What is Digg?216 Comments
- gronne, on 10/12/2007, -5/+107Anybody who has actually read 1984 would not mark this as lame. The "Long War On Terror" (aka the permanent war) is in full force and these kinds of things are exactly what's described in the book.
- panic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33"The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact,"
So Bush won't be in the news much anymore? - gimmegimmenow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Go here and contact your elected officials.
http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Tell them how you feel about this:. - occam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22I agree with Gronne, but only partially. Fortunately, our democratic government allows a change of leadership every so often. I simply pray that the American people have realized the mistake they made, and learn to do a little more research than "He talks more like regular people do, so he's my favorite. I don't like those elitist types like Kerry!" Anyway, let's hope our next President can turn things around.
korimickster - Indeed, it is. - gimmegimmenow, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I wonder how long this will last before it get's taken off the front page. The same story was posted yesterday and it was removed. I also found funny how some people were asking how they could contact their representatives, with people telling them how, but these posts kept being modded down. What's wrong? Shall we live a life of fascism where we should just take it up the bum and not question government actions?
Oh well, it's just a ring of fire. - terinjokes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18OK, i'm starting a new weblog on NSA Wiretaps...sue me/arrest me if you wish
- korimickster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15It's beginning to feel like a bright, cold day in April.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+27I thought DIGG was adding politics.
Why must DIGG remain for tech only? That's what lame /. is for.
Here's to expanding DIGG to aplly to 'EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN'.
An FU Bush! - brushen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/sjres23_eb.htm
This is the "authorization for the use of military force" Bush says gave him the authority to wiretap. The main body states,
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
If the President is authorized by that to go after any organization or person or nation that harbored or aided or helped Al-Quaeda, then this is truly a war that will go on until after every Al-Quaeda member, every person that helped an Al-Quaeda member, and every nation that helped an Al-Quaeda member is dead, in prison, or has surrendered.
The passage does not make clear what "harboring" is to mean. Does it mean providing shelter, and having them living there, refusing to turn them over, as if they did nothing wrong? Does it mean, if Australia refuses to turn over a high-ranking member because they may receive the death penalty, Australia is a candidate for war? This may not sound plausible because it is an allied country like Canada, but change its name to a neutral country ending in "-stan" or any country in the Middle East with a regime the U.S. does not like, and it will become more plausible.
Some I have told of this say that when Congress unknowingly gave him this power, it was all right, because he is the commander-in-chief, and the American people elected him with confidence he would do a good job. Why, then, does Congress have to authorize wars in the first place? It is the same situation. If Thomas Jefferson wants to wage war on Britain and France for stealing naval ships, why should he have to seek a declaration of war from Congress, when we already showed good faith in him by electing him in the first place?
Their arguement is that we trust him not to interpret it by its word, but to trust him to interpret it to its original intent, to go after Al-Quaeda. And yet, he has already shown he cannot be trusted to interpret it based on original intent when the wiretappings began, and in that authorization, the majority of Democrats said they had no idea they were authorizing anything like that when they voted to pass the bill.
Not only does this grant power to the Bush administration to engage in such behavior, but perhaps subsequent administrations, perhaps one even 50 years from now. Regardless, when they say "the long war," I suppose they do mean "the long war." They could theoretically go into any number of places now.
Surely, with several hundred lawyers in Congress, someone might have noticed the slightest chance of this happening. Yet, as politicians, they could not pass up the chance, because if they voted down the bill, in the very week after September 11, 2001, they would have looked soft on terrorists. They could not wait, because then they would be slow to react. If they had specified Al-Quaeda, and in a time when the identities of the attackers were still uncertain, their identities changed to say, Palestine's Liberation Army, they would look like fools. I suppose it must have looked good at the time to leave it up to the President to decide who to attack and pass the buck, but at least he got THAT right, once.
To summarize, in 2006 America, television watches you! - SeismicShock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I'm just waiting for the 5 minutes hate against Osama, on Fox News, i've got plenty of heavy books to throw.
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"The next time a terrorist attack occurs on US soil the people will ask "why wasnt this prevented?", but hopefully you will all know the answer to that."
Wrong again Kook Aid Man.
Everything was available to stop 9/11 without having to reduce Freedoms of Americans.
Sigh, the NeoCon are a sickening bunch of ***** tards. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If Bush breaks the law, the american people should be notified.
The bill says Bush can break laws, and nobody can tell anybody about it. - JTMON, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12I added you to gronne, thankfully a few people get it. I don't know what the hell we are coming too when all these "smart" people think this is BS.
- alphacoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8If we are all as incensed as we claim to be with steps like this, then we all need to make such topics 'water cooler' discussions at work, home (assuming you have a water cooler at home) and other places (with water coolers.) Furthermore, we need to sound out local news people as to why there are not more stories regarding these issues. And don't forget, with mid-term elections this year, make it a point to ask questions on civil liberties of your candidates. My two cents.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12To quote the article: "It in no way applies to reporters in any way, shape or form,"
It really has to do with turning over highly classified information (as I understand it) and making those that publish it responsible for revealing their source. - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"It in no way applies to reporters in any way, shape or form" - Yeah, but guess who decides what counts as 'reporting', and what doesn't. Thats right, the same people who have things to hide.
- Lumiras, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11First off, yeah, Breakneckridge it appears that we're not able to reply to comments now :(
Ok, now, everyone, this is not 1984 reimagined. I believe this new law applys to people who would reveal sensitive or technical information about the wiretap practices. This doesn't mean that you'll be arrested for criticizing the NSA's wiretaps, you can talk about them as much as you want, you can say how bad they are.
On the other hand, if you decided to reveal the equipment they use, the areas they are looking at, or the people they are looking at, you can be arrested. And really, I think that it's nessicary to have things like this to avoid a Valerie Plame-like scandal again.
Some things need to remain a secret, and this is one of those things. You can fight the principle, but you can't let our national secrets out
I'm reporting this story as inaccurate because it's being sensational in saying that we're not allowed to express our opinions about a tricky subject - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6korimickster - I didn't get it at first, and apparently neither did anyone else. That the first line of 1984 for those who haven't read it or can't remmember. ;)
- myxyplik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@occam
Actually, the Repubs are trying to repeal the 22nd amendment so that Bush can run for term #3.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=2233 - NekstBestThing, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Welcome to our extremist christian right wing government.
Hey republicans, Land of the free? - barthook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+61 - Bush is not the one introducing the bill. (he can't for those of you who didn't pay attention in Civics)
2 - It is still a bill. In fact, it is the draft of a bill that has not been introduced. Wording will definitely change.
3 - Which president started Echelon? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@chriskzoo:
it doesn't matter what a bill was intended for, it matters what troubles it could potentially cause. - Xopl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@chriskzoo who said: (why is reply broken?!)
"It really has to do with turning over highly classified information (as I understand it) and making those that publish it responsible for revealing their source."
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CLASSIFIED. You should have read a little more of the article. Here's another quote completely contradicting what you said:
"Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the measure is broader than any existing laws. She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified." - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Via: http://h8i.net/
Mirror: http://www.washingtonpost.com.nyud.net:8080/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/10/AR2006031001677.html - bluefire0728, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't be bothered. I know I'm not."
God, I hate that goody-goody-two-shoes remark! Let's not forget about PETA. By no means do I affiliate myself with PETA, but they have been spied on and wiretapped countless times... are they terrorists too? - goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4DrWho - I know its strectching the definition, but Wire Taps, are technology :)
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We need to contact all members of the Select Committee on Intelligence to get this bill killed.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wrong! As it clearly states here...
"She said, for example, the language does not specify that the information has to be harmful to national security or classified."
There is no such thing as a reasonable bill these days. They attach all kinds of bull ***** to laws (such as the patriot act), and get it passed mentioning the few they think "people will like." I hope it has to be rewritten so that it has to be proved that the information was classified, but chances are your average american is going to say "Yay, a new bill to help fight terrorism!" and hand feed the bush administration the last two or three rights we have left. - asmodeos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Between this and the Patriot Act renewal, I'm feeling quite unsettled with our current government's view on privacy and civil liberties. The pendulum is swinging, and it will swing back towards a more liberal society, but how much will we sacrifice until then? The overtones of 1984 (perpetual war, fear tactics, restricted movement) are becoming our reality. It is subtle changes in law that will leave a lasting impact on our society and how it is run.
I for one will use my vote to demonstrate my disgust for this ruling class that has abused its role in society.
Will Mr. Smith ever return to Washington? - Kamatz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually most of Middle america does not want the goverment to interfere with their lives.
- Eidola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ah yes, but are the clocks striking thirteen yet? :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"Would you want it to be legal for CIA agents to have their identities revealed by random joe at Washington?"
Kool Aid drinker, it's already against the law to do that.
But with Sherriff Bush In Town.... - TubaFrog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Hmmm, need more ribbon stickers on my car to protect me from evildoers...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Precedent not president you twit.
- goatrandy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Ask all of the people who died defending them. They know.
- TheGalacticFork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But we should all love big brother!
- tharealmegaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3bluefire0728:
In regards to PETA, they have funded ELF and ALF which are domestic terrorists. - Meshyf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Five! four! four! FIVE!!!! WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO SEE?!?!?!
- simpleid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Everything over time moves in to chaos, this is a fundamental fact that can be tested. Society is the same, and the government realizes this. The government is only trying to control this evolving chaos, which is good in theory. Though it obviously leads to a society similar in 1985 by George Orwell. Which people believe is immoral. There is a dilemma in that in which every action against any person whether perceived as good or bad is technically immoral. So something has to happen, and something will be a cause as a result of the effect.
Ultimately nothing is good or bad, or ethical or moral... we are all a system of interacting beings abstracting methods of control which gives both the most flexibility while controlling the most chaotic elements of our society. This balance can't be attained by people because we ourselves are chaotic, we are not supposed to be orderly. it requires a higher consciousness and understanding, then the willingness to sacrifice indulgent greed’s so we can exist peacefully.
Until humanity raises to a higher consciousness these things will occur. The only thing we can do to be the most balanced as we can is exist in dualism. The government and its people constantly at battle believing we are fighting for the right cause, at least then no side has too much control. But now with the Bush administration in control, the balance of "peaceful war" within our country is being disturbed and things may get worse. Keep an eye out. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32 + 2 = ?
- gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd rather not live in Canada.... Talk about bad college oppurtunities. Ugh. Oh! and Bush '08 couldn't happen... (something about 2 terms...)
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Move to China if you really want to know what having your civil liberties impinged on is. Seriously, name a SINGLE person that has been unlawfully prosecuted as a result of the Patriot Act.
- WhackingDay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I often wonder where this level of indoctrination occurs. Most people who would call themselves liberal, myself being one, would never think of themselves as communists or even close to socialist. Heck, odds are more liberals lean towards libertarianism than anything else.
If I were a republican, I'd be kinda pissed about what's happened to the party, because the current GOP version of conservatism isn't what it once was. What it is now seems to be almost anti-conservative. Big, overly intrusive, expensive, and secretive government. How can a true conservative like that direction? - MasterDwarf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Candidates used to debate about issues like health care, the economy, abortion, blah blah blah. Hopefully now it will be privacy, wiretaps without authorization (fancy name for illegal wiretaps), regulating the Internet, and include the previously mentioned topics.
Ask yourself this Americans, how bad can it get? How bad has it got over the years? That should be enough to scare you. - Beautyon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That 'far off land' actually means a trip to one of the 600 empty concentration camps that are being staffed right now waiting for your visit. Wake up!
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually the USA Patriot Act made all kinds of government snooping secret. They can ask for your records from anyone you do business with and that person is bound by law not to tell anyone about it. Which some might not object to if it only was applied to Terrorism.
But it's been shown that the USA Patriot Act has been used in all kinds of cases not related to terrorism. And it's unclear if this could be used for political purposes--especially if there is very little 3rd party oversight. So basically what it does is make something like the Watergate Break-in legal, and not only that, it would make it illegal for anyone to report on it.
What we have here is the makings of a secret police state. Now tell me what democracy--what free country has a secret police?
Listen to the NPR report about Republican and Regan appointed SC Judge Sandra Day O'Connors speech from last week and tell me if we have the makings of a dictatorship? - tonage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3goat,
It is not a BUG! Do you know what a bug is? You may have a compalint about how the site works, but it is not a bug. You think it is a bug because you cannot believe anyone has an opinion other than yours. So you think the story has to be there because YOU feel it should be. - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2technically, no, the Associated Press is not the Washington Post. you could get this same story from plenty of places. in fact, I will:
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/03/09/127280-reporters-exempt-from-eavesdropping-bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060310/ap_on_go_co/eavesdropping_16
so don't ascribe the Washington Post's credibility to this one - it's just an AP story. - brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Whoa. That's the first comment I've ever seen turn green. Good stuff.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 213 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