NationStates Jolt Archive

Is this true? http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1382435,00.html

Because if it is, and this is truely what ahppens in the 'Land of the Free' then maybe you should think of a diffrent name.

Never read these emotional tracts while tired or hungry, they go straight to your heart while bypassing the brain. Still, I am moved by just how bad things seem for the US right now.

I know it, because I found out a while ago the library I use had its records seized and one of the librarians got fired because she leaked the news of it to the press. Even talking about what they are doing is illegal, and a blanket of fear and silence is descending over all those who would speak out.

Never read these emotional tracts while tired or hungry, they go straight to your heart while bypassing the brain. Still, I am moved by just how bad things seem for the US right now.

I know it, because I found out a while ago the library I use had its records seized and one of the librarians got fired because she leaked the news of it to the press. Even talking about what they are doing is illegal, and a blanket of fear and silence is descending over all those who would speak out.
Good point, about never reading them when your tired and hungry.

But if hose things are really happening in the US, isn't there anything that they can do about it?

Good point, about never reading them when your tired and hungry.

But if hose things are really happening in the US, isn't there anything that they can do about it?
Not anymore, I fear...
I'm planning to be dead or gone if anything real bad happens.

Good point, about never reading them when your tired and hungry.

But if hose things are really happening in the US, isn't there anything that they can do about it?

Political Momentum. Its hard to change direction when rolling downhill. Sure we can do things about it, but its a matter of momentum.

But if hose things are really happening in the US, isn't there anything that they can do about it?
We just voted for 4 more years of it. :rolleyes:

Is this true? http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1382435,00.html

Because if it is, and this is truely what ahppens in the 'Land of the Free' then maybe you should think of a diffrent name.

I would take anything the guardian prints with several grains of salt. they have a political agenda and are in no way unbias. facts can do a merry jig with the truth when you take things out of context and leave out important details. not to mention the fact that no names or case files or any kind of evidence what-so-ever is mentioned in the article. he could be makeing this crap up for all we know.

I would take anything the guardian prints with several grains of salt. they have a political agenda and are in no way unbias. facts can do a merry jig with the truth when you take things out of context and leave out important details. not to mention the fact that no names or case files or any kind of evidence what-so-ever is mentioned in the article. he could be makeing this crap up for all we know.

I know that at least two of those are true, as I've read about them elsewhere...
Or at least similar cases to those, similar enough for me to confuse them.
If I find the stuff again, I'll post links.

Of course, the other stuff might still be made up.

also, it's not as if this is anything new. there have always been over zelous/bigotted law enforcement that bend or break what is constitutionally permisable in order to do what they think is right.

People can moan about how freedom is going downhill but that has ever been the case. government (regardless of who's running it) trends towards more government power and less civil rights. Freedom is something you have to continually strive for because there will always be someone trying to take it from you. we the people only lose when we do nothing to fight the encroachment of the government on our rights.

So before you think to point the finger of blame at some government offical, consider this, what have you done recently to help preserve your freedom? If you think it stinks get out there and make a fuss about it, don't just moan about how we're doomed cause we "voted for 4 more years of it" that's a defeatest attitude, and no one with such an attitude will ever accomplish anything worth while.

Lose the appathy, get involved, or stop your whinning.
<end soap box rant>

I get the impression that in this article the author isn't showing all of the story. For example, the Santa Fe student who was arrested for making a comment against George Bush in a chatroom. What was the comment? Was it political in nature or was it something else, maybe an assassination threat? I don't know, and in all the cases I'd like to have more information, because the way it is presented (and the paper it is in) comes across as propagandistic.

For, example, the Ohio State Commencement thing. Do you know why they didn't allow protests? The reason wasn't to squelch dissent, but to keep people from detracting from the graduation of the students, which is the reason commencement is held. The author doesn't mention that though.

He points the reader in the direction he wants the reader to go, in cases where most people probably won't have heard about the incidents. I'd like a whole lot more info than what was presented here.

I get the impression that in this article the author isn't showing all of the story. For example, the Santa Fe student who was arrested for making a comment against George Bush in a chatroom. What was the comment? Was it political in nature or was it something else, maybe an assassination threat? I don't know, and in all the cases I'd like to have more information, because the way it is presented (and the paper it is in) comes across as propagandistic.

For, example, the Ohio State Commencement thing. Do you know why they didn't allow protests? The reason wasn't to squelch dissent, but to keep people from detracting from the graduation of the students, which is the reason commencement is held. The author doesn't mention that though.

He points the reader in the direction he wants the reader to go, in cases where most people probably won't have heard about the incidents. I'd like a whole lot more info than what was presented here.

That would certainly help...
Damn, I've got to find those links!

First clue as to the validity of this article, it's the Guardian. They don't report news but shape opinions and don't let facts get in the way. Most of these are "stories" with no details provided to authenticate.

The one story that I am familiar with... We're imprisoning journalists for their coverage of a White House vendetta on a CIA agent... is a blatant misrepresentation. The reporter in question has been threatened with jail if he does not provide the name of the person who leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative to him. The life of the operative, Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, and national security was put as risk by the release of this information, but the reporter refuses to provide the name of his source.

Let's examine a couple more of them.

We arrested a library patron in New Brunswick for looking at foreign-language pages on the web. Excuse me, but isn't New Brunswick in Canada? The person who made up this story needs to consult his maps.

We arrested a man at St John's College in Santa Fe for making a negative comment about George Bush in a chatroom from the college library.
How many of you on here are American and have roasted the heck out of Bush? How many of you have been arrested for it?

It's impossible to counter the other claims as no details were provided and Googling doesn't seem to provide any hits. So, as I stated before, it's the Guardian...nuff said.

I would take anything the guardian prints with several grains of salt. they have a political agenda and are in no way unbias. facts can do a merry jig with the truth when you take things out of context and leave out important details. not to mention the fact that no names or case files or any kind of evidence what-so-ever is mentioned in the article. he could be makeing this crap up for all we know.
True, but all papers have some kind of bias: People just tend to read stuff they agree with.

It's also not an "official" article, it's someone's opinion that the paper has up on its website, so it should be taken with quite a bit of salt.

One of the stories I have personal knowledge of - the artist who got arrested for his installation piece. Some of the details are wrong, but the essence of the story is right - his wife died in her sleep next to him, he called emergency services and was arrested the same night (which was hard, but fair enough - a local cop saw all the lab stuff and a dead body and not unnaturally panicked) and then held by the FBI without charge (much less excusably). He's due to come to trial on much reduced charges - basically a face saving exercise by the FBI - in a couple of months. The story is worse than that painted in the article. He's not only an artist but an accredited science professor at the local university, and the GM material was licensed as part of his authorised research.

The author is Sara Paretsky, she's the author of the V.I. Warshawski novels, about a female private detective. She is not a reporter, nor does she work for the Guardian. She writes books.

There is a New Brunswick in New Jersey.

She doesn't do a good job of backing up her claims in this editorial, but it was just a comment piece. It is good to see that people are demanding proof or at least links to sources concerning these claims.

As far as the reporter that won't reveal his source to the Justice Dept - I'm split on that. The politician that leaked the name and the reporter that published it are both scumbags. However, we can't jail a reporter for not revealing his/her sources - I have to side with the Constitution over the Justice Dept, even though the guy is an ass.

also, it's not as if this is anything new. there have always been over zelous/bigotted law enforcement that bend or break what is constitutionally permisable in order to do what they think is right.

People can moan about how freedom is going downhill but that has ever been the case. government (regardless of who's running it) trends towards more government power and less civil rights. Freedom is something you have to continually strive for because there will always be someone trying to take it from you. we the people only lose when we do nothing to fight the encroachment of the government on our rights.

So before you think to point the finger of blame at some government offical, consider this, what have you done recently to help preserve your freedom? If you think it stinks get out there and make a fuss about it, don't just moan about how we're doomed cause we "voted for 4 more years of it" that's a defeatest attitude, and no one with such an attitude will ever accomplish anything worth while.

Lose the appathy, get involved, or stop your whinning.
<end soap box rant>

So where is your next protest rally OH GREAT LEADER!

Bump

Actually it's not the guardian's peice. It's by a US author. She writes okay books, but from the article you can tell she either doesn't know many facts on certain things she complains about, or she is purposely putting bias into them.

True that the Guardian is biased to be inflamatory, but they had not gone and presented an Enquiriror type story here. The Author was not The Guardian, as stated, and the story presented only one side, even though it was not too flattering. Many such incidents could be found in many places, unfortunately. Since 911, the mood of the USA has changed and not for the better. I wonder if 911 would have happened if Bush was not elected the first time around. Hard to say. Gore would not have taken the Homeland Security Act approach, for sure. That sounds so NAZI as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad that I had left the United States for the real Land of Freedom, in Canada. I'm still waiting for the next Hitler to show up in Washington DC.

Never heard any of those, so they must not. Americans just aren't that cruel.

Never heard any of those, so they must not. Americans just aren't that cruel.
This one (http://www.caedefensefund.org/overview.html) is true enough.

If the Guardian is too biased for some maybe the same article can be found in a more 'credible' medium.

Anyone up to the search? ;)

This one (http://www.caedefensefund.org/overview.html) is true enough.

Holy shit...

Holy shit...
x10.

Isn't that wierd?
Oh yeah, and that was one of the links I was looking for. Grr, I got beat to it.

This one (http://www.caedefensefund.org/overview.html) is true enough.
It seems more like a misunderstanding and stupidity on the FBI's part rather than intentional state repression though.

Sounds like we in the U.S. are going in a fun direction. Why not take over the world, or at least have fun in the process? Start with the Middle East and drain them dry of oil! Then take France after they give up first.

Force the world to eat McDonalds and get "born again". Paint the world red and destroy the UN, eat PETA members, and give guns to kids. This makes good news.

Really, I don't care about Al Queda or Osama, I want cheap gas. Fuck democracy in Iraq. Tap the sand and suck it dry. America first!

Considering the source, the Guardian, they're not known for telling both sides to the story. Still, let's assume that all this stuff was happening, and let's assume that the Guardian is for once telling the truth in its correct context.

After the 9/11 attacks, many people hated the Muslim world, because they believed all muslims were hateful terrorists. That, of course, is not true. The same thing is happening with America. After the mudslinging that has happened in the election, people gained a mentality, that Bush was evil. They gained this mentality because Bush went to war, and they have taught themselves that war, for any reason, is wrong, and peace is always an option (remind me how that worked against the Nazis?). Combined with the democratic party's effort to out a republican president at all costs, has turned the election into a Good vs. Evil fight, with the entire world watching. At the end of the election, Bush defeated Kerry, but the world was shocked. How could these people support someone so evil, rather than vote for the "Godlike" democrat? Believing all the mud slung at Bush, the world now despises us even more.

There you have it. Now, I know you might not believe me, but just think about it. Bush can't really be responsible for everything that has happened. He took over for a president who nearly disabled the military and let the Bin Laden threat go on, as well as other things. In fact, Bush's opponent voted to cut military funding, even during the war he supported. Those people who took a moral crusade upon themselves to demonize Bush, rather than give the illusion they support the president the majority of Americans elected, state everyone else must be wrong, and continue their fanatical campaign (Don't believe me? Then why are the democrats already talking about who should run in 2008?). The Guardian is merely a participant in this game, too proud to admit the republicans can do some good.

In conclusion, the guardian is only valuable as toilet paper. This is especially true when they venture into American politics. Those stories may be true, but I doubt it, and further, I doubt that's the entire story. I can almost guarantee that the dems are doing the same to violate human rights, just like the four men in Philidelphia who were arrested for "hate crimes" when all they were doing is reading the bible out loud in public. Strange that the guardian doesn't report on that...

True that the Guardian is biased to be inflamatory, but they had not gone and presented an Enquiriror type story here. The Author was not The Guardian, as stated, and the story presented only one side, even though it was not too flattering. Many such incidents could be found in many places, unfortunately. Since 911, the mood of the USA has changed and not for the better. I wonder if 911 would have happened if Bush was not elected the first time around. Hard to say. Gore would not have taken the Homeland Security Act approach, for sure. That sounds so NAZI as far as I'm concerned, and I'm glad that I had left the United States for the real Land of Freedom, in Canada. I'm still waiting for the next Hitler to show up in Washington DC.

I hope I'm the next Hitler. I'm working on it! See ya on reality death camp TV.

Never heard any of those, so they must not. Americans just aren't that cruel.
Abu grab (SP), Guantamino bay?

They gained this mentality because Bush went to war, and they have taught themselves that war, for any reason, is wrong, and peace is always an option (remind me how that worked against the Nazis?).

I myself think that Bush is not evil, but naieve. The Iraq war is currently in a stalemate position. Why? Look to Russia. Russia invaded Afghanistan, remember, and something very similar happened. There was a stalemate position, people were dying from attrition, and Russia just couldn't beat guerilla tactics. America are having no luck with Iraq, and even if democracy is enstated, they'll still have to stay there for a while. The Russians ended up pulling out in the end, and I should think the US will too, at which point the democracy will probably be overthrown by the guerillas, who will enstate another despot. Afghanistan wasn't ready for the US, but Iraq was.

Anyway, Iraq didn't pose a threat to you. Even if Saddam did have WMDs, they'd be out of range of the US. The Nazis, surpringly enough, did.

Another thing - war may have been OK before, but in modern society the only superpower in the world is not really meant to go around declaring war on people, especially when one of the main reasons appears to be for oil.

Abu grab (SP), Guantamino bay?

Well, in general americans aren't that cruel. Those G.I's in Iraq shamed us all, and we spit on them. Guantimino bay is basically the same..... I think.....

However, the first link on this page is fake. We would have heard some of those stories and most of us never had.

I myself think that Bush is not evil, but naieve. The Iraq war is currently in a stalemate position. Why? Look to Russia. Russia invaded Afghanistan, remember, and something very similar happened. There was a stalemate position, people were dying from attrition, and Russia just couldn't beat guerilla tactics. America are having no luck with Iraq, and even if democracy is enstated, they'll still have to stay there for a while. The Russians ended up pulling out in the end, and I should think the US will too, at which point the democracy will probably be overthrown by the guerillas, who will enstate another despot. Afghanistan wasn't ready for the US, but Iraq was.

Anyway, Iraq didn't pose a threat to you. Even if Saddam did have WMDs, they'd be out of range of the US. The Nazis, surpringly enough, did.

Another thing - war may have been OK before, but in modern society the only superpower in the world is not really meant to go around declaring war on people, especially when one of the main reasons appears to be for oil.


The Soviets faced a well armed and financed enemy. Who's funding the enemy in Iraq? The probable source is Iran with the help of funding from clerics from other nations.

I agree Iraq did not make for a good target, Afganistan did. Afganistan was a just retaliation, albiet weak.

Considering the source, the Guardian, they're not known for telling both sides to the story. Still, let's assume that all this stuff was happening, and let's assume that the Guardian is for once telling the truth in its correct context.

After the 9/11 attacks, many people hated the Muslim world, because they believed all muslims were hateful terrorists. That, of course, is not true. The same thing is happening with America. After the mudslinging that has happened in the election, people gained a mentality, that Bush was evil. They gained this mentality because Bush went to war, and they have taught themselves that war, for any reason, is wrong, and peace is always an option (remind me how that worked against the Nazis?). Combined with the democratic party's effort to out a republican president at all costs, has turned the election into a Good vs. Evil fight, with the entire world watching. At the end of the election, Bush defeated Kerry, but the world was shocked. How could these people support someone so evil, rather than vote for the "Godlike" democrat? Believing all the mud slung at Bush, the world now despises us even more.

There you have it. Now, I know you might not believe me, but just think about it. Bush can't really be responsible for everything that has happened. He took over for a president who nearly disabled the military and let the Bin Laden threat go on, as well as other things. In fact, Bush's opponent voted to cut military funding, even during the war he supported. Those people who took a moral crusade upon themselves to demonize Bush, rather than give the illusion they support the president the majority of Americans elected, state everyone else must be wrong, and continue their fanatical campaign (Don't believe me? Then why are the democrats already talking about who should run in 2008?). The Guardian is merely a participant in this game, too proud to admit the republicans can do some good.

In conclusion, the guardian is only valuable as toilet paper. This is especially true when they venture into American politics. Those stories may be true, but I doubt it, and further, I doubt that's the entire story. I can almost guarantee that the dems are doing the same to violate human rights, just like the four men in Philidelphia who were arrested for "hate crimes" when all they were doing is reading the bible out loud in public. Strange that the guardian doesn't report on that...

We're not talking about a partisan axe to grind, we're talking about rediculous stuff that doesn't need to happen and shouldn't be happening.

Anyway, didn't we figure out that this was an editorial by a 3rd party writer? Good for the guardian; does the writer have an affiliation with the website other than her submittal?