done with this man who was allegedly too dangerous to be allowed to see a lawyer? He was released without charge and sent to Saudi Arabia.
Torture isn't making us safer either. Former CIA officer Bob Baer told reporters it's "bad interrogation, I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough". Torture is where the "evidence" against Jose Padilla came from.
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY
Is the President above the law? His legal adviser John Yoo says so. He told New Yorker report Jane Mayer that Congress "can't prevent the President from ordering torture".
The legal theorists who are defining what a Commander in Chief can do have set forth theories that recognize
Conspiracy??? (Score:4, Interesting)
And unlike the 9/11 conspiracy, this only involved one person, which means it would have been INFINITELY easier to set this up and keep quiet...
Outrage is largely partisian and anti-Bush. (Score:4, Insightful)
When a Democrat is elected, and he wants warrentless wiretapping in order to crack down on "Corporate Criminals", or "Child Molesters", or "Hate Groups", you will hear most of the people who are "outraged" now rally behind the program and accuse those who are against the wiretapping as being "pro-corporate-crime", or "pro-hate", the same way you now have Republicans calling people against warrentless wiretapping now as being "pro-terrorist".
What you must understand is that there has been a pro-authoritarian shift in society across the political spectrum. Virtually all mainstream political positions have become completly totalitarian. I mean we have cities banning fatty foods, we have laws that make it illegal to say bad things about some protected group of people, we are passing laws that ban cartoon artwork on food packaging... Hell, it is even illegal to place political advertisments during elections!!! The solution to all problems, as seen by both the left and the right, is government crackdown! The left and the right might disagree on what exactly the social goals they want to achieve, but both are in 100% agreement that the state's need to promote those social goals takes precidence over privacy, free-expression, the right to make a living, etc.. The left and the right may have different goals, but they both 100% agree that total government control over society is fundamental to achieving the goals.
So a lot of this outrage people have is pretty non-sensical. If you support the Democrats, or the Republicans, you are fully responsible for this. When you bash Bush and the Republicans (which in itself would be OK, they are pretty evil), you are trying to imply that voting for Democrats will somehow result in a less authoritarian society, which is entirely false.
With the exception of a handful of Anarchists, Libertarians, or other fringe groups on Slashdot, nearly everyone here has completly bought into the ideology of Big Brother. Leftists of course want Big Brother to protect them from percieved exploitation, unpleasant speech, or personal responsibility... Rightists, of course, want Big Brother to protect them from a percived threat of terrorism, or foriegn enemies, or sexual immorality. But the mainstream of people on Slashdot are in love with Big Brother - They only have an ideological disagreement with those in power, not with the type of police-state they are creating.
If people don't stop and say "This is MY fault! I am responsible for this! This isn't the fault of some other party, or group, or belief system! I have been supporting authoritarianism!", then nothing is ever going to change.
A man for all seasons (Score:4, Insightful)
From Thomas More's A Man for All Seasons [wikipedia.org]:
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Congrats on your +5, insightful (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet we all cede various amounts of "essential liberty" for safety - temporary and permanent.
We do not drive as we wish to ensure proper order on the roads (we hold to the proper lane... well... most of us).
We cede liberty to do as we wish when we want to constantly. Building codes, taxes, standards, all interfere with us doing precisely what we wish to do.
Certainly there is a question here between "liberty" and "essential liberty" - is it essential to drive precisely as we wish? - but the fact remains that giving up liberty allows for order.
Quoting Ben Franklin is wonderful and all, but can one quote another founding father in response?
"There is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate a designing enemy, & nothing requires greater pains to obtain." - George Washington [cia.gov]
We can play dueling quotes all we want - do the "pains" Washington mentions include potential conflicts of interest with civil liberties? - but until a mature discussion that doesn't depend on what men said well over 200 years ago out of the present context comes up, I don't think it will be very productive.
At present, I have no opinion on the bill as I have yet to read it and do not trust the media's ability to interpret anything correctly. When I have a chance, I'll read it and some more insightful (non-blog, non-mass media) commentary and then form an opoinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck order. I follow the rules when I drive because I don't want to die or get injured. I don't give damn about order. Order implies control. If there's control it means that there's someone holding the reins of that control.
Certain laws and rules are followed because people feel they have merit, in polisci terms it's called legitimacy. People stop at stoplights in the middle of the
Re:Congrats on your +5, insightful (Score:4, Interesting)
True. But let's look at your argument again, with a few words changed.
"How personal effects translates into a letter that leaves your home, travels with an agent authorized by the federal government and possibly a private carrier contracted by the government, crosses federal land or at the very least land not owned by you, is beyond me."
And yet, the Supreme Court has ruled that the mail is subject to 4th amendment protections.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Those who sum up complicated situations with a single well worded statement are almost always full of shit." ~me (oh wait..)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it bothers you, why don't you do something about the situation that keeps bringing it back out
instead of bitching about it?
Re:Oblig Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this argument should be used at every end of the political spectrum. Which do you want, Net Neutrality or DEATH?
By the way, Mr. Coward, I believe the american revolutionaries answer to the question of liberty or death would be the latter.
Re:Well worn quotes not a substitute for thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the nonsensical word "Islamo-fascist" should disqualify you from any discussion. There's no relation between fascists and terrorists, that's just a made up word to create more irrational fear.
Seriously. People need to read about fascism, NOW: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Fascism is a radical political ideology that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
Sound like any government we know?
Now, for the historical parallels to Germany, that everyone who doesn't know their history ridicules. Please feel free to read about:
The Weimar Republic [wikipedia.org] (compare to today's polical and esp. economic situation)
The Reichstag Fire [wikipedia.org] (compare to 9/11)
The Enabling Act [wikipedia.org] (compare to current legislation on torture, wiretapping, habeas, etc.)
Does any of this sound familiar? Hello? Perhaps people need to realize that those comparing Nazi Germany and the United States are not pulling the comparison out of thin air... unlike those trying to compare Al Qaeda and the Nazis, which have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
I forgot to mention signing statements, (Score:4, Informative)
If you're not aware of Bush's signing statements, see this [wikipedia.org].
Re:Well worn quotes not a substitute for thought (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldn't it be easier to give up certain liberties to the government to fight an occupation force because you know :
a) who the exceptional powers the government now has is to be used against and
b) when the threat has passed so those powers can be taken away from the government again (assuming they are willing to give them back up).
With an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" how do you know who to use the powers against? There will be obvious targets but due to the nature of the threat there will be very non-obvious targets who look for all the world like ordinary citizens. Are you willing to face the force of those powers yourself so the government can fight the good fight? or are you just happy for other citizens to do so as long is it isn't you (because after all, you have nothing to hide).
And who says when the threat has passed? There is no invading army at the border to tell the threat is still there so when does the government give up its special powers granted to it to fight the bad guys? What if the powers that be decide the threat has never passed?
I think it would be much easier to give up some rights to fight an invading force than terrorist type threat. So if you wouldn't give them up for an invading force you definately shouldn't in this case.
funny thing about "powerful tools"... (Score:5, Insightful)
And let's not forget that fewer than 3,000 Americans died from the 9/11 attacks. The flu kills about 36,000 Americans a year, according to the CDC. The flu. So we're giving these "powerful tools" to government, exempting the Executive branch from judicial oversight, enabling that branch to define anyone as an enemy combatant and forever preclude that person from seeking any judicial review or redress of their detention (the detention which shall require no charges or trial), all to fight an "islamo-fascist" movement that is so dire, so dreadful in nature that 5 years ago it killed less than 1/10 as many as are killed by the flu every year? That's the plan? Wow, that isn't stupid at all.
I immediately see how a problem that, over a 5 year span of time, was less than 1/50 (that's less than 2%, mind you) as deadly as the damned flu virus warrants a watering-down of habeus corpus, a precedent of selective exemption from judicial review, and the steady erosion not just of old-fashioned civil rights, but of the very idea of checks and balances that was intended to keep us free. Who needs any of that outdated crap? Oh, wait, I forget, our forefathers were thinking with a pre 9-11 mentality! Now it all makes sense! To follow what the forefathers wanted would be to give in to the terrorists! Am I doing okay here?
*sigh* (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently, you have found a substitute for thought: spouting White House talking points.
1) What's a "terror insurgency?" Please define.
2) How are the terrorists fascists? Define fascism, and illustrate how the terrorists fit the definition. For extra points, illustrate how our current government is not increasingly fitting the definition.
3) Explain how giving the executive branch the ability to monitor its citizens without oversight protects liberty.
4) Defend th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you might experience occasional unscheduled emergency demolition work, but dont worry, anyone suggesting it wasnt's in any way legitimate will be immediately detained and umm... humanely umm... treated.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)