What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
222 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+104Be afraid.
It will soon be illegal to protest a corrupt administration, if the GOP gets their way. - littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+82That's why it needs to go Bye Bye.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+68Habius Corpus anyone
The Bush administration should be treated as criminals, under the Patriot Act they would prolably fit the bill - FyreGoddess, on 10/12/2007, -4/+60That's what people don't seem to understand. I'm not frightened of the Patriot Act because of Bush and Company, I'm frightened because I don't know who is going to come after them. Regardless of party, it's Acts like this that will lie in wait for the power-hungry administration that eventually uses it to their advantage. It could just as easily be someone calling themselves a Democrat as a Republican.
- NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -5/+59Thomas Jefferson once said:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Meaning there should be an armed rebellion every 20 years, to remind the government not to run our lives, and take our liberties/freedoms...
Seems like our government needs to be warned not to take away our freedoms... Of course I wouldn't suggest using weapons to do it by force... but then again, what else would it take? - ojk007, on 10/12/2007, -20/+73Man you Yanks are so terrified of everything, well actually its probably just your government but seriously this is getting so rediculous!
- lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -3/+55Now I see why they send guys to stalk political rallies and protests.
With the language in that bill just tripping and bumping into a cop while holding a protest sign is good for a life sentence. - zizzybaloobah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51Did anyone not see this coming?
Step 1: Enact draconian laws that are nominally to fight terrorism
Step 2: Redefine terrorism to use the laws in Step 1 to accomplish what you wish
While I'm upset at the Bush Administration for pushing the Patriot Act on us, I'm even more upset at our so-called representatives that voted for this thing (and it's extension) without reading it and fully understanding it's implications.
The only thing worse than not doing something is doing something so you can say you've done something. How much nonsense has become law because Congress felt compelled to 'do something' but didn't really know what to do? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51so... despite all the flag-waving and talk about "safety" and "security," another law is being used to expand government power and increase control over the people?
shocking. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+48@craigb12:
Hardly. The Senate is the one that approves the damn bills. If you think that this mess is only Bush's fault, you're horribly mistaken. It's the entire government's fault, and the fact that all the Democrats AND Republicans want to do is increase government power and crack down on and control anything that threatens that control or seems out of place. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40Too late, man. FTA:
"A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to:...(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
Vague enough to be exploited any number of ways.
"Hey, we had to charge the protesters with terrorism...they were, um...inciting a riot, yeah that's it...which was obviously dangerous to human life. Oh sure they were peaceful at the time, but shoot, you know how those peaceful protests can turn violent at any moment." - EComni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38@Niko
"Meaning there should be an armed rebellion every 20 years, to remind the government not to run our lives, and take our liberties/freedoms...
Seems like our government needs to be warned not to take away our freedoms... Of course I wouldn't suggest using weapons to do it by force... but then again, what else would it take?"
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
You and this so-called "Thomas Jefferson" demagogue are under arrest for inciting terrorism under Section 802 of the Patriot Act specifically referring to "Domestic Terrorism." Enjoy your stays in Cuba. - fuckthenwo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section802.html#802
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -19/+53Its not even the whole government, its just this guy named GW.
This is just another way to sidestep habius corpus. - gardnert1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
-The US Government against Afgan, Iraqi, US, and potentially many other civilians
(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
-All interest groups (especially pro-Israel groups)
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.
-The US government in Iraq (obviously) as well as countless other countries around the world by actions of the CIA
So by our own definition our GOVERNMENT is the biggest terrorist of them all? You don't say! Any Iraqi civilian (and even some troops in Iraq) would agree with that assertion. - murderbydef222, on 10/12/2007, -11/+44GOP and the Democrats are the same thing...........................objectivism ftw!
- schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section802.html#802
Yeah, I think the Bush administration is guilty of at least a few of these. - jimripper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34I used to think that people who used the slippery-slope argument were silly. But this is truly disturbing. It's these vague definitions that make me want to read "1984" again.
The biggest problem I have with this is that it probably does nothing to protect us. It simply promotes fear-mongering, stereotyping, and hate. - jimripper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33Sadly, you could be right about habeas corpus. If the government can classify domestic criminals as terrorists, then they could place them in military prisons and hold them without charging them, without giving them access to a lawyer, for as long as they wanted.
- fuckthenwo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty".
--Thomas Jefferson
This has nothing to do with fearmongering. It's about freedom, and those who could seek to enslave us... Oh yeah, and that "piece of paper" we call the Constitution, how could I forget. - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37Congratulations, neocons and so-called "conservatives." You've finally elected a government that delivered on all those fearmongering predictions you had about Clinton and the Democrats, except they haven't come for your guns yet.
You created a strawman "librull commie dictator," and managed to create one.
Bra-vo. Pat yourselves on the back and tip back a cold one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29the patriot act trades freedom for security.
(just like any fascist ideology) - FleetAdmiral, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28According to this link, President Bush is guilty of domestic terrorism, in the following ways (note the arrows):
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
==> (5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
==> `(B) appear to be intended--
==> `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
==> `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
==> `(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
SEC. 803. PROHIBITION AGAINST HARBORING TERRORISTS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 2338 the following new section:
==> Sec. 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists
`(a) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 229 (relating to chemical weapons), section 831 (relating to nuclear materials), paragraph (2) or (3) of section ==> 844(f) (relating to arson and bombing of government property risking or causing injury or death), section 1366(a) (relating to the destruction of an energy facility), section 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), section 2332a (relating to weapons of mass destruction), or section 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries) of this title, section 236(a) (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284(a)), or section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.'.
==> `(b) A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.'.
(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The chapter analysis for chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item for section 2338 the following:
==> `2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists.'. - ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24In case you're a "much superior" liberal / democrat please allow me to point out that your vaunted saviors whom we conservatives actually voted for this past election in the hopes the erosion of liberty, PNAC war plans and police state could be curtailed have failed to do one damn thing about the agenda they were sent to Washington with. Unless we can all acknowledge that a huge majority of our elected "representatives" are bought and paid for corporate / globalist whores with no true affiliation to political parties beyond the manipulation value we stand no hope at all in stopping this. We need to elect Ron Paul and turn to 3rd party, non established candidates in 08 for every other office. We need to send them to DC with a written mandate signed by them that they will do as we tell them to or resign vs. civil litigation for breach of contract.
Have you dems figured out Pelosi is just as much a war hawk and Israeli lobby target as Lieberman yet?
Given the complete and total failure of the dems to address any of the GW issues do you really think Hillary or Obama will be any different?
We really have no more time for mindless left vs right reindeer games folks, hell we may not even make it to the 08 election at this point. It's time to demand our representatives actually start "representing"....us instead of the global / corporate / foreign lobbies. It's time to dust off the recall petitions and get busy firing some DC whores. - ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24herkimer, you're an obtuse moron. Front page this morning:
The FBI failed to report accurately how many people it snooped on using anti-terror measures, officials said a government audit revealed today. Demands for banks and phone companies to hand over people's private information without telling them may also have gone beyond what is allowed by the Patriot Act, officials with access to the report told CNN.
Abuses are already happening, have already happened, and will continue to happen.
If you want to keep your ***** head in the sand, that's fine, but keep your mouth shut too please? - PhreakMac, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27So now people are looking into this? Hell most "awake" people have been screaming about this for years now.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FASCISM! - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21The slippery-slope is always a good argument when you're dealing with the behavior of bureaucrats. Once they get that little snowball going they have words like "mandate" to justify an avalanche. If you're at all interested you can read up on both sides of civil rights issues trying to sneak in slippery slopes over the last 40 years.
- Templeofjava, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Reminds me of not only the movie "1984" but also "V for Vendetta"
- haggie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21I define "domestic terrorism" as any U.S. citizen or group of U.S. citizens that is trying to deprive another U.S. citizen of life and/or liberty. The only group that is actively attempting to deprive me of my freedoms today is the U.S. government.
The U.S. government (the president AND Congress) is the largest domestic terrorism threat and need to be stopped. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"intimidate or coerce a civilian population"
Doesn't that include the IRS then? - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -3/+21@hmmmok
Because the executive branch having the ability to secretly jail anyone without a trial or oversight is peanuts compared to being "forced" to call the handicapped "physically challenged"... - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Pointing out the problems with the Patriot Act is an act of terrorism. Turn yourself in to the nearest internment camp for extraordinary rendition, citizen.
- knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -19/+35anyone recall the stories going around about half a year ago about how police, sheriffs, and all other law enforcement agencies were sent faxes from homeland security saying that anyone quoting the Constitution of the United States of America should be suspected of "terrorism"?
MALIGNANT. - ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Yeah lets just wait until Americans get charged as terrorist...THEN it'll be the perfect time to use your Freedom of speech
Signed,
Jose Padilla - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Do you support The Constitution? THE FBI SAYS YOU ARE A TERRORIST:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/FBIsuspect.html
(Sorry for the caps but the situation merits it.) - heffae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
As I see it this is section with the the big problem. By this definition tail-gating just became and act of terrorism. Failing to follow at a safe distance is a violation of the law. (In Arizona, at least under certain circumstance's, this can be a criminal violation and not a civil one) Usually the person tail-gating wants to "coerce" the person in front of them to change lanes or speed up.
Of course none of this actually matters since you no longer have the right to defend your self if they claim you are a terrorist anyway. - knomevol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15best idea i have heard all day - as long as he is accompanied by the people who used him as a scapegoat.
- R34C7, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16As far as I'm concerned the government is using scare tactics to push their government empowering agendas.
Not like that has never happened in the history of mankind. Every civilization that has ever been under fascist rule was under the guise of some threat that an all controlling government could handle. An individual is intelligent, but 'people' don't care about liberty when faced with a threat to their safety. - protogenxl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17Well I would say that blowing the cover of a CIA agent and her countless associates is an act of domestic terrorism so we should demand that Scooter Libby be thrown in Gitmo.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12You don't need the patriot act to make the Bush administration criminals. The old laws prohibitting treason already do that quite nicely, (as do many others).
- dankenstein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11This new patriot act in conjuction with the military commisions act really hinders any efforts to change the government via peaceful revolution...
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." - EComni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@davalf
Good point, and I dugg you up to stave off your burial. But I will say that the section comes uncomfortably close to infringing on the people's right to assemble, particularly if/when, as you said, any new laws coming up that refines "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State."
Any type of march or assembly can fit the other clauses. - lnf69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11This post shows us that some Democrats are working on changing the effects of the Patriot Act.
http://www.digg.com/world_news/House_Democrats_introduce_bill_to_restore_habeas_corpus - starguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You've never been thrown into a US prison for a crime that was purely manufactured, have you? I have. You just wait. Being trapped in a sensory deprivation concrete box where people go violent and insane will change your point of views. You will see what a complete farce the US justice system is.
I met a domestic terrorist back in 2002... in fact he had the bunk right next to me and was the friendliest, most harmless guy you would ever meet, very reasonable, but streetwise if not very smart. I talked to him every day. He had one problem, he was an alcoholic. Well one time he got into a fight with his mother and evidently a kitchen butter knife was involved which they apparently fought over.... he was locked in prison with a 5 year sentence for "terroristic threats". I kid you not. Terroristic threats. This guy was no terrorist, he was a common run of the mill guy on the lowest rungs of society who got into an every day domestic squabble.
The horrifying thing of it was, he had a hernia, which means basically his intestines had worn through the lining of his tummy, and was about to fal out. In prison, you are pretty much ***** if you have any kind of medical condition.. they'll do the barest minimum at the last moment to keep you alive but otherwise they don't do jack for you. I hung out with and looked out for another guy who was totally blind in one eye, and going blind in another, until they could ship him off to medical prison six months later. That's a frigthening thing, to go blind in prison. He was in there for a long long time for getting into a fight with a cop when he tried to recover his tools from a pawn shop, which his wife had taken there to pawn for crack. He was a good guy, real nice guy, great to his kids, hardworking always had a job... his wife was just addicted to crack.
Me... well I had to prove I was innocent, find a technicality in my trial, and win my appeal and get the hell out of that madness. I did eventually.... but it cost me a lot of money, time and basically left me very bitter and angry. - DustyinBFE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10You are the only other person, other then myself that I've heard say this.
The idea of ANY executive power, left or right winged, having this broad of authority directly stands against what this country was founded on.
Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve nether. - Benjamin Franklin - lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If writing some ***** in a blog could change anything it would be right there on that list of terrorism offenses.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9""Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my
attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes." - Silver Blaze, by Arthur Conan Doyle.
Forgive the caps, but it needs to be yelled. THERE ARE NO TERRORIST NETWORKS!
Anybody reading this who has a car and $5 could go out and make a malotov cocktail and throw it into an unsuspecting crowd within half an hour and the police/FBI/Homeland Security could not prevent it. Now before you go accusing me of giving terrorists ideas, please let me know why you call them terrorists if they haven't yet even come up with the idea of using weapons to attack people? It seems to me anyone who spends 20 minutes thinking about how to conduct terrorism will come up with the malotov cocktail idea. If they only spend 5 minutes thinking on it, even if they're really stupid they'll at least come up with the idea to attack random people with knives or other weapons. If there really were people in the US wanting to kill masses of civilians in order to terrorize us, and even being willing to die to accomplish this, it would be happening all the time and this would have been true for as long as these terrorists existed. It isn't, thus there are no terrorists.
Until you understand that terrorism is not a real threat, your liberties will continue to be taken. - biuku, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Ya, that's what's ironic about this. The government is supposed to have limited power to intrude in people's lives -- not because of any philosophy, but because the opposite of this leads to tyranny. Because the uneducated mass is scared and xenophobic, they accept a xenophobic administration that grants itself extraordinary power.
The kicker is democracy. What if an anti red-neck administration inherits these extraordinary powers? Robespierre learned the answer. - LGgeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8it took more than GOP votes to pass this and there are no signs that the Democrats( now in control) are going to roll it back. Anyone that is fooled into thinking only the republicans were involved helps guarantee that government will expand its power over us.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11to blockmelosers, who says "Jose Padilla is not an American", you, sir, are a liar. And since the facts in this case are so easily verified (start with Google), you are a fool to boot.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 222 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is