Patriot Act and personal privacy

[belgareth]

Judge Blocks U.S. From Doing Searches

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer





NEW YORK - Declaring that personal security is as important as

national security, a judge Wednesday blocked the government from conducting secret, unchallengeable searches of

Internet and telephone records as part of its fight against terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling a "landmark victory" against the Justice Department's

post-Sept. 11 law enforcement powers.

"Today's ruling is a

wholesale refutation of excessive government secrecy and unchecked executive power," said ACLU attorney Jameel

Jaffer.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero struck down a provision

of the Patriot Act that authorizes the FBI to force Internet service providers and phone companies to turn over

certain customer records. The companies are then barred from ever disclosing the search took place.



In his ruling, the judge called national security of "paramount

value" and said the government "must be empowered to respond promptly and effectively" to threats. But he called

personal security equal in importance and "especially prized in our system of justice."



Marrero said his ruling blocks the government from issuing the

requests or from enforcing the non-disclosure provision "in this or any other case." But the ruling will not

immediately take effect to allow for an appeal.

Megan L. Gaffney, a

spokeswoman for the federal prosecutor's office in Manhattan, said the government was reviewing the decision and

had no immediate comment.

The judge said the law violates the Fourth

Amendment because it bars or deters any judicial challenge to the government searches, and violates the First

Amendment because its permanent ban on disclosure is a prior restraint on speech.



He noted that the Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war

is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."



"Sometimes a right, once extinguished, may be gone for good,"

Marrero wrote.

Marrero issued his decision in favor of an Internet

access firm identified in his 120-page ruling as "John Doe." He had agreed to keep the firm's identity secret to

protect the FBI probe that led to the search request.

Jaffer, the

ACLU lawyer, said the government had turned over as part of the lawsuit a six-page document showing it had obtained

Internet or telephone records dozens and possibly hundreds of times.

The government was authorized to pursue communications records as part of a 1986 law. Its powers were enhanced

by legislation passed after the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001.

In a footnote to his ruling, Marrero cited words he had written two years ago in another case to warn that

courts must apply "particular vigilance to safeguard against excess committed in the name of expediency."



"The Sept. 11 cases will challenge the judiciary to do Sept. 11

justice, to rise to the moment with wisdom equal to the task, its judgments worthy of the large dimensions that

define the best Sept. 11 brought out of the rest of American society."

[camusflage]

IIRC, Section 215 of the USA

PATRIOT act allows for National Security Letters (NSL's) to be served on anyone who has any information, whether

it's an ISP with the user's logs, a library with the books they've checked out, or any other entity. I haven't

seen the text of the decision yet, but I hope it's against all of Section 215 and not just narrowed down to

ISP's.

[DrSmellThis]

The sadly titled "Patriot Act"

is frightening stuff. As is now well known, not a single congressperson read the act before voting to pass it. The

judicial system is extremely important for democracy and freedom right now, since the other branches, especially the

Executive, are so out of control. There are going to be an unprecedented amount of lawsuits against the federal

government; as well as lots of challenges to the Patriot Act. That is great that the internet access firm challenged

them. That is a key victory in one battle. I'm sure the Feds are working on other ways to coopt internet providers,

banks, libraries, bookstores, phone companies, and the postal service outside the traditional due process. The fact

that this administration even tries to violate and squelch so many liberties and rights, in so many ways

(e.g., intimidating artists, creating free speech "zones" to make "free speech" irrelevant; arresting innocent

muslims and people with anti-Bush t-shirts -- just to name examples we have already discussed elsewhere in the

forum), without leaving room for citizen legal recourse or even awareness of their actions (this is key),

speaks volumes about their intentions and lack of democratic values independent of fighting terrorism.

Unfortunately, the courts will be hard pressed to catch many of the total number of infringements, and it could take

years for sufficient precidents to accumulate to discourage them from trying to infringe in various ways.

This

needs to be said right now: Our best democratic recourse is to vote the current administration out, and give the new

guy who is saying many of the right things a chance. At least John Kerry is consistently expressing grave concerns

in public about these issues and the Act; whereas Mr. Bush speaks only of expanding such government powers

(there are several such initiatives already in the works). There is a difference, folks. (His plan,

qualifications and attitude for fighting terrorism is even more focused and comprehensive than the incumbent's, so

don't worry.)

[DrSmellThis]

The Patriot Act: (it wasn't

section 215)



http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html



A reputable analysis of the Act:



http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/



And to be fair to right-wingers, here is the US government's Patriot Act site. Check out their "rebuttal" of the

"myths" (link on left) for their side of it. It didn't make me feel reassured.

More news coverage:



http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_s

kin/450584%3fformat=html (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/450584%3fformat=html)

[Pancho1188]

Checks and balances...



"We're the Supreme Court, b*tch!"

:thumbsup:

[belgareth]

This

needs to be said right now: Our best democratic recourse is to vote the current administration out, and give the new

guy who is saying many of the right things a chance. At least John Kerry is consistently expressing grave concerns

in public about these issues and the Act; whereas Mr. Bush speaks only of expanding such government powers

(there are several such initiatives already in the works). There is a difference, folks. (His plan,

qualifications and attitude for fighting terrorism is even more focused and comprehensive than the incumbent's, so

don't worry.)Let's all keep in mind that it was the democrats as well as the republicans who calmly signed

away our rights without even reading what they were signing. Those are same people who are going to defend our

rights, right? Crap! And you trust them?

I'm not going to get into another debate on the same subject. I just

find the whole mind set utterly incomprehensible.

[DrSmellThis]

You are indeed choosing to

debate instead of, say, allowing me my position and ignoring it, and I am choosing to respond. You are free to

respond or not.

While I don't approve of what congress did, I can understand that people were rushed into

signing something on faith after a terrorist attack thinking they were acting decisively in an emergency. They had

no time to read the actual Patriot Act. (You should go see F-911 for an interview of one congressman on this) I

don't believe that every single congressperson was at the core corrupt in doing so. Rather, to believe this

would be incomprehensible. It is not necessarily their fault their faith was betrayed by an administration pushing

through an "emergency act" in a time of war. What is so hard to understand about that? Do you call them "flip

floppers" for now condemning the Act, just as you have called Kerry a flip flopper (Perhaps you bought into the

simplistic propaganda of Rove.)? What was their real sin? They believed their president! People, even

congresspeople, usually believe they should be able to trust their president and his staff in an emergency. I don't

blame them. Of course it should have been delayed to give people time to read it, and should have never been pushed

through except in temporary, provisional form. But the public would have been manipulated by the press to crucify

any congressperson who balked on it as unpatriotic. So that was another factor. Do you remember what happend to the

few who resisted it? It was a tough position to be in, and the easiest thing to do was trust. We all wish

legislators had more courage.

[belgareth]

You're more forgiving than I

am. I most certainly blame each and every one of them that DID NOT DO THEIR JOB, whether they be Democrats,

Republicans, Green Party, Libertarian etc! The are our employees, their job and sworn duty is to protect and defend

the consitution of the United States and uphold the rights of the people. Flip-flopping and Rove-ian nonsense has

nothing to do with it, the issue is simply negligence. I really don't care what time pressures they had, it's one

of, if not the most, important part of their job and they didn't do it. There's no excuse. Due to the negligence

of our employees, we have lost many rights that we have to fight to get back.

This is the whole point of my

position; we have to hold our elected representatives responsible for doing the job they were hired to do.

[a.k.a.]

Let's all keep in

mind that it was the democrats as well as the republicans who calmly signed away our rights without even reading

what they were signing.

Kerry not only voted for the Patriot Act. He also voted for its

predecessors: The Telecommunications act of 1994 (which requires all communications providers to make existing and

future communications systems wiretap ready) and the Counter-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

(which allows the INS to deport immigrants without due process, and denies prisoners the right to habeas corpus

appeals).
Actions speak louder than words. He also voted for Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” bill, which he now

claims to be against.
Kerry may have had a few principles at the beginning of his political career. (He

used to be a champion of campaign finance reform.) But they obviously went out the window long ago. (Now he’s

working with one of the crookedest fundraisers of all time, Terry McAuliffe.)
He’s proving himself to be a

consummate opportunist. Who knows what he'll vote for or against? I'm sure it all depends on what his backers tell

him to be for or against.
I’ll grant that he’s far more intelligent than the incumbent, but that’s about as

far as I’ll go.

[DrSmellThis]

It was at least negligence,

misplaced trust, and lack of courage. So I am attributing two more vices than you to them Belgareth, but one more

redeeming virtue. That is all due to the system we have to work with for now. But none of that would have

happened had the corrupt insidious piece of dangerous crap not been pushed through so forcefully,

permanently, and disingenuously by Bush and gang. They knew congress would have no practical recourse, given the

system, and effectively deliberately subverted the check/balance.

But your logic astounds me. If your premise is

that 75% of what politicians say is a completely meaningless lie, and you know that candidate X says I'm taking

more rights away; yet candidate Y says I'm restoring and protecting them, then the "true" 25% offered by X is still

infinitely preferable to the true 25% offered by the other, given the rest is the same or constant in all scenarios.

I am keeping in mind here you also never responded to your logical obligation to show that Kerry is just as

corrupt as what you admitted was the extreme corruption of Bush, or to show that we have good reason to believe

that. Therefore I cannot make sense of your position, and cannot even believe yet that you can make sense of your

own position.

[belgareth]

That is because you are willing

to compromise in your expectations of the people that are supposed to represent us. I am not. Compromise in our

expectations is a large part of what led us to the sad position we are currently in, more compromise will not help

us get out of it. Your point of view only perpetuates the problem. Like I said, I find that position

incomprehensible.

AKA makes some good points regarding Kerry and his solid following of his beliefs.

[DrSmellThis]

If you define "compromise" as

in the moment, yes, then I am indeed willing to "compromise" in terms of my voting behavior and political efforts

this fall. This kind of compromise per se neither got us into trouble, nor will get us out of it. But

in the moment compromise is a constant necessary fact of life for prudent decision making. Ideals can only be

sensibly seen as a characteristic of a human story as a whole, and cannot be rationally imposed on the moment

in a neat fashion very often. History can move toward the implementation of various ideals at various ripe, historic

moments. The only way a rational "idealism" is possible is to take a long term, future historic approach. We don't

compromise in our long term battle or our realistic long term plans. We can try to implement a vision in people's

minds immediately for all who can see. But to demand instant implementation of ideals is self-defeating

nonsense. We should not compromise in our vision, but should seek a realistic way through the future course of

history to implement it. Even the most favorable courses of history take a serpentine path. Given the current

situation, this course will surely flow smoother for the long haul with an alternate White House. Electing a

president is always a matter of degrees. We may never have another kind of choice, even though we can work on

getting a better candidate starting the second week of November. From a historic perspective, either a continuation

in the current direction, or a temper tantrum-like rejection of the whole process through which reform might

eventually happen, are self-defeating leaps off the shortest, yet sepentine path toward real democracy and freedom.

Momentary idealism is instead usually an immature compromise of natural, historic idealism. So I am not really (in a

concrete sense) the one compromising here, if anyone is. On the other hand I do share your disgust with the

undemocratic process that pushed through the Patriot Act. Thanks for posting the article.

[DrSmellThis]

The only rationale (though

inadequate) I can think of to allow Bush to stay in is to hope that the voice of dissent on what I see as

truly progressive issues (e.g., holism, integrity, real democracy, global and environmental perspectives) will be

louder without coopting Democrats, since Republicans would virtually never advocate progressive issues against

Democrats anyway. The potentially self-defeating idea here is to keep the voice of dissent out of power to keep it

alive. But I don't know if we can survive another four years of this and afford that luxury. To me it feels like we

are in a nose dive. I don't even need somebody to land the plane, but I'd put any monkey in the cockpit who could

level off the flight, even if by accident. I honestly believe the immediate, everyday consequences will probably be

too severe in multiple ways.

[belgareth]

In order for your statement to

be true one must concede that Bush is as bad as you believe. I do not accept or concede that, nor does about half

the country if you read the polls. In your argument Bush absolutely has to be replaced and any replacement will do.

Many people fully support Bush and feel your arguments are without merit. You completely gloss over AKA's

statements despite them supporting the oppositions claims that he flip flops. I think they demonstrate that Kerry is

little, if any different, than Bush and is as unacceptable as Bush. I said before that I am not going to convince

you and you are not going to convince me, your statements merely reinforce that belief. I did not wish to be drug

into another argument, but didn't want to leave your one-sided statement uncontested either.

[a.k.a.]

I’m not that principled and I have

no problem voting for Kerry. His cold poker face makes me slightly less anxious than Bush’s sadistic smirk. Besides,

Bush had his chance and he f#@%ed up. Time to give him the pink slip.
I’m just frustrated by seeing so

much progressive hope and energy wasted on such a miserable candidate. Bad enough he’s a self-serving opportunist.

He can’t even run a decent campaign. If Kerry wins, its because all the kids that were behind Dean’s failed

campaign are still out trying to register voters; and public figures that Kerry won’t even acknowledge — like

Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson — are busy doing his leg work for him.

Meanwhile our economic future and

thousands of young lives have been invested in a war that can’t be won. The only way either candidate can fulfill

their commitments to that war is by instituting a draft. Both of them are denying it, because this is an election

year. But neither one has the integrity to stand up against pentagon pressure after the elections are over.
I

just hope that when the draft comes enough people wake up so that we can take our government back.

[DrSmellThis]

* I liked AKA's posts here,

and share the sentiments to a large degree. But realistically, a vote in congress is not always an independent

thing, to be considered in abstract isolation. Pragmatism and context in a situation must be accounted for to

understand congressional voting. Because of a multitude of factors and pressures, contextual and political, no

politician is absolutely consistent on the face of things, including Bush as much as Kerry.

Often a

politician gives up something to get something else for his or her constituents. Lots of "opposite party"

politicians vote for a new president's pet programs and ideas because of a perceived voter mandate, the need to

pick one's battles; wanting to cooperate; and to avoid wholesale alienation and revenge, being marginalized, etc.,

etc. Sometimes one's overall responsibility to one's constituents in the bigger picture can conflict with one's

perceived ability to accept or reject some particular bill. Conflicting values and principles must be constantly

balanced against each other. The fact that somebody supported a Bush education program once, but now doesn't

after it failed, is also not sufficient reason to count that politician out. There are sometimes legitimate

reasons for changing one's mind. Further, there are often legit reasons for accepting or rejecting a bill that have

nothing to do with what the bill is presented as being about on the face of things. Politics are ugly. That is the

reality of political life in the 21st century for now (BTW, term limits would help some of these things be less

problematic). Non-politicians rarely have to face the kinds of complexity in ethical dilemmas that politicians do.

This is a fact to be dealt with, not a cop out.

Almost nobody rejected the Patriot Act. That sucks, but

doesn't mean we can't ever vote for any of the several hundred politicians that didn't reject it back then,

though many of them do so now. We'd have to throw out everybody! Make no mistake, I'd love for Kerry in particular

to demonstrate stronger and more progressive ideals, but the "flip-flopping" cliche is an overdone rhetorical

tactic.

* Half the people support Bush. Appeals to patriotism and other emotions, as discussed in the other

thread, are like a strong drug; and ignorance is rampant in our Fox News culture. Corrupt governments usually are

able to generate significant amounts of internal support. A lot of nationals supported Hitler too. But check

this out -- around the rest of the world almost everyone else hates Bush's policies, moreso than any other

American president in history! This is happening despite the enormous economic and military advantages of being our

ally. That means something to me, since it's almost universal, and so historically unique. That should logically

mean a lot to you, since you indicate that the split polls here do, and since you have have advocated a

global, non-centric perspective and philosophy several times in the forum. You are surrounded by Bush supporters in

Texas. But in this forum you've acknowledged lots of totally awful things about this corrupt administration. Now

you say he's not that bad. A bit of "flip-flopping" perhaps? ;)

[belgareth]

*


Almost nobody rejected the Patriot Act. That sucks, but doesn't mean we can't ever vote for any of the

several hundred politicians that didn't reject it back then, though many of them do so now. We'd have to throw out

everybody! Make no mistake, I'd love for Kerry in particular to demonstrate stronger and more progressive ideals,

but the "flip-flopping" cliche is an overdone rhetorical tactic.Almost nobody rejected the Patriot Act

because they DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ IT! That's inexcusable in their position. I don't accept any reason for

not taking the time to read such an important piece of legislation before voting on it. Irresponsible is the mildest

of terms applicable to that action. If anybody else working for you demonstrated such negligence, would you not hold

their feet to the fire over it?


* * Half the people support Bush. Appeals to patriotism and

other emotions, as discussed in the other thread, are like a strong drug; and ignorance is rampant in our Fox News

culture. Corrupt governments usually are able to generate significant amounts of internal support. A lot of

nationals supported Hitler too. But check this out -- around the rest of the world almost everyone else hates

Bush's policies, moreso than any other American president in history! This is happening despite the enormous

economic and military advantages of being our ally. That means something to me, since it's almost universal, and so

historically unique. That should logically mean a lot to you, since you indicate that the split polls here

do, and since you have have advocated a global, non-centric perspective and philosophy several times in the forum.

You are surrounded by Bush supporters in Texas. But in this forum you've acknowledged lots of totally awful things

about this corrupt administration. Now you say he's not that bad. A bit of "flip-flopping" perhaps?

;)Numerous friends of mine support Bush and, as I have said before, many are just as intelligent and well

informed as you are. These aren't hicks coming in with cow dung still on their boots, these are educated,

thoughtful, professional people who's views are opposite your own. The have good reasons for their beliefs, just as

you have.

Living in California did not make me more inclined to support the democrats. I registered as a

democrat the first time I registered to vote, in California. I quit registering as a democrat while still in

California and oppossed most of their positions throughout twenty years as a citizen of California. My beliefs are

my own regardless of where I am. How free from the influence of where you live are you? From your position, I'd say

not very.

That said, I should add that I probably have not been clear about one of my strongly held positions.

If I didn't believe the system and it's participants were corrupt, I still would not vote for a democrat. I might

support some moderate republicans depending on the person, their history and positions but I believe the democrats

and the majority of their beliefs are the worst possible thing for this country at any time.

Go back and read

what I said. I didn't say that he wasn't awful, I said about half the country does not believe he is as awful as

you say. Rather than flip-flopping, I'd say word twisting. I also suggest that the Kerry camp is as guilty as the

Bush camp of using emotional rhetoric rather than facts to support their candidate. Isn't that exactly what you are

doing telling me that most of the world supports Kerry? After all, isn't the desire to be accepted a universal

desire in us humans?

"Logically" and for the sake of consistancy, I couldn't care less about who the rest of

the world supports. My often stated position that we have no business meddling in other country's governments works

both ways. They have no business even commenting on our elections, no more than we had the right to complain when

Canada voted to decriminalize pot. It's their internal affairs and none of our business.

[DrSmellThis]

OK. Thanks. So you're a

right-leaning anti-Democrat who is nonetheless frustrated and feels a bit squeamish with Republicans. That doesn't

sound like the most pleasant place to be coming from these days. Democrats are out of bounds anyway, then. No wonder

you have that opinion on Kerry and will only go so far with Bush corruption. I did wonder as much, but didn't want

to unfairly pidgeon-hole you. If that's fair to say, it's now much easier to make sense of why you say some

things you do, such as that a progressive tax structure implies higher taxes.

Bel, you kept bringing up about

how 1/2 the people disagree with me, so I was only attempting to work within your logical framework of

valuing how many disagree with whom, by pointing out that it's actually closer to 1/2 of 1% world wide. I'm happy

to abandon that framework if you are, as I agree that the logic is a bit fuzzy either way. But it should go without

saying that people in other parts of the world are not "meddling" in having an opinion about American politics. On

the contrary, we force our hegemonic business down their (everyone else's) throats every day, and they are going to

have a well-deserved opinion about it. I also feel ethically bound to hear them out for that reason (hence my review

of "control room"). We are a huge presence on the planet, in every nook and cranny.

I grew up in the

closed-minded, conservative heartland, and moved out here to get away from it, as I've said in my forum bio. I had

to go to church every day as a kid, for a while there.

[belgareth]

No, you're missing the point.

I saw what a mess a largely democratic government made of one of the world's largest economies; California. I saw

how many people are suffering because of democratic (mis)management in a state where there should be plenty for

everybody. I saw how the schools went from being the best to being some of the worst. I saw how everytime a more

conservative person took office the state's economy began to improve. If that makes me a right leaning

anti-democrat, so be it. At least it is realistic.

If you look at any so called progressive tax structure you

find it always results in higher taxes as a result of the incentive it creates towards corruption and cheating. No,

people don't choose to stay poor, they are more creative and determined than that, they look for and create ways

around the excessive tax burden. Loopholes for those who can afford to create them only increase the tax burden on

other parts of the society as a whole. Then you have the needed infrastructure required to support and enforce the

plethora of laws generated by this "progressive' system; another burden on the society. You can argue against it

all you want but all anybody has to do is look at the IRS to see it in action.

You are right that I keep

bringing up how half the people in this country support Bush. How that compares to how people outside of this

country feel, I am not clear on. You comment yourself on us forcing our opinions down their throats and seem to

agree it is wrong but are willing to accept their opinions on our internal affairs? I do not believe we should be

forcing our opinions on other countries and do not accept their positions on ours. However, the citizens of this

country have every right to an opinion that must be respected even if not agreed with. The difference is both huge

and obvious.

[DrSmellThis]

* I said we force our

"business" (I meant this coloquially) on them, which is bigger than "opinions". The least we can do is hear their

opinions, since we make our business their business. They have no choice but to get screwed by us, and have a

lot of unwanted intimate knowledge of America. I thought I was clear. If we truly lived with harmony and respect for

others we'd not have to care what they felt beyond that.

* The fact of taxes being progressive can't be blamed

for all that. If you're going to have taxes anyway, flat taxes are just unjust to everyone but the richest. Flat

taxes are vulnerable to cheating and loopholes also.

[Pancho1188]

I just skimmed through this,

and I'm not going to even attempt to give an opinion on politics because I don't care and don't know anything

because everyone gives a different opinion and it's all really confusing...

...however, in regards to the

Patriot Act. Congress gets a lot of flame for this. Yes, they made a mistake. Yes, it was really dumb. Hindsight

is 20/20, and we can all look back and call our representatives stupid. I don't believe that for one second. No

one even thinks about the time and the situation when this was published.

It's a grim moment in our nation's

history. Planes were hijacked by terrorists. Two crash into the twin towers, one goes down in PA, and another hits

the Pentagon. The nation is in chaos. Americans are looking to the government to do something to protect them.

The government has to take action to stop this! The problem is, no one knows where to put the blame. Who

did it? It wasn't a nation, so we can't declare war yet...it was just a bunch of people who hate the US and

wanted to see it bleed. Everyone's talking about this bin Laden guy...he has been involved in plenty of terrorist

attacks and probably has some involvement in this whole thing. Anyway, we have to do something! What can we do as

Congress? Pass laws! What do we need to be more effective in this time of panic and threat to national security?

We need to ensure security before freedom temporarily until we get this whole thing straightened out.

It's a

time of patriotism. All Americans must stand together and unite against those that wish to harm us! I look down at

my desk...a new piece of legislation drops on my desk. The Patriot Act. Wow, this is what we need! A piece

of legislation that ensures that Americans are safe from outside threats and are able to live in peace in the

greatest nation in the world. Problem: we're voting on this now. We need to take action now.

Everything is in chaos. Okay, what does it do? The people who drafted it make their case, saying that it's an act

that allows the government to better thwart terroristic threats for the time being and strengthens our nation as a

whole in order to combat terrorism and protect our country. After all, that's what patriotism is all about, isn't

it?

Okay, time to vote! Who's in favor? Anyone not in favor? Why not? Are you not patriotic? What

the hell is wrong with you? This is the Patriot Act. This shows that Congress is taking action for its

people! How could you not vote for this? Don't you want to have the capability to protect our country?!?!?



What are you going to do?

I don't blame them for doing something stupid to protect our country...the beauty

of laws is that you can repeal them when they become obsolete. Now that the state of chaos has all but

faded, we can start to remove the drastic temporary action once taken.

That's my 2 cents, but I can put myself

in the shoes of someone in that situation. It must have really sucked. That said, it's over now and they need to

make amends by removing what is no longer needed.

[belgareth]

* I said we

force our "business" (I meant this coloquially) on them, which is bigger than "opinions". The least we can do is

hear their opinions, since we make our business their business. They have no choice but to get screwed by us,

and have a lot of unwanted intimate knowledge of America. I thought I was clear. If we truly lived with harmony and

respect for others we'd not have to care what they felt beyond that.

* The fact of taxes being progressive

can't be blamed for all that. If you're going to have taxes anyway, flat taxes are just unjust to everyone but the

richest. Flat taxes are vulnerable to cheating and loopholes also.
I said that we have no business forcing

our opinions on other countries, modify it to mean business if you will. I'm not interested in how they run their

countries. By the same token, I have no interest in what other countries say about how our country should be run.



No, it cannot all be blamed on what is called progressive taxes. But your viewpoint is simplistic. Looking at the

wider picture, if the wealthiest were not paying those high taxes the incentive to cheat would be lessened. They

also would have more available cash for reinvestment which is how any business grows. Sure they are going to make

more profit, so? They are also going to employ more people and generate more tax dollars with a lower percentage tax

burden. I'll use my own business as an example. My hourly rate is about $20 per hour lower than most of my

competitors yet I pay my employees a competitive salary. Because of that and the quality of our work, we stay busier

than our competitors and I am constantly struggling to keep up. If I could reduce my tax burden by 15% I would be

able to afford another employee who would in turn generate more income or increase wages and benefits. A reduction

of 25% would allow me to do both. Now, multiply that by a couple thousand small businesses in my area alone.

On

the other hand, increase taxes by 10% and I will not be able to afford my full staff unless I raise my rates which

will allow my competitors to be more competitive with me. I will be less competitive and unable to employ as many

people or will have to reduce wages and benefits. Either way, my employees, both current and potential, are going to

lose out. The other alternative is to cheat; it's not only tempting but would be very easy. I choose not to. That

does not mean that my contemporaries feel the same way.

One of the basic concepts in California is throw money

at any problem and it will go away. Another is that if it isn't illegal it should be mandatory. Ok, I'm

exagerating on the latter but you get my point. But look where an 'enlightened approach' has taken them! It's a

whole other discussion but the lessons I learned in California have stuck with me.

[camusflage]

Almost nobody

rejected the Patriot Act because they DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ IT! That's inexcusable in their position. I

don't accept any reason for not taking the time to read such an important piece of legislation before voting on it.



Remember the mood of the country at that time. I remember being a bit scared about speaking up

against it because of the "either you're with us or you're with them A-rabs" mentality rampant then. Compound that

with the fact that the bill was PRINTED (IIRC from watching "Unconstitutional") at 4:30a and voted on three hours

later. There's no way a 300+ page piece of legislation could be read in three hours.

[camusflage]

Now that the

state of chaos has all but faded, we can start to remove the drastic temporary action once taken.
Uhh,

they tried. Back in July, a bill that would have blocked some of the more controversial sections fell in the House

in a 210-210 vote that saw the voting kept open more than twice as long as House rules dictate while they

strong-armed some representatives into voting it down.

[belgareth]

Remember the

mood of the country at that time. I remember being a bit scared about speaking up against it because of the "either

you're with us or you're with them A-rabs" mentality rampant then. Compound that with the fact that the bill was

PRINTED (IIRC from watching "Unconstitutional") at 4:30a and voted on three hours later. There's no way a 300+ page

piece of legislation could be read in three hours.Be honest, would you have willingly voted on it under

those conditions? I wouldn't. But then I am a stubborn person with little concern about what people think of me.



What really bothers me most is how quickly that 300 page document was created. Normally, something like that

created in a government office takes months or years to write, proof etc. I've read portions of it and feel it is a

well written document. Where did it come from so quickly? Does anybody else besides me wonder about this? If we

assume that this document took months to write, how did the government know to write it? You can't even accuse the

Bush gang of initiating it, it had to start under the Clinton admin. That leads me to all sorts of paranoid

thoughts.

[Pancho1188]

Uhh, they

tried. Back in July, a bill that would have blocked some of the more controversial sections fell in the House in a

210-210 vote that saw the voting kept open more than twice as long as House rules dictate while they strong-armed

some representatives into voting it down.
Well, if people don't like the way they're running the show,

they can always vote for other people.

[a.k.a.]

Meanwhile...
"Three years after

the Sept. 11 attacks, more than 120,000 hours of potentially valuable terrorism-related recordings have not yet been

translated by linguists at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and computer problems may have led the bureau to

systematically erase some Qaeda recordings, according to a declassified summary of a Justice Department

investigation that was released on

Monday."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/politics/28fbi.html?oref=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&positi

on=

The FBI whistleblower that first brought this to public attention has been fired and her appeal has

been dismissed on "national security" grounds.

"Sibel Edmonds' claims of incompetence, malfeasance, and

possible espionage in the FBI's translation unit have received sporadic attention since she first aired them widely

in a 60 Minutes report in October 2002--not least because of the veil of silence that the Bush Justice Department

has tried to draw over the case. In July of this year, a Bush-appointed judge dismissed Edmonds' lawsuit against

the FBI on the grounds that the case would necessarily expose state secrets. Judge Reggie Walton's logic parroted

that of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who in May 2004 issued an order retroactively classifying all the

information that had been presented to Congress in her case because of its alleged national security

sensitivity."

http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/sperry/2004/09/30

Makes you wonder who

these laws are trying to protect.

[DrSmellThis]

Great post!

That is

freedom of speech and dissent being denied on a colossal scale. As if the FBI can't be criticised or sued because

of "national security"!

Every day freedom and democracy has been taking hits. I hope people are beginning to

realize this, and that they more fully realize it before Nov. 2.