There is finally some good news for those Americans who value freedom in their own libraries - The House sent a rebuke to their own party leader, mostly because of concerns over the provisions in the Unpatriotic Act that allowed for the FBI to spy on fellow Americans who might linger too long in certain sections of their hometown libraries.

Supporters of rolling back the library and bookstore provision said that the law gives the FBI too much leeway to go on “fishing expeditions” on people’s reading habits and that innocent people could get tagged as potential terrorists based on what they check out from a library. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8234242/

This is really good news for those who are friends of liberty.

House Votes To Curb Patriot Act (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061501953_pf.html) The House handed President Bush the first defeat in his effort to preserve the broad powers of the USA Patriot Act, voting yesterday to curtail the FBI's ability to seize library and bookstore records for terrorism investigations.

Bush has threatened to veto any measure that weakens those powers. The surprise 238 to 187 rebuke to the White House was produced when a handful of conservative Republicans, worried about government intrusion, joined with Democrats who are concerned about personal privacy.I find it is an interesting sign of conservative impatience woith Bush - evidently Bush can't rely on the blind obedience of his entire party anymore.

It seems to me as if Senators start to think along what's right and wrong, use their brains and conscience, and no longer follow 'right or wrong my party' line.

I think that's as encouraging as it was overdue. But ... House Republican leaders are not accustomed to losing, and they did not hide their anger about the result. One aide to a House leader referred to the victorious coalition as "the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right, meeting in the middle."As the german villains say in every bad U.S. war movie "Zhere will be repreizals!" Smear is on of them.

I've always wondered why, if the stuff in the libraries was so bad, the FBI didn't just remove the offending books. Quite a bonfire they could get going with every possibly offensive book out there. [read the sarcasm between the lines here]

While there is no place in a public library for books like 'The Anarchist's Cookbook' no one should be targetted for reading up on Muslim beliefs.

I have to disagree with you, T2Bruno -- The Anarchists Cookbook has value. It could give the decent people insight into the mind of the crazies.

Right wing though I am, I am also an English teacher. Any limitations on the books grown adults read makes me very uncomfortable. As for kids, well, I don't want them reading any sexy stuff until they can handle it, but once they're 18 . . . . anything goes!

This is very good news indeed. In my opinion liberty and freedom is probably more important than safety. The conservative movement is supposed to be about less government interference not more in the lives of citizens.

No, no, no; The Anarchist's Cookbook should be required reading for all Americans. If the point of the 2nd Ammendment is being able to whack POTUS if and when he steps out of line, that is.

Bah. "Friends of liberty"... bah! :) At most it would be "friends of privacy" because the "library provision" (which is a complete misnomer by the way) has nothing to do with restricting anyone in any way. It was simply a provision that allowed investigators to obtain a whole range of documents and other stuff (as an aside, neither libraries nor books is specifically mentioned, they were just a possibility) in the course of an investigation.

It's not like investigators are going to go to the various libraries around the country and keep tabs on everyone who's been looking at certain books; it's simply ridiculous.

I can understand that such things can of course be abused, and so it's probably better not to have them, but sheesh this is so blown out of proportion it's unbelievable. I might be more sympathetic if there were reports of abuse of the provision every time you turned around, but that's simply not the case.

But really, I couldn't care less one way or the other.

It's not like investigators are going to go to the various libraries around the country and keep tabs on everyone who's been looking at certain books; it's simply ridiculous. They don't have to disclose to "everyone" if they are "running around to various libraries." Sorry if I'm not as trusting of our big, intrusive government as others are. Bah? I just taught my 18 month old daughter that word. She thinks it what a sheep says...funny thing... :)

No, no, no; The Anarchist's Cookbook should be required reading for all Americans.Interesting. Although I am not malicious, I've ovthen wondered what it would be like to blow something up, and who knows? If there's a major war in North America, you may need to do that to save your ass!

AMaster: If POTUS steps out of line, the military can put him back in line. The military leaders swear an oath to uphold the Constitution -- if the President treads to the realm of unconstitutional acts, then the military is obligated to oppose him.

And you blindly trust them to do that?

For a good number of US citizens Bush was appointed by god, and his authority is higher for them then that of a 'heathen' people, doomed to be left behind.
IMO That's utter nonsense, but some people in the U.S. military seem to agree (http://www.antiwar.com/ips/berkowitz.php?articleid=6326).

Ansd then there are the 'right or wrong, my country' folks who just follow orders - after all POTUS is the president and their supreme commander in chief, or as we're acronyming already, SCINC :p

He is simply CINC. The is no 's' in front of the acronym. Those who are CINC's of portions of the military have an additional descriptor after CINC, such as CINCPAC and CINCLANT (denoting a lesser status then the CINC). Although I think the new terms are COMFOR.

Of course I trust the military to do that. If we, as Americans, cannot trust the military to uphold the Constitution of the United States, then we have no future. The military has always upheld the constitution and I believe they always will. They will only oppose the President if he goes against the constitution (which has never happened -- they may have violated certain laws, but not the constitution).

Try this nice little, and, say opiniated, clip on the Patriot act (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/pennteller_********_patriot_act_050614-01.ram) (for RealPlayer) ... funny.

I like the line about lawmakers: "The only thing that protects us from their evil, is their incompetence"

Such little things as library cards can't perhaps provide a damn great deal of proof in a trial but they aren't always irrelevant. I'm an enemy of blocking any relevant testimony or proof on the grounds of someone's privacy. Privacy is extremely important and there's no reason for federales to sit on piles of copied cards, but sometimes even such little stuff matters when it comes to a crime already committed. Obsession with privacy often means having something to hide. Like in those word vs word drunk date rape cases we've been talking about, where they insist on blocking evidence from previous sexual history. Why? To me, it's obvious. Out of fear that what they call irrelevant might actually turn out relevant. Same with library cards. Normally, there's no reason to delve into that. But in trials, it's different.

Stand back! I have a library card! And I'm NOT afraid to use it!

He is simply CINC.TARFU in CONUS
POTUS C2CO w/o HUMINT, VP SOB, Congress BAWs
PATRIOT = CIA DIA NSA watch you 24/7 SOP
REMF C4I = no WMD, Iraq FUBAR
MSM OBE S2 UNODIR. BFH
BOHICA

AFAIK, in cases where they already have good grounds to suspect someone of wrongdoing, a warrant can be obtained to see that person's library records. What creeps me out is the idea (which may or may not be present in the current legislation) of some sort of database being created wherein they could monitor the reading habits of large numbers of people.

Ragusa, I have to say, that although the article on the Air Force Academy is cool, I don't think many Americans believe that Bush was "appointed by God" -- they believe that he was elected by a democratic process. They might believe that said process is sanctioned by God, or that their country is, but that's another kettle of fish altogether.

ROTFLMAO !!!

Someone translate that to us plebians? :D

Bion, what did all that gibberish mean?

Yeah, I'm Canadian, we speak the Queen's English. Acronyms are a second language for us...

I got REMF, and FUBAR, and we can't translate those properly for fear of beatings.

Bion, you forgot one:
POTUS = TAPS

For a good number of US citizens Bush was appointed by god, and his authority is higher for them then that of a 'heathen' people, doomed to be left behind. We had that Divine Right over here. Then Charlie the First got his head chopped off.

Damn Roundheads......

OK, a translation. Some of the terms were misused for (attempted) comic effect. And as they say, pardon the French; the US military has a long, long tradition of being a bunch of pottymouths:

TARFU in CONUS
POTUS C2CO w/o HUMINT, VP SOB, Congress BAWs
PATRIOT = CIA DIA NSA watch you 24/7 SOP
REMF C4I = no WMD, Iraq FUBAR
MSM OBE S2 UNODIR. BFH
BOHICA Things Are Really F*cked Up in [the] Continental United States

[The] President Of The United States [is a] Can't C*nt Commanding Officer without Human Intelligence, [the] Vice-President [is a] Son Of a B*itch, [and] Congress [are a bunch of] Big A**hole Windbags.

Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [means the] Central Intelligence Agency, [the] Defense Intelligence Agency, [and the] National Security Agency watch you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week [as] Standard Operating Procedure.

Rear Echelon Mother F*cker Command, Control, Communication, and Computation Intelligence [means] no Weapons of Mass Destruction, [and an] Iraq F*cked Up Beyond All Recognition.

MainStream Media, Overcome By Events, Sit[s] the f*ck down and Shut[s] the f*ck up UNless Otherwise DIRected. [What a] Big F*cking Help [they are].

Bend Over Here It Comes Again

:)

I see someone's been reading the glossary in their Rogue Warrior books ;)

The greatest threat to the freedom of Americans comes from preditor multinationals, not some faceless, turbaned Arab.

LMAO Bion.

The greatest threat to the freedom of Americans comes from preditor multinationals, not some faceless, turbaned Arab.If you refer to multinational corporations that will ship jobs to overseas companies to save a few bucks where they can and will buy all the candidates in an election and impose their desires on us that way, the you, sir, are right on the money...

AS Bion put it, BOHICA

LMAO Bion.


AS Bion put it, BOHICA Who's Bion? and what does "BOHICA" mean?

There are two pages in this thread, try the first.

There are two pages in this thread, try the first. I tend to scip over acrinyms but I know know what it means.

The greatest threat to the freedom of Americans comes from preditor multinationals, not some faceless, turbaned Arab.Faceless Arabs threaten our safety, not our freedom. The steps the government takes in order to protect our safety threaten our freedom.

Faceless Arabs threaten our safety, not our freedom. The steps the government takes in order to protect our safety threaten our freedom.In turn, some poeple would give up a portion of their freedom to feel safe. Others say that the risks aren't heavy enough to justify surrendering their freedom...

Faceless Arabs threaten our safetyYou're more afraid of Arabs than you are of American criminals?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

How on earth did you come to that conclusion? it was a question, not a conclusion.

quote:
--------
some poeple would give up a portion of their freedom to feel safe. Others say that the risks aren't heavy enough to justify surrendering their freedom...
--------

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said: " Those who will give up freedom to preserve safety, deserve neither".

But seriously, is easy to see how such a power can be abused. For example. after an event like 9/11, everyone who checked out one of the books by Tom Clancy (where an airplane is crashed in Congress, if I remember correctly) might be tagged.

sounds stupid, maybe... but again people in charge of these things are not necessarily the brightest (see all the reports about how FBI, CIA dropped the ball on occasion).

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said: " Those who will give up freedom to preserve safety, deserve neither".

But seriously, is easy to see how such a power can be abused. It was Ben, and he was serious. But he did not make that comment during the Revolution but in the aftermath of Braddock's defeat during the French and Indian War. It was Franklin's frustrated reply to the pacifism of the Quakers on one side, and the arrogance of the Penn family on the other, who refused to pay any taxes towards Franklin's efforts to raise money for his planned militia and the defense of western frontier of the colony of PA.

everyone who checked out one of the books by Tom Clancy (where an airplane is crashed in Congress, if I remember correctly) might be tagged.I remember when that book first came out in paperback...it had a blurb saying something to the effect of "an ending so real, you'll wonder why it hasn't happened yet"

Then 9/11 rolls around, and we hear people talking about how it was inconceivable that such a thing would happen, and we couldn't have anticapted it. Yeah. Sure.

This isn't very good news for Americans who value their freedom:

House Approves Move to Outlaw Flag Burning (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning;_ylt=ArB1EETqTqmfk7mdZzB_cJas0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

Burn your flags now, because its likely going to be illegal soon!

I do so loooooove it when they invoke 9/11 to further their political goals (of taking away free speech).

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."We should burn congressmen instead. :rolleyes:

Actually, I had heard of some efforts to outlaw the burning of the American flag before 9/11. It is a tasteless, mocking insult to the nation that you live in. That's one thing about Freedom. If you don't like the country you live in, you are free to leave...

It is a tasteless, mocking insult to the nation that you live in.I completely agree. However, people should be free to make as many tastless, mocking insults they like. Or criticisms. Or protests.

Gnarf,

Is also free speech.

some funny comments from Pat Morrison on the Huffington Post:

What delights me about this amendment is that it always arrives just about the same time as the catalogues selling everything you need to celebrate the Fourth of July and the rest of the patriotic summer.

Check the catalogues, sign on to eBay –- what isn’t being hawked with a flag on it? Doormats, handkerchiefs, cocktail napkins, pocket knives, sheets, wastebaskets, dog shirts, chip-and-dip sets, bras, toilet seat covers. You can blow your nose on the flag, sop up your booze with it, sleep on it, stab someone with it, dress your dog in it, dump your trash in it, flush away under it and wipe your feet on it – but don’t even think about setting fire to it. there's more, too :) The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a003057)

Toilet paper with a flag on it would be just a little too tasteless...

What this ammendment wants to do is protect one line that should not be crossed. Freedom of speech is important, but if it is abused, then it could (needs to?) be curtailed.

I am sorry, but why is it a line not to be crossed?

The flag in itself isn't holy. The flag stands for an idea, and for an ideal.

When America stands for an idea, for an ideal, but doesn't reflect this idea and ideal in her politics, what then does the flag represent?

If America would turn into a dictatorship over night, would be flagburning then still be 'over the line'? Would that still be an 'abuse' of freedom of speech? Just a point.

Wether flagburning is good taste is indeed another question. Brain dead flag worshipping ain't all that much better, too.


However, from an aestheic point of view I find it quite sensible to outlaw bad taste. My proposal: 6 Months Style Education Camp (SEC) for Birkenstocks + white socks outside your home! Or for other horrors.
I find the option of jailing in half of Florida on the sound legal basis of having a really really bad taste quite striking.

I'd prefer to execute all of florida, but I could settle for imprisonment.

I am sorry, but why is it a line not to be crossed?

The flag in itself isn't holy. The flag stands for an idea, and for an ideal.Symbolism is very real to the Religious folks out there. To many Christian faiths, the crucifix is a symbol of the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ on our behalf. To deface this symbol is a gross outrage to these people. Likewise, to the patriotic, the Flag is the symbol of the country they love. They would be just as angry if it were defaced in their presence. It is not the cloth and pattern, but what it represents. If you will not outlaw defacing it, then perhaps you ought to turn a blind eye to what mobs do to people that burn one...

Its quite a stretch to go from burning an inamimate object to letting a mob do whatever they want to a person dont ya think.As has already been pointed out I can buy napkins and an arrray of other things with the flag on it,I fail to see how blowing my nose on it or wiping my mouth on it is any better than burning it.
Also I think the promblem goes deeper than just the flag.Free speech is one of the cornerstone's of the American ideal once you start outlawing any expression of it that does not harm anyone or incite people to be harmed I think it is a very dangerouse road.

Well Finland has very strict regulations and laws about how the flag is to be used correctly. Using the flag incorrectly is a crime and a punishable act. This is one of the many laws which have remained from the WWII and while I do see it as some kind of breach of the freedom of speech I at the same time don't see why anyone should be allowed to burn or misuse the Finnish flag in any way. The problem to some might be though that you are not allowed to flag whenever you want. There are certain special dates when you are allowed to flag such as the day of independence.

Of course I think there is a major difference between keeping such old laws and taking them to use.

Its quite a stretch to go from burning an inamimate object to letting a mob do whatever they want to a person dont ya think.True, but then again, there's places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo...

As has already been pointed out I can buy napkins and an arrray of other things with the flag on it,I fail to see how blowing my nose on it or wiping my mouth on it is any better than burning it.
That, to me, is the line between tasteless and treasonous. I believe that would constitute Sedition to some degree...

Free speech is one of the cornerstone's of the American ideal once you start outlawing any expression of it that does not harm anyone or incite people to be harmed I think it is a very dangerouse road. I'm not sure about that. Trying to incite negative emotions towards the Nation who's laws you live under is not becoming of any civilian...

True, but then again, there's places like Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo

Excatly why I think you should still be able to burn the flag.

The right shouldn't be so happy about the flag burning law, it might well backfire (http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tr/2005/tr050627.gif).

Where do you find these things Ragusa? They are extremely funny :grin:

Trying to incite negative emotions towards the Nation who's laws you live under is not becoming of any civilian...So protest of any sort, in your opinion, is treason.

Of course, with weakening the home front, you aid the enemy and, thus, become a treasonous backstabber.

The U.S. right has already knitted a 'Dolchstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%DFlegende)' for the Vietnam war (it was them dastardly protesters, without those commie-loving Jane Fonda types we'd have won the war), and will try the same for the current wars ...

See? Underway ... http://www.conservativepetitions.com/petitions.php?id=277

[ June 27, 2005, 15:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I'm not sure about that. Trying to incite negative emotions towards the Nation who's laws you live under is not becoming of any civilian... Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were sure of it. I suggest you reference the Sedition Acts of 1798. This is Jefferson's (and Madison's) response, as it appears in the Virginia Resolution:

...a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.Not withstanding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution:

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_002600_alienandsedi.htm

On free speech:

Legal doctrine has not always translated into public understanding or freedom in fact, but here the result of a large number of Supreme Court cases protecting even harmful and offensive speech in the public forum, and narrowing to virtual disappearance the legal definition of "obscenity," has created an environment in which the presence of unpleasant speech is tak- en for granted by most of the public, whether they agree with that state of affairs or not. http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_033200_freedomofspe.htm

[ July 01, 2005, 07:08: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

So protest of any sort, in your opinion, is treason. Not necessarily. To spur a government to a particular course of action is one thing, but to behave in an unruly manner is another.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,Could Burning the Flag, or defacing any Religious symbol for that matter, constitute behaving in an unruly manner, and thus be specifically exempted from that ammendment?

I find it funny that people find it acceptable to throw a whole country into war on basis on unsubstantiated allegations, while on the other hand freely expressing your opinions with regard to that war constitutes treason.

Ragusa, LMFAO!

I would bet that most countries have some sort of law prohibiting the public defacement of their flag. I'm not sure I agree with such laws, though. If I had my choice between 1000 man hours / month being spent on arresting and prosecuting flag burners or arresting and prosecuting serial murderers or rapists, guess where I want those man hours allocated?

Just to be on the safe side, I'll spell it out -- I want those hours spent catching and stopping the murderers and rapists.

I find it funny that people find it acceptable to throw a whole country into war on basis on unsubstantiated allegations, while on the other hand freely expressing your opinions with regard to that war constitutes treason. Again, it comes down to demonstrating peacefully or acting as an unruly mob. I would like Flag burning classed as being unruly, and thus allow that as grounds for disbursal of the mob at the least, if not arrests for the perpetrators...

If I had my choice between 1000 man hours / month being spent on arresting and prosecuting flag burners or arresting and prosecuting serial murderers or rapists, guess where I want those man hours allocated?
But wouldn't an unruly mob distract police from investigation of more serious crimes? Find a quick and easy way to keep them in line then these officers can be used for more important work...

Define "Unruly". If all they're doing is making a lot of noise and burning a flag, or giving speeches about how the government is evil or corrupt, then IMHO they are not posing any threat to the welfare or safety of their fellow citizens (though they may be annoying, no question). As soon as someone breaks a shop window, halts someone's vehicle as it is exiting a parkade, or assaults someone, then the gloves come off. At that point, the demonstration has ceased to be a peaceful one and the tear gas canisters and Tasers should come out.

The organizers of such protests need to take precautions against their people committing crimes. If they don't, they've got no one to blame but themselves if they end up getting gassed and beaten.

I am sure breaking windows, assault, etc. is already covered by existing laws. No need to have new ones :) .

Gnarfflinger, I may have misunderstood what you say. Is it acceptable for you if one, for example, burns a flag in his own backyard? Or bash the government at a private party, let's say. Are you against just public displays of such acts?

Khaavern, you're right -- I was not advocating making new laws -- there are already laws on the books for dealing with "unlawful" assemblies. These lemminglike protesters need to remember that. I say the best way to teach them is to break a few bones if they do anything illegal. They're too stupid to learn otherwise.

I say the best way to teach them is to break a few bones if they do anything illegal. Oh, yes. Teach them the law by breaking it. Makes sense to me. :shake:

Demonstrations, especially unruly ones, are an American tradition. Has anyone here ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? It was hardly a legal "party." How about the demonstrations against the Stamp Act. Really, a few of you sound like reactionary Tories. ;) I would also suggest that anyone who is interested in early American history to also reference the Sons of Liberty, or the events of the Boston Massacre. Americans love to protest - it's been in our blood since the beginning.

As soon as someone breaks a shop window, halts someone's vehicle as it is exiting a parkade, or assaults someone, then the gloves come off. At that point, the demonstration has ceased to be a peaceful one and the tear gas canisters and Tasers should come out.Why not include defacing or burning the American flag in that list there? Simple solution right there.

Gnarfflinger, I may have misunderstood what you say. Is it acceptable for you if one, for example, burns a flag in his own backyard? Or bash the government at a private party, let's say. Are you against just public displays of such acts? Burning the flag in front of a crowd, whether in public or on private property should be illegal. I have read that when a Canadian flag is worn out and tattered, it is disrespectful to continue to fly it, so it must be burned, but in a furnace or closed stove with no ceremony or statement involved.

Demonstrations, especially unruly ones, are an American tradition. Has anyone here ever heard of the Boston Tea Party? It was hardly a legal "party." How about the demonstrations against the Stamp Act. Really, a few of you sound like reactionary Tories. I would also suggest that anyone who is interested in early American history to also reference the Sons of Liberty, or the events of the Boston Massacre. Americans love to protest - it's been in our blood since the beginning. That is true, and probably should continue, but certain lines should not be crossed. I simply take the position that burning or defacing the Flag should be one of those things that is not to be tolerated.