NationStates Jolt Archive

Think again. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)
NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.
The professors said the student was told by the agents that the book is on a "watch list," and that his background, which included significant time abroad, triggered them to investigate the student further.

"I tell my students to go to the direct source, and so he asked for the official Peking version of the book," Professor Pontbriand said. "Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security is monitoring inter-library loans, because that's what triggered the visit, as I understand it."

Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.

The professors had been asked to comment on a report that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to spy on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.

The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.

The Little Red Book, is a collection of quotations and speech excerpts from Chinese leader Mao Tse-Tung.

In the 1950s and '60s, during the Cultural Revolution in China, it was required reading. Although there are abridged versions available, the student asked for a version translated directly from the original book.

The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a "watch list." They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said.
Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.

"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he said.
Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk.

"I shudder to think of all the students I've had monitoring al-Qaeda Web sites, what the government must think of that," he said. "Mao Tse-Tung is completely harmless."
The kid was doing a research paper and Homeland Security tagged him, and who wants to bet that the kid's name has been removed from whatever database he got shunted into as a result? Not me. Who wants to bet that he'll have trouble getting on a plane for an international flight? Or that he might get another visit the next time he does some research about a totalitarian government? Or that he'll start hearing mysterious clicks on his phone line?

All because he was doing a research paper.

And you Bush-lovers wonder why I hate this administration as much as I do.

Sickening, I feel sorry for this kid who you are right probably will have trouble for a long time because of this incedent

Why is it the same people who moan about the size of the government and government's ingrained inability to act in an efficient and benevolent manner are the same people who are so blase about giving the government greater and greater power to inject itself into our lives?

Yep, it's easier to get into a database than get out of one. Like when a bank screws up, then fixes the mistake, but your credit history gets ruined anyway, because that part got outsourced. It must happen all the time.

Why is it the same people who moan about the size of the government and government's ingrained inability to act in an efficient and benevolent manner are the same people who are so blase about giving the government greater and greater power to inject itself into our lives?
Because they believe that the government won't ever interfere in their lives? Because they're the kind of folks who look at their neighbors and think they're going to hell but know for a fact that they themselves will be in heaven? I don't know, but there's a shitload of cognitive dissonance in that crowd, that's for damn sure.

And you Bush-lovers wonder why I hate this administration as much as I do.
Ok, I'm tired of hearing this. While i may not agree with bush, he is a SPOKESMAN. Ultimately the supreme and district courts rule the country.
If you are going to hate the government, hate it for the right reasons.

Ok, I'm tired of hearing this. While i may not agree with bush, he is a SPOKESMAN. Ultimately the supreme and district courts rule the country.
If you are going to hate the government, hate it for the right reasons.
No they don't--the court systems are reactive, not proactive. The legislature and the executive are proactive--they're the ones who make things happen. Without them, the courts are unable to do anything.

Why is it the same people who moan about the size of the government and government's ingrained inability to act in an efficient and benevolent manner


Uh...anyone moaning about both of those doesn't realize that they're mutually exclusive. The size of government should be limited because they don't have an ingrained ability to act in an efficient and benevolent manner.

That said, I'll pass on the boo-hoo outrage over this. It's been happening for decades and it's only going to get worse as the government gets more and more bloated.

^ I wonder the same myself. I also wonder why the people that are supposedly concerned about the loss of liberty will forgive and forget what the Democrats voted in favor of, winding us in this awful mess today?
Why are these hypocrites blaming the current admin as the sole offending group? As if these other assholes are exempt of all responsibility?

You're just as much a problem as any Republican, so don't get high-and-mighty, or upset about the infringment of your civil liberties. It's just not sincere.

Refresher, in case you've already forgotten:

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Not Voting
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Uh...anyone moaning about both of those doesn't realize that they're mutually exclusive. The size of government should be limited because they don't have an ingrained ability to act in an efficient and benevolent manner.

That said, I'll pass on the boo-hoo outrage over this. It's been happening for decades and it's only going to get worse as the government gets more and more bloated.

We could reduce the size of government and make it more efficient by greatly expanding the powers of the executive branch. The problem with that is it gives more individuals greater power, power which WILL, eventually be pushed at, stretched and abused. Part of the reason for the size of the government is to limit it's power by creating greater checks, balances and oversight.

So, better than complaining about the mere size of government, it's much smarter to concentrate on WHAT is being expanded and WHAT is being reduced.

^ I wonder the same myself. I also wonder why the people that are supposedly concerned about the loss of liberty will forgive and forget what the Democrats voted in favor of, winding us in this awful mess today?
Why are these hypocrites blaming the current admin as the sole offending group? As if these other assholes are exempt of all responsibility?

You're just as much a problem as any Republican, so don't get high-and-mighty, or upset about the infringment of your civil liberties. It's just not sincere.

Refresher, in case you've already forgotten:

Tell you what, why don't you post the names of the 47 Senators who voted to uphold the filibuster of the renewal of the Patriot Act yesterday instead? All but 5 of them were Democrats, and one of them was Frist who voted to uphold it so he could bring it back for another vote later. Only 2 Democrats crossed the aisle to kill the filibuster. Only 4 Republicans voted to uphold it because of their consciences.

Why is it the same people who moan about the size of the government and government's ingrained inability to act in an efficient and benevolent manner are the same people who are so blase about giving the government greater and greater power to inject itself into our lives?
If you're referring to me as one of those "people", are you sure you really mean that?

Tell you what, why don't you post the names of the 47 Senators who voted to uphold the filibuster of the renewal of the Patriot Act yesterday instead? All but 5 of them were Democrats, and one of them was Frist who voted to uphold it so he could bring it back for another vote later. Only 2 Democrats crossed the aisle to kill the filibuster. Only 4 Republicans voted to uphold it because of their consciences.
Because they knew that the shit was going to hit the fan soon, and certain things were going to be comin' to light. So it was extremely insincere and self-serving. Another lame political tactic, now that "civil liberties" aren't a dirty word anymore. What counts is "who was looking out for our civil liberties, even when it wasn't a popular position?"

Now was too little, too late. Pandor'as opened the box, and I don't think there's "hope" at the bottom anymore. The Democrats were supposed to balance the power by voting against that awful act to begin with. We depended on them to balance things out a bit.
Now we know that we can't do that any longer. The damage is done.
And I'm seeing this fact passed over by outspoken Democrats on this board who point fingers, but haven't yet realized that their party was part of the problem to begin with, not part of the solution. That's why.

Makes you wonder what would have happened to the guy, had they discovered that he listens to The Coup and has no posters on his walls. :eek:

Because they knew that the shit was going to hit the fan soon, and certain things were going to be comin' to light. So it was extremely insincere and self-serving. Another lame political tactic, now that "civil liberties" aren't a dirty word anymore. What counts is "who was looking out for our civil liberties, even when it wasn't a popular position?"

Now was too little, too late. Pandor'as opened the box, and I don't think there's "hope" at the bottom anymore. The Democrats were supposed to balance the power by voting against that awful act to begin with. We depended on them to balance things out a bit.
Now we know that we can't do that any longer. The damage is done.
And I'm seeing this fact passed over by outspoken Democrats on this board who point fingers, but haven't yet realized that their party was part of the problem to begin with, not part of the solution. That's why.
I look at it this way--they were part of the problem then, no question, and I bashed them for it when they voted for it. I sent nasty letters to my Senators for not standing up to it then and I wrote letters to the editor (which were not published, unfortunately). But at least they've learned from the mistake and they're trying to rectify it now. Look, unless this thing gets voted on again in the next two weeks, the provisions of the Patriot Act that need renewal will expire on Dec. 31. That's a victory in my book. It's a late one, but it's a victory.

I've stopped expecting my political leaders to do things for the right reason. It doesn't matter to me why they do a thing anymore, as long as they do the right thing.

Blah Blah Blah (in party bickering)
Nothing funnier than watching the Liberals fall apart from the inside out. :p

I look at it this way--they were part of the problem then, no question, and I bashed them for it when they voted for it. I sent nasty letters to my Senators for not standing up to it then and I wrote letters to the editor (which were not published, unfortunately). But at least they've learned from the mistake and they're trying to rectify it now. Look, unless this thing gets voted on again in the next two weeks, the provisions of the Patriot Act that need renewal will expire on Dec. 31. That's a victory in my book. It's a late one, but it's a victory.

I've stopped expecting my political leaders to do things for the right reason. It doesn't matter to me why they do a thing anymore, as long as they do the right thing.
Well, it makes me glad to see that you've come to your senses concerning the motivations of the Democratic party. They aren't concerned with our civil liberties, so long those liberties are unpopular in the polls.
I'm just hoping that this example still resonates when people get all puffed uff up on this board and proudly proclaim that their party (the blue one) really gives a shit about our civil liberties. If not, I'll be there to remind them. ;)

Nothing funnier than watching the Liberals fall apart from the inside out. :p
n00b, if you'd been here long enough to pull your head outta your ass, you'd know where you went so very wrong with that statement.

Nothing funnier than watching the Liberals fall apart from the inside out. :p
That would require them to both be "in" the party ... which from what I can tell they are not.

As such I find people misinterpreting a political discussion to be as funny if not more so then your suposed examples of liberals falling apart

That would require them to both be "in" the party ... which from what I can tell they are not.

As such I find people misinterpreting a political discussion to be as funny if not more so then your suposed examples of liberals falling apart
It isn't the first time I've been mistaken for a firebrand liberal, and I'm sure it won't be the last. :p

It isn't the first time I've been mistaken for a firebrand liberal, and I'm sure it won't be the last. :p
Yeah :) Same here
But if he had been listening even within this thread you can tell that you dont vote any party lines (I think)

"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he said.
Dr. Williams said in his research, he regularly contacts people in Afghanistan, Chechnya and other Muslim hot spots, and suspects that some of his calls are monitored.

"My instinct is that there is a lot more monitoring than we think," he said.
Dr. Williams said he had been planning to offer a course on terrorism next semester, but is reconsidering, because it might put his students at risk"paranoid"Or that he'll start hearing mysterious clicks on his phone line?paranoid too?Why is it the same people who moan about the size of the government and government's ingrained inability to act in an efficient and benevolent manner are the same people who are so blase about giving the government greater and greater power to inject itself into our lives?because protecting the peoples lifes and freedom from foreign powers, terrorists and criminals is the very function the government should fullfill. making sure everyone is clothed, has food and a home and medicine is not.

"paranoid"paranoid too?because protecting the peoples lifes and freedom from foreign powers, terrorists and criminals is the very function the government should fullfill. making sure everyone is clothed, has food and a home and medicine is not.
And we do this by illegaly spying on people doing collage papers?

"paranoid"paranoid too?because protecting the peoples lifes and freedom from foreign powers, terrorists and criminals is the very function the government should fullfill. making sure everyone is clothed, has food and a home and medicine is not.


It's only "paranoid" when you've not been monitored - when two government agents show up at your mom and pops house, I think that's a pretty good reason to be "paranoid".

How you tie in socialism to the original post I have no idea.

The whole point of the post is that his privacy was breached, I mean jesus, would you like the government pouring over the books you read just because you're well travelled and take a politics class at college? I don't think so.

Yeah :) Same here
But if he had been listening even within this thread you can tell that you dont vote any party lines (I think)
You're right, I don't vote along any particular line. Although i belong to a political party, there's so few chances to vote for anyone since we don't have many candidates, I'm forced to choose between the lesser evils (and I spend a lot of time trying to figure out who that is before each election. It's exhausting.)

Funny how often neoconservatives have disassociated themselves from anyone who wants to defend, God forbid, something as trivial as civil liberties.
It's just easier to dismiss them as a dirty "liberal", and shrug them off/stick head back in sand or ass.

We could reduce the size of government and make it more efficient by greatly expanding the powers of the executive branch. The problem with that is it gives more individuals greater power, power which WILL, eventually be pushed at, stretched and abused. Part of the reason for the size of the government is to limit it's power by creating greater checks, balances and oversight.

So, better than complaining about the mere size of government, it's much smarter to concentrate on WHAT is being expanded and WHAT is being reduced.


Not a bad point at all, I can't really disagree.

However the most optimal path would be to keep the government from expanding beyond that which is necessary to maintain adequate checks and balances. It may be part of the reason for the size, but the majority of the reason comes from, like any bureacracy, functions that are either unnecessary, outdated or redundant. The increased functions and inefficiency experienced over the last century have little to do with checks and balances.

And we do this by illegaly spying on people doing collage papers?
I guess so. Funny--I thought this was the US. Somewhere along the line it feels like an "SR" got added to the end there.

How you tie in socialism to the original post I have no idea.
I'm still trying to figure out how that got worked in there myself. :confused:

And we do this by illegaly spying on people doing collage papers?have you got any evidence for iilegal spying at all?
firs,t their is no clue in the story about anything illegal having happened. second, spying aims at secrets, interlibrary requests are not secrets in any way.

It isn't the first time I've been mistaken for a firebrand liberal, and I'm sure it won't be the last. :p
Well, in the early 1900s definition of the word, you are a "Liberal".

I guess so. Funny--I thought this was the US. Somewhere along the line it feels like an "SR" got added to the end there.


Err....in the USSR, the student would have been arrested, he and his family would have been put to work in a government facility (if they were lucky) and we would have never heard about his story or from him again. So I'm going to say your comparision is just a tad over the top.

Well, in the early 1900s definition of the word, you are a "Liberal".
;) That's correct, but it's not exactly telling the whole story today, so I don't accept it personally.

have you got any evidence for iilegal spying at all?
firs,t their is no clue in the story about anything illegal having happened. second, spying aims at secrets, interlibrary requests are not secrets in any way.

Oh, so we should just give the government the benefit of the doubt eh? In the words of GW just "trust us". :rolleyes:

Doesn't it scare you that checking out a BOOK can put you on a watch list with the FBI? I think it is outrageous. I should be able to check out any book I want without the government knowing.

because protecting the peoples lifes and freedom from foreign powers, terrorists and criminals is the very function the government should fullfill. making sure everyone is clothed, has food and a home and medicine is not.

But when this "protection" of one's freedom infringes upon one's ESSENTIAL freedoms as well, isn't it just as bad? Sounds a lot like the Vietnam philosophy of "burning a village to save it".

I doubt it was so much the book as it was the proffesor. CHechnya is a hotspot that America watches for international traffic, mostly because we have oil intrests there. And in recent years there have been more mujihadeen(Holy warriors) flowing into CHechnya from America.

That's correct, but it's not exactly telling the whole story today, so I don't accept it personally.

I experience the same problem. I start ranting about the excessive government regulation in the economy and I get called a "conservative" rather than a libertarian or a classic liberal. If I divulge my anger towards the government's infringement in foreign and domestic policy with drug laws, the War in Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc. I get called a "liberal". So, basically I manage to piss off pretty much everyone in a political debate, which is even more fun when I have both "sides" debating me.

Being a libertarian sure is fun. :p

Being a libertarian sure is fun. :p

Sssssssssssssssshhhhhhh......... ;)

But when this "protection" of one's freedom infringes upon one's ESSENTIAL freedoms as well, isn't it just as bad? Sounds a lot like the Vietnam philosophy of "burning a village to save it".
Well put!

To those that mock citizens who value their civil liberties--

What the fuck are we fighting for in Iraq in the first place?

Guess they're really after me now then...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=459780

Think again. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)

The kid was doing a research paper and Homeland Security tagged him, and who wants to bet that the kid's name has been removed from whatever database he got shunted into as a result? Not me. Who wants to bet that he'll have trouble getting on a plane for an international flight? Or that he might get another visit the next time he does some research about a totalitarian government? Or that he'll start hearing mysterious clicks on his phone line?

All because he was doing a research paper.

And you Bush-lovers wonder why I hate this administration as much as I do.
That sounds like crap!

Well put!

To those that mock citizens who value their civil liberties--

What the fuck are we fighting for in Iraq in the first place?

Hmm I think for honour's sake right now. At the start it was something else though.

You know, if the U.S. is such a champion of democracy, I'd like to see our government issue a vote to the Iraqi people as to whether U.S. military forces should stay or leave the country. It would be interesting to see the results...

You know, if the U.S. is such a champion of democracy, I'd like to see our government issue a vote to the Iraqi people as to whether U.S. military forces should stay or leave the country. It would be interesting to see the results...

Especially to see who could best rig the vote and to what result...

Well, it makes me glad to see that you've come to your senses concerning the motivations of the Democratic party. They aren't concerned with our civil liberties, so long those liberties are unpopular in the polls.
I'm just hoping that this example still resonates when people get all puffed uff up on this board and proudly proclaim that their party (the blue one) really gives a shit about our civil liberties. If not, I'll be there to remind them. ;)I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the one Senator who voted against Patriot Act I, Patriot Act II, worked to limit the most egregious portions of both, and laid the gauntlet down of a filibuster is a Democrat.

Granted there are sleazeball politicians on both sides of the aisle. But the good guys need to be acknowledged* in order to encourage them to further good judgment.

*And frankly I've seen more good guys on the blue side than on the red, at least for the past 15 years or so.

Think again. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)

The kid was doing a research paper and Homeland Security tagged him, and who wants to bet that the kid's name has been removed from whatever database he got shunted into as a result? Not me. Who wants to bet that he'll have trouble getting on a plane for an international flight? Or that he might get another visit the next time he does some research about a totalitarian government? Or that he'll start hearing mysterious clicks on his phone line?

All because he was doing a research paper.

And you Bush-lovers wonder why I hate this administration as much as I do.
Sounds like a total load of conjecture on your part. The actual article doesn't indicate that anything was "done to" the student other than a brief series of questions. Where in the world did you get that he was placed on a database, that he'll have trouble getting on a plane to ANYwhere, or that he's going to "get another visit" the next time he does research.

You're reading too much into an innocuous incident, something which you seem to have vertible skill at doing. Give it a rest! Sheesh! :headbang:

Think again. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)

The kid was doing a research paper and Homeland Security tagged him, and who wants to bet that the kid's name has been removed from whatever database he got shunted into as a result? Not me. Who wants to bet that he'll have trouble getting on a plane for an international flight? Or that he might get another visit the next time he does some research about a totalitarian government? Or that he'll start hearing mysterious clicks on his phone line?

All because he was doing a research paper.

And you Bush-lovers wonder why I hate this administration as much as I do.
so they came and questioned the kid. anything happen? was he arrested? or are you just putting out some fearsome senarios like you and others accuse President Bush of doing with the Patriot Act?

You're reading too much into an innocuous incident, something which you seem to have vertible skill at doing. Give it a rest! Sheesh!

Regardless of the potentially exaggerated implications made by The Nazz, our main objection lies in the ability of the government to know what books we are checking out of the library if it is deemed "suspicious" (a vague termed coined by the GOVERNMENT). Quite frankly, it reminds me of a more tame version of the McCarthy era, where a "good law-abiding citizen" wouldn't get caught dead with a copy of Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Aren't you at least a bit concerned with the level of government intrusion in one's personal life?

That sounds like crap!

Your eloquence is only exceeded by your exhaustive response. :rolleyes:

Regardless of the potentially exaggerated implications made by The Nazz, our main objection lies in the ability of the government to know what books we are checking out of the library if it is deemed "suspicious" (a vague termed coined by the GOVERNMENT). Quite frankly, it reminds me of a more tame version of the McCarthy era, where a "good law-abiding citizen" wouldn't get caught dead with a copy of Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Aren't you at least a bit concerned with the level of government intrusion in one's personal life?
Dude, I lived through the McCarthy era and this is nothing like it.

I have no problem with the FBI or the CIA asking anyone anything anytime they choose.

Regardless of the potentially exaggerated implications made by The Nazz, our main objection lies in the ability of the government to know what books we are checking out of the library if it is deemed "suspicious" (a vague termed coined by the GOVERNMENT). Quite frankly, it reminds me of a more tame version of the McCarthy era, where a "good law-abiding citizen" wouldn't get caught dead with a copy of Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Aren't you at least a bit concerned with the level of government intrusion in one's personal life?
Long before the Patriot Act. There were many books on the Government Watch List. As a Bookseller, we were required to send in to the Main Corporate Offices any names of people special ordering "The Anarchist Cookbook." One can only guess what they were doing with that List.

The kid was doing a research paper and Homeland Security tagged him, and who wants to bet that the kid's name has been removed from whatever database he got shunted into as a result? Not me. Who wants to bet that he'll have trouble getting on a plane for an international flight? Or that he might get another visit the next time he does some research about a totalitarian government? Or that he'll start hearing mysterious clicks on his phone line?

All because he was doing a research paper.

And you Bush-lovers wonder why I hate this administration as much as I do.
But he's an Ivy League student. Probably well on his way to becoming a card--carrying ACLU Communist. We don't need rights for everyone.

You're hatred of this administration is just a knee-jerk reaction. There's really nothing new under the sun when it comes to abusive government. Just better reporting.

Your eloquence is only exceeded by your exhaustive response. :rolleyes:
I notice that you chose to ignore those whose responses were more detailed. Could it be that your selectiveness is exceeded only by your disengenuousness? :p

Man, the temptation to say, 'I toldja so' is like an irresistable force... the fact that I actually have told you so, repeatedly, is a minor consideration at best. Guess he really did learn something about fascism and totalitarianism, after all.










Poor Mr. Buttle.:(

Dude, I lived through the McCarthy era and this is nothing like it.

I have no problem with the FBI or the CIA asking anyone anything anytime they choose.

And legal provisions for this are already in place. If an emergency wiretap is needed, for example, the government has the authority to operate a wiretap for 72 hours PROVIDED that at the end of that 72 hours they indeed obtain said warrant.

The thing I have a problem with is A SINGLE PERSON having the power to order this kind of domestic information gathering WITHOUT OVERSIGHT. We all know, liberals and conservatives alike, that a power given tot he government is a power abused. Adding a complete absense of oversight to that is simply a naiive invitation to disaster.

THE ONLY reason the Bush administration wants these kinds of powers is not to give themselves a better "arsenal" to "fight terror" with...they ALREADY HAVE that power. What they want is to have that power in utter secrecy.

Man, the temptation to say, 'I toldja so' is like an irresistable force... the fact that I actually have told you so, repeatedly, is a minor consideration at best. Guess he really did learn something about fascism and totalitarianism, after all.
Poor Mr. Buttle.:(
Toldja so? Toldja so what? Toldja that Bush would make sure no one else would fly planes into office bulidings? Toldja we wouldn't have any more attacks on American soil? Toldja that Liberals would fight tooth and nail against anything that might protect us if it costs some college student 30 minutes of his oh so valuable time?

Get a grip, dude.

And legal provisions for this are already in place. If an emergency wiretap is needed, for example, the government has the authority to operate a wiretap for 72 hours PROVIDED that at the end of that 72 hours they indeed obtain said warrant.

The thing I have a problem with is A SINGLE PERSON having the power to order this kind of domestic information gathering WITHOUT OVERSIGHT. We all know, liberals and conservatives alike, that a power given tot he government is a power abused. Adding a complete absense of oversight to that is simply a naiive invitation to disaster.

THE ONLY reason the Bush administration wants these kinds of powers is not to give themselves a better "arsenal" to "fight terror" with...they ALREADY HAVE that power. What they want is to have that power in utter secrecy.
Without oversight? Dude, are we both reading the same news stories? Are you a bit slow on the uptake, or are you purposefully ignoring the part where Senate memebers have been briefed 12 times about the NSA activities?

I notice that you chose to ignore those whose responses were more detailed. Could it be that your selectiveness is exceeded only by your disengenuousness? :p

Touche. Might I also add that such habits, in general, are shared by both of us.

Thy pithiness is only exceeded by your cantankerousness. :D

Sounds like a total load of conjecture on your part. The actual article doesn't indicate that anything was "done to" the student other than a brief series of questions. Where in the world did you get that he was placed on a database, that he'll have trouble getting on a plane to ANYwhere, or that he's going to "get another visit" the next time he does research. Educated conjecture nonetheless.

What government agent doesn't file a report of one kind or another in the event of an investigation? Even a cursory, "yeah, the punk's just a snot-nosed college kid, nothing here to report" generates paperwork. And paperwork tends to have identifying information and a life of its own.

It's a matter of public record (ah the irony) that the records (whether library use, hotel registrations, etc. etc.) obtained through these Patriot Act-authorized, warrant-less searches are used to form a database that is not purged after the conclusion of the investigation.

Will the student get another visit? Sounds like it'll depend if he continues to request materials deemed suspicious.

Dude, I lived through the McCarthy era and this is nothing like it.

I have no problem with the FBI or the CIA asking anyone anything anytime they choose.Most people felt the same way about the House Un-American Activities Committee under McCarthy's 'leadership'.

Without oversight? Dude, are we both reading the same news stories? Are you a bit slow on the uptake, or are you purposefully ignoring the part where Senate memebers have been briefed 12 times about the NSA activities?

Fine, then write a law that states that such wide-ranging powers can only be used if the Senate is fully briefed. As there is no such law, we have to depend on the goodwill of this Presidency and all others to follow.

As of right now, such actions by the President fall outside the law. Make it law or don't do it.

And I don't think such a law would EVER get passed.

Dude, I lived through the McCarthy era and this is nothing like it.

I have no problem with the FBI or the CIA asking anyone anything anytime they choose.

I respect your knowledge and experience in this matter Eutrusca, do not misunderstand me. However, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion. While you claim that the McCarthy era does not resemble today's circumstances, I believe it is simply the "same dog but different fleas" so to speak. In the McCarthy era the justification for government intrusion in civil liberty was an overblown, paranoia fed, fear of communism. Now it is terrorism perpetuated by continuing claims of a terrorist threat (just when citizens feel safe), the Patriot Act (single-handedly overriding many fundamental civil rights) and illegal surveillance. I sure as hell don't feel safer as a result of these measures, and in fact I just feel violated. I am sick and tired of feeling like I am a peon at the mercy of the government whenever I walk through security to board a plane, searched as though I am a criminal though I have committed no crime. The government could have supplied the pilots of large commercial aircraft guns and sealed off the cockpits, but that wasn't enough. Now I have to worry about carrying a pair of scissors on a plane with me.

I don't feel as though I must serve the CIA, FBI anytime they want to search/question me. It is not my duty to give up my liberties to serve the government and the U.S. It is the government's job to ensure that my liberties need not ever be tampered with.

Educated conjecture nonetheless.

What government agent doesn't file a report of one kind or another in the event of an investigation? Even a cursory, "yeah, the punk's just a snot-nosed college kid, nothing here to report" generates paperwork. And paperwork tends to have identifying information and a life of its own.

It's a matter of public record (ah the irony) that the records (whether library use, hotel registrations, etc. etc.) obtained through these Patriot Act-authorized, warrant-less searches are used to form a database that is not purged after the conclusion of the investigation.

Will the student get another visit? Sounds like it'll depend if he continues to request materials deemed suspicious.

Most people felt the same way about the House Un-American Activities Committee under McCarthy's 'leadership'.
How funny.

"I read all about Mcarthyism in school today, I know all about it"

Cute.

How funny.

"I read all about Mcarthyism in school today, I know all about it"

Cute.Nope, sorry. Your assumptions are incorrect. You got anything else? Anything of substance?

Toldja so? Toldja so what? Toldja that Bush would make sure no one else would fly planes into office bulidings? Toldja we wouldn't have any more attacks on American soil? Toldja that Liberals would fight tooth and nail against anything that might protect us if it costs some college student 30 minutes of his oh so valuable time?

Get a grip, dude.
The jury's still out on the plane business, but if the unfettered erosion of personal rights and scrutinizing public access to freely-available information was Mr. Bush's handlers' goal, well job well done, then. You've nipped the budding problem of the underground student communist movement of 1965 and placed it firmly under the thumb of government in just under four decades too late.

Want to talk about getting a grip?

^ I wonder the same myself. I also wonder why the people that are supposedly concerned about the loss of liberty will forgive and forget what the Democrats voted in favor of, winding us in this awful mess today?
Why are these hypocrites blaming the current admin as the sole offending group? As if these other assholes are exempt of all responsibility?

You're just as much a problem as any Republican, so don't get high-and-mighty, or upset about the infringment of your civil liberties. It's just not sincere.

Refresher, in case you've already forgotten:

Alphabetical by Senator Name
... Yea


If that's a list of the Senators votes on the PATRIOT act, it doesn't really say very much. A Senator is more than the dumbest vote they ever cast. And the measure of a senator's character is not just how they voted on it, but how they argued over it. If a senator voted yes understanding that this was a rapid-response measure that was to be tailored later or allowed to expire if it proved short-sighted, then that senator is hardly anti-civil rights. The administration and it's like-minded legislators however are still arguing to preserve it. An argument that I believe they lost to some degree yesterday.

It's rather like the vote on authorizing force in Iraq.

"This is a vote to get arms inspectors in" - yea
"This is a vote to let Saddam we expect cooperation" - yea
"This is a vote to let Bush colonize Iraq and steal it's oil and water" - yea
"This is a vote to keep that oil away from China" - yea

Not all of the yea votes were pro-war. By the same token, all the pro-Patriot votes were not anti-civil rights.

Toldja so? Toldja so what? Toldja that Bush would make sure no one else would fly planes into office bulidings? Toldja we wouldn't have any more attacks on American soil? Toldja that Liberals would fight tooth and nail against anything that might protect us if it costs some college student 30 minutes of his oh so valuable time?

Get a grip, dude.

Why are conservative memories so damn short yet their imaginations so long? No terrorist bombings on American soil since 9/11? We've had them in New York (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4516119.stm) for Chrissake!

Bush hasn't made us safer. When they don't attack us it's because they don't want to. The terrorists like us destroying the middle east because it depletes us and strengthens them.

You're reading too much into an innocuous incident, something which you seem to have vertible skill at doing. Give it a rest! Sheesh! :headbang:

I know of at least one American who was stripped of her citizenship and deported to India over something like this Eut. Do you support that?

Hmm. Figures, really.
Great deals of people in D.C., Republican or Democrat, seem interested in tighenting a state chokehold over me. And mostly they both want to do it in the same way, it appears.

I vote we declare the US a one-party state, ruled by the Dempublicrats, and be done with it.

I have no problem with the FBI or the CIA asking anyone anything anytime they choose.

Ihre Papieren, bitte.

Anyway I have a problem with that. Not least of which is the bit about being citizens, and not subjects.

Also, looking at the history of those two agencies - and more generally the justice department - you can have bugger all confidence that they'll keep anything you tell them in confidence.

Moreover, if what you tell them comes to nothing, it might be available to anyone under FOIA. (Or just incorrectly released).

For starters, I will say that I don't mind if the government watches me. I do some illegal things. And they are illegal. I do them because I know I can get away with them. If I thought I was in danger, I wouldn't do them. I know I'm not a terrorist or anything, and I don't mind them watching me, because I deserve any punishment I would get for doing illegal things*.

*Now, being punished without being convicted, and having any of my normal buisness interrupted in any way because of this, it becomes a problem. They can look all they want, but they lay a proverbial hand on me, and I will not stand it.

Anyways, that said, I really wanted to post this. It seems to me like the whole system is falling apart. Not in a fire and brimstone way, there is no flood, no ice age. But, since I've been alive, things seem to just be getting more and more fucked up in politics. I realize I may just be noticing more, but honestly, it just seems like since the 2000 election, we have just been exploding internally. A fucked up election, a terrorist attack, invasions of afghanistan and Iraq, Various hurricanes, especially Katrina, etc. It seems like our system is becoming even less and less about viewpoints, and more about winning, to do the same exact thing. SARS, the bird flu, riots in France, intensified Iranian wackiness, Israeli nukes(though not as new as the rest), North korea nuclear program, Patriot act, Plume incident, etc. I'm not saying there was never anything else going on in history, but really, I can't think of many other 4 year periods of such bullshit, of devastation, of corruption, other than maybe 41-45 and 14-18.

Edit: And the senate is BS. California being equal to Rhode Island? I think not. Just double up congressional importance, and be done with it.

So tell me Mr. Eutrusca, do you still beat your wife?

Wow, Lacadaemon, I never realized you were so much of an unrespectful ass. Just because somebody disagree's with you, doesn't mean you need to attack their characters. You have managed to totally destroy any respect I may or may not have had for you, in the future.

Wow, Lacadaemon, I never realized you were so much of an unrespectful ass. Just because somebody disagree's with you, doesn't mean you need to attack their characters. You have managed to totally destroy any respect I may or may not have had for you, in the future.

The point is, he has no problem with the CIA the FBI or whomever asking anything they want at anytime. They could ask that, and he'd have to answer. Then that answer could become publically available. (As could the fact that he was asked that question).

I notice that you chose to ignore those whose responses were more detailed. Could it be that your selectiveness is exceeded only by your disengenuousness? :p
There's a kettle on the phone, wants to talk about something you called it...

To Gymoor's credit, though, he doesn't just make shit up about those that disagree with him (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=459198). That would be down right despicable. No matter how many smileys where used.

The point is, he has no problem with the CIA the FBI or whomever asking anything they want at anytime. They could ask that, and he'd have to answer. Then that answer could become publically available. (As could the fact that he was asked that question).

No, the point is you have acted like a total asshole. I don't give a flying fuck what you meant to say, you should behave like a fucking mature adult. I don't get mad at these 5 post newbs who use attacks like that, but christ, I at least recognize your name when I see it. You should know better than using examples like that, because you know that its its flamebaiting at the least.

No, the point is you have acted like a total asshole. I don't give a flying fuck what you meant to say, you should behave like a fucking mature adult. I don't get mad at these 5 post newbs who use attacks like that, but christ, I at least recognize your name when I see it. You should know better than using examples like that, because you know that its its flamebaiting at the least.

No, it isn't. Not least of which because both you, I, and he know he is not married. :rolleyes:

Get a grip.

Edit: And for someone who want's to lecture about flamebaiting you probably want to watch what you call other people.

No, it isn't. Not least of which because both you, I, and he know he is not married. :rolleyes:

Get a grip.

Whatever. I do know he doesn't have a wife, but he has Ex's, which might as well suffice for the word Wife(especially when referencing the past).

Asking if he still beats his wife, if flamebait. Asking if he beat his wife, wouldn't be. You're question was completely rude and uncouth, no matter what idiotic, semantical defenses you throw up. But I see you are taking the path of see no evil, hear no evil, so I won't post anymore. But I do feel pity.

EDIT: The difference is, you think you are being witty in some way. You are just making an ass of yourself. As for me, I am not attacking your arguments by attacking your character, you have given plenty of reasons to do so by yourself.

Dude, I lived through the McCarthy era and this is nothing like it.

I have no problem with the FBI or the CIA asking anyone anything anytime they choose.
Didn't you say in another thread that you never trust authority? One where we were bitching about politicians? Which is it, Eutrusca? Never or always? Or do you just twist to whatever suits you at the time?

Whatever. I do know he doesn't have a wife, but he has Ex's, which might as well suffice for the word Wife(especially when referencing the past).

Asking if he still beats his wife, if flamebait. Asking if he beat his wife, wouldn't be. You're question was completely rude and uncouth, no matter what idiotic, semantical defenses you throw up. But I see you are taking the path of see no evil, hear no evil, so I won't post anymore. But I do feel pity.

EDIT: The difference is, you think you are being witty in some way. You are just making an ass of yourself. As for me, I am not attacking your arguments by attacking your character, you have given plenty of reasons to do so by yourself.

No, actually, I didn't think I was being "witty", I thought I was using a fairly obvious rhetorical device. One that has been used on me, and others, before in fact. However since it obviously upsets you so much, I'll get rid of it.

It's not worth the bother.

Ok let me get this straight. This came as a second hand story? It is fully deemed credible with no proof? The student wants to remain anonymous? So how to find out if this story is actually credible?Who is to say this prof doesn't have an anti-Bush agenda? Where is the proof that this happened? This just sounds very suspicious.

I seem to remember somebody in another thread saying that they were dragged in front of the principal of his college for trying to get a copy of the Communist Manifesto out of the library.

I'm going to go to the library and requset the Red Book, the Communist Mannifesto, Das Kapital and Mein Kampf so I can see if MI5 are doing the same here.:p

I seem to remember somebody in another thread saying that they were dragged in front of the principal of his college for trying to get a copy of the Communist Manifesto out of the library.

I'm going to go to the library and requset the Red Book, the Communist Mannifesto, Das Kapital and Mein Kampf so I can see if MI5 are doing the same here.:p
Add the "Anarchist Cookbook" and they'll be there.

Add the "Anarchist Cookbook" and they'll be there.

I don't think my college library has that.:(

It does have Machiavelli's 'The Prince' though, I'm reading it at the moment.

Long before the Patriot Act. There were many books on the Government Watch List. As a Bookseller, we were required to send in to the Main Corporate Offices any names of people special ordering "The Anarchist Cookbook." One can only guess what they were doing with that List.

Which is where my new rule comes into play: the government is always one point less freedom-loving than the average citizen believes/"knows". As a moderately distinguished person once said: "Those who are willing to sacrifice a little liberty to achieve a little security deserve neither, and will lose both."

I'd rather be spied upon by a terrorist than my government, if only because I already know I shouldn't trust the former, whereas I ought to be able to trust the latter.

Ok let me get this straight. This came as a second hand story? It is fully deemed credible with no proof? The student wants to remain anonymous? So how to find out if this story is actually credible?Who is to say this prof doesn't have an anti-Bush agenda? Where is the proof that this happened? This just sounds very suspicious.

Even if he does "have an anti-Bush agenda", that's not a good enough reason (for me, anyway, but I'm a socialist) to bring down the FBI on him. I don't want CSIS knocking on my front door because I disagree with Paul Martin.

You know, if the U.S. is such a champion of democracy, I'd like to see our government issue a vote to the Iraqi people as to whether U.S. military forces should stay or leave the country. It would be interesting to see the results...
Does anyone seriously think that the citizenry of a nation would prefer to have an occupying force present?

As a related question, isn't peacekeeping in Iraq currently mandated by the UN?

Does anyone seriously think that the citizenry of a nation would prefer to have an occupying force present?

As a related question, isn't peacekeeping in Iraq currently mandated by the UN?If it is, it's news to me. Last I heard, the UN hadn't taken an official stance on Iraq because the US made it clear it would veto anything it didn't like. Do they even have an Iraq presence anymore? They pulled out after de Viera was killed, and I don't know if they ever came back.

Which is where my new rule comes into play: the government is always one point less freedom-loving than the average citizen believes/"knows". As a moderately distinguished person once said: "Those who are willing to sacrifice a little liberty to achieve a little security deserve neither, and will lose both."

I'd rather be spied upon by a terrorist than my government, if only because I already know I shouldn't trust the former, whereas I ought to be able to trust the latter.
You know, I've always wondered about that Quote.

Consider then those that would ranther their Liberties but no Security.
I'm sure those passengers on those four fatal flights on 9/11 would agree that they were happy to die free than to live safe.

And those in jail for excersing their "Liberites and Freedoms" would probably agree with you as well. after all, Laws also restrict freedoms from the individual.

Meanwhile, those individuals who are protected by those laws would probably not look kindly on you when you take those laws away.

do you lock your doors? are you not deying the freedoms of others because you are "Restricting" them from the pleasure of you and yours? Are you not trading your Freedom (by now worrying about your property) for Security?

Situations sometimes deem that we temporarily surrender some liberties to secure our abilities to regain those liberties. it's when those dangers are well and past that then we can redeem our security for the Liberties we temporarily let go.

and before people yell out Straw man, realize this. Who set's the laws? The Government. wether City, State, or Federal, they are all the Government.

now, temporarily giving up freedom for secuity is not "giving UP Liberty" no more than the Bank is "Taking your Money" Remember the time that Those words were spoken. England did not grant the Colonies "Liberites" only to take them away, the Colonies didn't have the "Liberites" Mother England had at that time. so Franklin's words were true then Fight for Freedom or die a Slave.

at this time, I don't see that the freedom I've lost (and don't miss anyway) are more than the security I've gained. So I've and some packages opened. So I had to let the guards search my car and examine all my repair tools as well as electronic devices. those are minor to me. If the Government wants to tap my phone, they are more than welcome. I know I don't do anything that I need to hide from my Government. And should I get a visit from the FBI, CIA, NSA or whomever, I will give my full cooperation. Because, to the question poised at the title of this thread? I can answer YES. I have Nothing to Worry about, I have Done NOTHING WRONG. and I know that the MAJORITY of US citizens will also answer YES to that question.

If it is, it's news to me. Last I heard, the UN hadn't taken an official stance on Iraq because the US made it clear it would veto anything it didn't like. Do they even have an Iraq presence anymore? They pulled out after de Viera was killed, and I don't know if they ever came back.
I need to look into this a little more. It's just something stirring in the back of my memory, right now. It's probably just early Alzheimer's, though.

There are certainly no blue-helmeted UN troops there. As I recall, they wouldn't allow the US to protect them and left in a snit. Almost like Saddam's lawyers.

[edit]
There's a group called UNAMI, the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq, that has been providing some humanitarian, reconstruction, and development assistance.

Does anyone seriously think that the citizenry of a nation would prefer to have an occupying force present?


Probably not, unless the populace really felt that their security was in grave danger. My point was to consider what the Iraqi people want, not what the U.S. feels is necessary. Let's face it, if this war was theoretically about liberating the Iraqi people, then shouldn't the Iraqi's have the say in their liberty? Otherwise, if the U.S. decides to do what it wishes, then our reasons for entering the war were not in fact humanitarian/liberating but rather for personal benefit. We may have started the war, but the Iraqi's have to decide for themselves where the war will go from here.

Besides, if hypothetically the Iraq citizenry vote for U.S. withdrawal, then they will have to bear the burden of training their police forces and defending themselves. If they cannot defend themselves, then the U.S. will be a crutch for them for decades to come.

Probably not, unless the populace really felt that their security was in grave danger. My point was to consider what the Iraqi people want, not what the U.S. feels is necessary. Let's face it, if this war was theoretically about liberating the Iraqi people, then shouldn't the Iraqi's have the say in their liberty? Otherwise, if the U.S. decides to do what it wishes, then our reasons for entering the war were not in fact humanitarian/liberating but rather for personal benefit. We may have started the war, but the Iraqi's have to decide for themselves where the war will go from here.

Besides, if hypothetically the Iraq citizenry vote for U.S. withdrawal, then they will have to bear the burden of training their police forces and defending themselves. If they cannot defend themselves, then the U.S. will be a crutch for them for decades to come.*nods in agreement*
they can always vote us out and we'll leave.
the Phillipines wanted the US airbases out and we left. And they now live with the consequences.

What the fuck are we fighting for in Iraq in the first place?

WMDs! No wait ...

9/11!! No ... damn ...

Al Qaeda!!! Nope again ....

Freedom for Iraqis? What about ours?

Shrug ... I'll stick with oil ... it's as believable as anything Bush has tried to pawn off on us.

I'm going to go to the library and requset the Red Book, the Communist Mannifesto, Das Kapital and Mein Kampf so I can see if MI5 are doing the same here.I've got two of them out and want a third. Zilch so far.

So the US is one step away from persecuting communists. What's new?

Think again. (http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm)

The kid was doing a research paper and Homeland Security tagged him, and who wants to bet that the kid's name has been removed from whatever database he got shunted into as a result? Not me. Who wants to bet that he'll have trouble getting on a plane for an international flight? Or that he might get another visit the next time he does some research about a totalitarian government? Or that he'll start hearing mysterious clicks on his phone line?

All because he was doing a research paper.

And you Bush-lovers wonder why I hate this administration as much as I do.
Produce the kid jackass. You can't, cause it didn't happen. Thanks for playing todays game, how to be a gullible idiot.

Produce the kid jackass. You can't, cause it didn't happen. Thanks for playing todays game, how to be a gullible idiot.

Whether or not the story is true, there is an underlying issue (IMO) with the government's ability to monitor the status of certain books that are checked out by private citizens. This is undeniable fact. So, scoff and make inflammatory remarks about this given article, but consider the underlying problem that it deals with before making an attack.

Whether or not the story is true, there is an underlying issue (IMO) with the government's ability to monitor the status of certain books that are checked out by private citizens. This is undeniable fact. So, scoff and make inflammatory remarks about this given article, but consider the underlying problem that it deals with before making an attack.
they've been doing this for a loong time. during Clintons reign in office and earlier. So this is nothing but a Fear spreading article and nothing else. The only difference is that now they (the FBI and other Secuity agencies) now need to Followup on more leads, and not just dismiss ones that seem harmless.

they've been doing this for a loong time. during Clintons reign in office and earlier. So this is nothing but a Fear spreading article and nothing else. The only difference is that now they (the FBI and other Secuity agencies) now need to Followup on more leads, and not just dismiss ones that seem harmless.

So because the government has a history of infringing upon individual civil liberties it is okay? Sure it's not technically "illegal" but its immoral and should be stopped. Laws don't make actions right.

What I would like to see is some sort of punishment for government officials who take illegal/invasive actions towards individuals if they end up being wrong. Murray Rothbard was the genius behind this idea. If the police want to conduct an illegal search/seizure/wiretap, etc. they can exercise that right. If they are wrong, however, they are tried in court as criminals and face jail time. If they are right they are thereby exonerated. Same thing with politicians. If Bush wants to allow spying on "suspcious" citizens then he (and those who conducted the searches) must pay the penalties of any mistakes.

This just makes public officials no longer immune to unlawful acts, and just as responsible for their actions as private citizens.

Produce the kid jackass. You can't, cause it didn't happen. Thanks for playing todays game, how to be a gullible idiot.
If you had read the article--you can read, right?--you'd have noticed this bit:Although The Standard-Times knows the name of the student, he is not coming forward because he fears repercussions should his name become public. He has not spoken to The Standard-Times.
But I guess that's not enough production for you. :rolleyes:

If you've got a beef, take it up with the paper.

So because the government has a history of infringing upon individual civil liberties it is okay? Sure it's not technically "illegal" but its immoral and should be stopped. Laws don't make actions right.

What I would like to see is some sort of punishment for government officials who take illegal/invasive actions towards individuals if they end up being wrong. Murray Rothbard was the genius behind this idea. If the police want to conduct an illegal search/seizure/wiretap, etc. they can exercise that right. If they are wrong, however, they are tried in court as criminals and face jail time. If they are right they are thereby exonerated. Same thing with politicians. If Bush wants to allow spying on "suspcious" citizens then he (and those who conducted the searches) must pay the penalties of any mistakes.

This just makes public officials no longer immune to unlawful acts, and just as responsible for their actions as private citizens.
no but this sudden cry of OMG the Governement is only now taking away my Liberites... see they're doing stuff that they were always doing 3 decades ago... is rather foolish.

as for the illegal search and seazure, it's already there. If it's proven that evidence was taken illegally, it's tossed out. The police are then made to look stupid, and a possibly guilty person is freed.

and what country are you in where Public Officials are immune. not here I dare say.

no but this sudden cry of OMG the Governement is only now taking away my Liberites... see they're doing stuff that they were always doing 3 decades ago... is rather foolish.


This is not a sudden, recent cry for the end of government corruption; it is only part of a continuing struggle for individual liberty amidst a paternalistic, collectivistic government structure. If anything, this example provided by The Nazz simply provides validity for such a quest.

as for the illegal search and seazure, it's already there. If it's proven that evidence was taken illegally, it's tossed out. The police are then made to look stupid, and a possibly guilty person is freed.


The lines between illegal and legal search and seizures has been blurred recently with the Patriot Act and other unilateral executive decisions.

and what country are you in where Public Officials are immune. not here I dare say.

Unfortunately, so. Not completely immune, but "protected" with claims of national security and protection of citizenry. Do you seriously think Bush will face any criminal charges for spying on civilians (who are merely "suspicious")? I doubt it. Nixon didn't even do jail time for Watergate.

Another annoying executive power is the right to pardon criminals of crimes. Such unilateral quasi-judicial powers are dangerous in the hands of a single individual.

If you had read the article--you can read, right?--you'd have noticed this bit:
But I guess that's not enough production for you. :rolleyes:

If you've got a beef, take it up with the paper.
On the other hand, it might be nice to name the agents. Presumably, they did show some identification when the questioned the young Communist. I think that would protect him from exposing their covert status.

Fuel to the fire (http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/2082167.html).

Granted it's really more of a case of overzealous cops overstepping thier bounds, but...

I have a six degree on this one, I know the laywer that started the ball rolling.

Ok, I'm tired of hearing this. While i may not agree with bush, he is a SPOKESMAN. Ultimately the supreme and district courts rule the country.
If you are going to hate the government, hate it for the right reasons.

Excuse me mate, but it was your ilk who had a bitch feast about the judgings 'making legislation from the bench' and hence the big anti-liberal agenda in regards to supreme court appointments.

I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways; a court system chock a block with sympathetic judges whilst expecting them to hold the government to account.

Excuse me mate, but it was your ilk who had a bitch feast about the judgings 'making legislation from the bench' and hence the big anti-liberal agenda in regards to supreme court appointments.

I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways; a court system chock a block with sympathetic judges whilst expecting them to hold the government to account.
I never did get that ... mass accusations of “legislating from the bench” all the while placing people to do the exact same thing

Just another example of political hypocrisies that abound (on all sides)

I never did get that ... mass accusations of “legislating from the bench” all the while placing people to do the exact same thing

Just another example of political hypocrisies that abound (on all sides)

Yeap, and its all about the one side accusing the other side of either social engineering, legislation from the bench, liberalism by force.

The sad part, the vast majority of people, no matter which country, sit in the middle of the political spectrum - and its sad that neither party actually offers a viable alternative as each pray on the logical extremes of each ideology and the demonisation of the opposition.

Just look at the dust storm made about gay marriage - a prime example of wedge politics; another example would be 'if you're not with us, you're against us' attitude, again, another example of of this wedge politics.

Unfortunately, this sort of behaviour is detrimental, in the long term, to the social cohension of a nation, but it seems that neither side are willing to acknowledge the long term consequences of their divisive political views.

Yeap, and its all about the one side accusing the other side of either social engineering, legislation from the bench, liberalism by force.

The sad part, the vast majority of people, no matter which country, sit in the middle of the political spectrum - and its sad that neither party actually offers a viable alternative as each pray on the logical extremes of each ideology.
Hopefully (and it will be hard while it is happening) the sides continue to polarize until a viable third party can actually break up the dominance of the two party system

Then they will all HAVE to play to the largest group ... the people in the center

Maybe we will start to see better representation of what their constituents actually want by all parties

Hopefully (and it will be hard while it is happening) the sides continue to polarize until a viable third party can actually break up the dominance of the two party system

Then they will all HAVE to play to the largest group ... the people in the center

Maybe we will start to see better representation of what their constituents actually want by all parties

Unfortunately, however, it won't happen in the US; what the US NEEDS is MMP, it also needs to devovle the power back down the congress and appoint a prime minister/chancellor, how Germany operates, so then atleast not only would a third party but a forth and fifth party can be created.

Unfortunately, however, it won't happen in the US; what the US NEEDS is MMP, it also needs to devovle the power back down the congress and appoint a prime minister/chancellor, how Germany operates, so then atleast not only would a third party but a forth and fifth party can be created.

I don't think we even need to do that. I would say that we should abolish the electoral college, but that would require a constitutional amendment. So, I suggest the U.S. use proportional representation to reflect the electoral votes in a given state. So that way any number of minority parties can have a chance and the populace won't feel like they are wasting their vote if their party is in the minority in a given area (because they will still have SOME representation). This would do a lot to ease the woes of our "winner takes all" system.

I don't think we even need to do that. I would say that we should abolish the electoral college, but that would require a constitutional amendment. So, I suggest the U.S. use proportional representation to reflect the electoral votes in a given state. So that way any number of minority parties can have a chance and the populace won't feel like they are wasting their vote if their party is in the minority in a given area (because they will still have SOME representation). This would do a lot to ease the woes of our "winner takes all" system.

Why not simply have the power in the congress/parliament, and simply have the president with no power, voted in with 3/4 support by congress and senate?

Atleast if there is a government formed, it'll be because the majority supported a particular party(s) by the fact that the government has the most number of seats in the lower house? the coalition government would also curb the extremes of both sides, and in the case of the Republicans, they could form a coalition with parties which were more moderate and thus able to push the religious extremists out of their party, who currently hold the reigns of power.

If you had read the article--you can read, right?--you'd have noticed this bit:
But I guess that's not enough production for you. :rolleyes:

If you've got a beef, take it up with the paper.
No, no it's not, given the simple train of logic that says the feds already know who he is if what he says is true. Ergo the only logical reason to conceal your identity at this point is if you have something to hide. Like the fact that you're lying through your teeth. If this happened to me I would get documentation and immediately publish far and wide what happened. Instead it comes through the mouths of two history profs "about two months" after the incident occurred and the student won't come forward. Instead he is "known" to the paper. Which probably means the author. The proof is in the pudding, or in this case the absence of pudding, as all we have at this point are vague rumors of pudding.

All because he was doing a research paper.


Try enlisting in the infantry, and getting sent to a school by your commander. You do well in the school, and return to your unit. You end up using the skill taught at the school in a war, legally and legitimately.

You come home, and find out that because you're a graduate of an official Army school, you're on a list of threats for the rest of your life.

Every time some wacko with a rifle goes out and does something bad, they show up at your house with four agents and ask you questions. Sometimes, you go downtown with them for more questions.

No, you're never charged with anything. And sometimes, they ask to search your house or car. You're not a criminal, and when you go to purchase a firearm or get a concealed weapons permit, the background check is OK.

I'm visited so often that I routinely keep a log of my whereabouts, so that I can hand it to them - who saw me where and when, every day.

They appreciate the work - it saves them a lot of time. The agents who visit me appear to be quite annoyed at having to keep track of a law-abiding military veteran who has an honorable discharge - they could be out looking for real bad guys, but some bureaucrat in Hell has made up the threat list.

I'm visited so often that I routinely keep a log of my whereabouts, so that I can hand it to them - who saw me where and when, every day.


And they bitch when they "might" not make recruitment numbers.

Is it just me or is seizing inter-Uni Library records a little to close to a police state for comfort?