J Edgar Hoover would be proud (cynical spam acceptable in moderation)

[Silur]

Nice to see that the old legacy of the FBI has been resurrected. I wonder at which point a nation passes into the domains generally defined as a "police state". I especially like the secret subpoenas, although the extra-judicial warrants aren't bad either.

Senate expands on the Patriot act

Now, my knowledge of the US judicial system is rather limited, but I would think that since the Patriot act was considered by many to be unconstitutional before, it must certainly be even more so now. Aren't, for instance, secret subpoenas in direct violation of the Miranda act?

This is not fuel to fire up the US vs rest of world pie-tossing contest either. It is a dangerous precedent, and like many others I expect to see similar ideas coming up in the EU or EU states in the near future. Sofar the US has been a few years ahead in restricting the rights of its populace, but other so called democratic states are getting quicker at following suit. The UK now has its "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders", which can force anyone who is the least bit uncomfortable for his neighbours, the police or perhaps the government to shut up and stay away (like a restraining order, sort of) without trial. For more details, check in with the good ol' BBC.

Oh, my country sucks too, but I'm not going to get into that, since my wife claims I'm starting to sound like a whining, grumpy old windbag. I really need to get a decent "walking stick of the old bat" and some "balanced dental prosthetics of accuracy".

[Vicsun]

Land of the brave...

...home of the free?

[Chanak]

@Silur: One of the most disturbing things in this article (apart from the overall implications):

"The final text of the Senate Intelligence committee's amendments was not immediately available (here's a draft dated last month), and reporters were barred from the secret session during which the vote was held."

Why is the Legislature holding secret sessions? Creepy. This is not the Vatican choosing a new pope.

There's not much you really want to know about the legal system here in the US, other than it's a quagmire. Many laws are institutued expressly for the purpose of making it easier for the lawmakers to circumvent those old fashioned, outdated concepts of "due process", "innocent until proven guilty", and so on, etc., blah blah blah, so they can author and implement even more ruinous laws. It's an incremental process that's been executed in sucessively more odious steps to effectively nullify the Bill of Rights, and erase the checks and balances built in to the US Constitution. The Patriot Act is a very handly mechanism for the executive branch of government (that is, the President, the Cabinet, and so on) to use to fly over the collective head of the judicial arm (that is, the courts) in doing what it wants. One might look at the Patriot Act as a symbol of the executive branch's grab for power. With cohorts placed in the legislature (thanks to the so-called "Reagan revolution"), it's becoming more of a reality every day.

Witness Iraq. It's very possible that had such a deception by the chief executive and his Cabinet been perpetrated 30 years ago, the cry of "impeachment" would have rang from within the Greco-Roman architecture of Capitol Hill when it was exposed for what it was. Legislative committees would have been formed to investigate what back then would have been a first-rate scandal that made Watergate look like a prank. Not to mention that the press and the public would have been infuriated by the purposeful sowing of misinformation surrounding the invasion of Iraq. This time, however, it wasn't the just American public the executive branch wanted to bamboozle. A higher, more loftier scheme was in mind: get the UN and the EU to buy into it, too. When that didn't work, Bush assumed the "cowboy doing the right thing, to hell with 'em all" image that so many fell for here stateside.

[Silur]

@Chanak: I can't say I envy your place of residence...

It's ironic how, in all their attempts at silencing him and his followers, Osama Bin Ladens statements about the hypocrisy of the democratic states become more and more valid. If you compare oppressive regimes with our democratic governments, the difference is starting to look rather slim. The unwanted elements of society just have different labels. Saddam Hussein (as well as the "democratic" Turkish government) called them Kurds, western society calls them Terrorists (I think "Kurds" have been relabelled "Terrorists" in Turkey).

I guess it is just a matter of time before "Terrorist" is defined as "someone that opposes our national government", which in effect defines all the opposition parties as terrorists.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Silur]I guess it is just a matter of time before "Terrorist" is defined as "someone that opposes our national government", which in effect defines all the opposition parties as terrorists. [/QUOTE]

Matter of time? Why do you think Putin jumped so eagerly on Bush's anti-terorist bandwagon? The broad way Bush defined terrorism allowed the Russian leader to call anyone opposing Russian moves as a terrorist. Putin's rhetoric never used the word "terrorist" about Chechnya before then. Now, it's a litany, despite the fact that it was the Russian armed forces that invaded Chechnya, put 10% of the Chechyn population in concentration camps, engaged in house-to-house looting, destroyed the national infrastructure, installed a puppet regime, etc.

And even China, that wonderful bastion of democracy, has joined Shrub and his neo-cons by labelling the passive resistance Falon Gong as a terrorist organization.

[Cuchulain82]

Excellent thread Silur, really excellent.

[QUOTE=Silur]This is not fuel to fire up the US vs rest of world pie-tossing contest either. It is a dangerous precedent, and like many others I expect to see similar ideas coming up in the EU or EU states in the near future.[/QUOTE]
I like this point. The US has recently been the leader in "sacrificing" human rights for greater governmental authority, but the disturbing thing for me is that the rest of the world can now view this as an invitation. Like Fable said about Putin, now any dictator or leader can cry "terrorist" at a resistance to gain US support.

[QUOTE=Silur]I guess it is just a matter of time before "Terrorist" is defined as "someone that opposes our national government", which in effect defines all the opposition parties as terrorists.[/QUOTE]
If you exchanged the word "Communist" for the word "Terrorist", wouldn't much of the Cold War propaganda from the McCarthy era be eerily similar to the rhetoric of the current administration?

[QUOTE=Chanak]Why is the Legislature holding secret sessions? Creepy. This is not the Vatican choosing a new pope.[/QUOTE]
Congress holds secret sessions all the time, and it is creepy. Usually secret sessions involve:
(1) Classified information, or
(2) Something dirty that no congressperson wants to publicly have to vote for or against.

The whole idea of modifying the patriot act behind closed doors is scary. I hope they don't try to rush it through session again, like last time, dropping off copies of the bill in the middle of the night the day before the scheduled vote. *shudder*

[fable]

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Congress holds secret sessions all the time, and it is creepy. Usually secret sessions involve:
(1) Classified information, or
(2) Something dirty that no congressperson wants to publicly have to vote for or against.
[/QUOTE]

Far be it from me to support both a government I dislike, but #2 is inaccurate. When anybody in Congress wants to cast a vote on something they'd rather not be known, there are many time-sanctioned, long-used ways to conceal it. One of the most frequently applied methods is to throw an amendment onto a high-profile bill that bears no relationship to it. This is traditionally how pork barreling occurs: I want a museum for Lawrence Welk, who was born in my constituency. (That actually happened a few years ago--in Nebraska, I think.) So I stick in an amendment on a general appropriations bill. Somebody else adds on another bill for something they want, and we agree quietly, tacitly, to vote in each other's bill, so our local supporters are pleased.

The exact purposes of closed Congressional sessions are always announced. They cannot by law be used to pass legislation, only to discuss matters.

[Magrus]

*shakes my head* I wish the American public as a whole would have woken up some time ago and seen how corrupt the government is. I just have this mental image of a whole field of sheep being herded into a cage and a few wolves with the heads of Bush and his 'assisstants' giggling and saying "heh heh this is cool" in their best Beevis and Butthead voices.

Has it not seemed almost as if someone's playing doctor with our laws and the way things work, butchering the whole thing, sewing it back together as a puppet that dances to their tune for them? A frankenstein-esque legal system? It sort of looks like the old one if you don't look to closely, but it's starting to stink and get stiff and not work to well. I'm waiting for the whole thing to turn on the general public and anyone who says "boo" about they system a bit too loudly. Which, wow, this bill effectively paves the way for. Funny that.

[ik911]

It is obvious that the terrorists have had a great impact on the US government. It could be that the same government now seize that momentum of fear, to create laws that benefit their own cause at the cost of the people.

Or are they actually listening to the people when coming up with radical laws to stop terrorism 'at all costs'? Sometimes, sacrifices have to be made in order to achieve something greater.

However, the threats are too big. The USA is facing a petite enemy. The nature and motivation of this enemy is unbeatable. This enemy is convinced beyond the rational. They're like angry wasps. And against them, the US army would be like a machinegun.

Most extremist muslims believe the perversion is caused by western influence and that is probably correct. They see the USA as the leader of the western world and that is also probably correct, in a way. That, among other reasons, is why in 1998 Bin Laden announced a Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders and in particular, the Americans.

So, held silent by press and government for obvious reasons, America has been at war for over 5 years already. But it is unclear who the enemy exactly is and where the battlefield lies, so it isn't a war like the ones in the historybooks. As long as it are laws and not underground bunkercomplexes and bombshelters that need to be constructed to protect the people, it's still relatively cool, I'd say...

[quote="reply on article on thenews.com]Mr. Patrick Henry was quite right when he spoke those famous
words on March 23"]
Does anyone else agree that liberty ends where patriot act starts? I'm not very well informed about that act (can't quite remember, actually), but I'm sure it didn't say "no more freedoms for American citizens", although there were some strange things in it, which with I can't really agree on an individual/personal basis, but unfortunately, politics can't always take that into account when it comes to governing a huge (threatened) country.

[Chanak]

@Silur: The "if you're not with us, you're against us" speak used by the White House in relation to their plans to stomp all over minor countries ruled by "oppressive regimes" pretty much cleared the way for any opposition to be handily labeled "terrorists". As fable points out, I do believe this bandwagon has been rolling along for a while now. The wheels have been running over citizens' civil rights here in the US, with arrests of protestors by law enforcement being loudly protested when they occur. Simply protesting the federal government's invasion of another country in the proximity of a political event results in arrests being made. The reason is always, of course, attributed to heightened awareness of "terrorist activity" and the removal of possible threats. Hmmm. The police officers doing the arresting are just doing their jobs; I sincerely doubt they wake up in the morning thinking "dagnabit, I'm gonna bag me some anti-patriotic terrorists to-day". They have their orders, and if they want to keep their jobs, they carry them out.

@Cuchulain: Maximum effect is achieved by minimum exposure. fable's apt description of legislative ledgermain is but one way the passing of odiferous acts is accomplished. The Texas legislature pulled a similar trick with the highly unpopular and generally despised SB 2292 (or House Bill, I'm beginning to lose focus now since I've browsed literally hundreds of bills during work hours), which called for a streamlining of health and human services and the "outsourcing" of certain functions. It's passing was a last-minute deal that left most observers with a foul taste in their mouth and ethics questions.

@Magrus: People could become informed, and prevent such things from taking place. Giving headlines to American Idol, and little to no outlet for views or reports that cast the White House in a decidedly less than positive light, helps to keep the masses dumbed down, so to speak. Not that one could lay the blame directly upon the media - because ultimately, the real power lies in the gray matter of the individual. If they like being deceived, then there's no cure.

[Magrus]

@Chanak, so very true. Which is why I made the sheep analogy. If people want to play ignorant, complacent moron's because it's easier than thinking and doing nothing will change.

@ik911, You think this whole thing is about terrorism? That was simply a convenient excuse that those in power here have seized upon to lay down plans to alter the way this country works, and grasp at anything over-sea's they've had an eye on. Whether that's resources, foreign government's, corporation's or simply revenge.

[fable]

[QUOTE=Magrus]@ik911, You think this whole thing is about terrorism? That was simply a convenient excuse that those in power here have seized upon to lay down plans to alter the way this country works, and grasp at anything over-sea's they've had an eye on. Whether that's resources, foreign government's, corporation's or simply revenge.[/QUOTE]

And anyone who doubts this need only read the PNAC manifesto published several years before Shrub got in, and both co-authored and signed by more than a dozen of the neo-cons that occupy the highest positions in his cabinet and consultative body (including his VP). They clearly lay out an agneda of doing precisely what Magrus mentions, above. 9/11 was to provide just the opportunity they needed.

[Magrus]

Yep, someone needs to set those sheep on fire and make them wake up. Either way, we'll all be burned, and frankly, I'd rather it not be by the goverment.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=Magrus]@ik911, You think this whole thing is about terrorism? That was simply a convenient excuse that those in power here have seized upon to lay down plans to alter the way this country works, and grasp at anything over-sea's they've had an eye on. Whether that's resources, foreign government's, corporation's or simply revenge.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps the knife cuts both ways here for the government, because one the one hand, they get to do what they wanted to do for a long time, and on the other, they give the people what they asked for when 2 planes and a missile (oh, I mean a plane without wings ) crashed into important buildings.

If you're not going to be burned by your government, Mr Bin Laden might seize that opportunity... America is at war, and that seems a fair excuse for changes. I'm not saying they're doing a great job in Iraq, but one must expect changes here and there.

Do I think this whole thing is about terrorism? Yes. But there are some strange side-effects that seem to favor certain areas/groups that shouldn't be favored in this anti-terrorist-manifestation. (resources/corporations/revenge, that kind of stuff should have little to do with a war for the good cause)

[Magrus]

But there are some strange side-effects that seem to favor certain areas/groups that shouldn't be favored in this anti-terrorist-manifestation. (resources/corporations/revenge, that kind of stuff should have little to do with a war for the good cause)

Which is exactly the thing Fable and I were pointing out. The 9/11 thing was simply a conveniant catalyst that happened to make those in power now to set into motions plans that were idle for years. Horrible and tragic yes, but that event made them kick that plan into motion and they've now gotten the reason to act in the ways they've wanted to because of it. I mean look at Iraq alone, they lied to get the UN to go in their with them, then formally said "oops, no weapons there".

The heads of the government here are doing exactly what they want, when they want it, and however they want to. Anytime someone objects, they shout "terrorists" and people bow to what they wish. Every government has had people both within the country, and without the country that has wanted to see it pulled down. That's nothing new, and there's no reason to be hunting people all over the world for them. Now, the government has set into motion actions that have set the whole world on edge with them, and this country. If they stop, a lot of people might let off a huge sigh of relief and keep doing what they've been doing. Some, might say "well...they bombed us first..." and this country might see itself at war again as soon as we shut down the whole war operation as countries targeted take revenge for insults and accusations.

Not only that, if this doesn't stop soon, I wouldn't put it too far past a number of countries simply saying "well, when are we next?" and trying to bully the US into backing down and stopping. Those in power have already shown what they are willing to do in order to attempt to get what they want, that could lead to them shouting "more enemies!" and attempting to sieze whatever those people have.

This Patriot act sent chills down my spine when I first did a bit of research on it before it was approved. The fact that it's been approved, and now may be expanded. That's just screaming of the government grasping for whatever bits of power they can, and the ability to silence anyone who would decide to start a rebellion down the road. Now, the first time someone starts speaking out, and organizing the people against those in power, will simply dissapear and the law will be behind it.

[Silur]

@ik911: The "now we have terrorists, so we have to deal with it" doesn't quite cut it, since terrorists have existed in some form or other throughout history, and have used the current tactics during the entire later part of the previous century. The UK has dealt with the IRA and their bombings, Spain with ETA, Germany with Bader Meinhof and Rote Arme Fraktion, etc and they managed to do so without limiting peoples freedom, since - big surprise - most of the stuff terrorists do are illegal already.

By labeling terrorists as something other than criminals, is in my view a serious mistake. By accepting to fight them on their terms and accepting to impose close to martial law on our own citizens, the terrorists have achieved what they wanted - to be heard and to keep people hostage by their own fears. Since the chance of being killed in a car accident still is thousands of times more likely than being killed by a terrorist attack, it is surprising that Americans still are allowed to drive. I'm not even going to get into how many more Americans get shot dead by other Americans than killed by terrorists. If the true purpose of the US governments current policy is to make sure Americans are safe and don't get themselves killed, strict gun laws will yield far greater results in shorter time for much *much* less money.

@Magrus: The US didn't manage to get the UN to join in the war, and the content of the lies were probably quite insignificant compared to some of the other aspects of UN's dilemma. The UN had suggested a course of action, which was to wait for the weapon inspectors report. If they changed course under pressure from the US, they would loose influence with just about every one else for being the US lap dog, leaving the UN severely weakened. On the other hand, by not joining the US on their Crusade, the UN was divided - also leaving it severely weakened. So the UN did what it usually does when things get difficult... that is, absolutely nothing.

As for the war in Iraq not going so well, that is one for Lettermans list of top ten understatements of the year. GW Bush has shored up significantly more dead Iraqui civilians than Saddam did at the height of his career, but since it's in the name of freedom I guess it's ok.

A reminder to check in on the current amount of US tax money that has gone down the drain:

Cost of war

[Magrus]

That's true, sorry, I was thinking of the joint effort in the whole "Get Osama" nonsense right after 9/11. Everyone balked at rushing the inspections and with good reason, the U.S. lied and just went for it.

As to the gun control thing, that's very true. Then again, there's so many other ways for people to kill other people. That won't stop killing's from happening, just slow the rate and change the medium.

I love that website with it's counter. I keep spreading it around to my friends, I'd still like to find a way to put up a counter in my journal but haven't figured that one out yet. I truly like how they've divided up all the areas of the US so you can see what the area around you has ended up paying, and what it could have done if put towards education, or health care or other such programs instead. It's far more effective in doing that rather than just having one counter IMO.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Magrus]
Not only that, if this doesn't stop soon, I wouldn't put it too far past a number of countries simply saying "well, when are we next?" and trying to bully the US into backing down and stopping. Those in power have already shown what they are willing to do in order to attempt to get what they want, that could lead to them shouting "more enemies!" and attempting to sieze whatever those people have.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately there is absolutely no person or nation on this planet that can bully the US to do anything. The only thing you can do is to get your own nuclear weapons, which drives up the cost of attacking you. That's why Iran are working their behinds off on getting their nuclear arsenal operational enough to discourage the US from attacking them. Otherwise they would most definitely be next, since they have a conveniently oppressive government and some substantial oil fields.

[Magrus]

One country couldn't yes, a number of them together could though. The reality of the situation though is that the US imports so much from all over the world, cutting off relations and trade with my country could cripple whole sections of a nations economy alone. The majority of the world would have to sit down, discuss it, renegotiate trade between each other, and then en-masse give my government an ultimatum and not be afraid to carry through on it. The chances of that happening without the US pulling something terribly drastic beyond whats going on now is so low it just won't happen.

I have to wonder though, how many steps more my government will be taking before they become satisfied and complacent, or they go too far and people all over attempt to stop them.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Magrus]One country couldn't yes, a number of them together could though. <snip>[/QUOTE]

... and that's exactly what the EU is aiming for - except the usual fifth columnist chose to go play with his old buddy.

I personally think the idea of the EU turning into a federal superpower is abhorrent, but with the current state of things there aren't very many options. Balance of power (as in ability for violent destruction) seems to be the only kind of checks and balances that work on human beings.