That's BS.

With a 5 round maximum capacity you're going to be reloading a lot and there's no reasonable argument why anyone needs more for hunting (and home defence is a red herring).

I think the whole law/culture issue addressed above is actually linked. Take the example of the Autobahn which is very much a parallel. Germans made a law saying you can drive as fast as you want on certain stretches of highway, a culture of high-speed driving developed, people die. The majority in Germany wants to do away with them, but the 10% who want to drive recklessly in their BMWs and Mercedes along with the manufacturers fight new legislation every time.

The law created the culture, and now the culture is preventing the laws from being changed. Just as in the US, the cycle has to break somewhere. Government can't legislate the culture, but they can change the laws and if the US ever gets to a point where guns aren't in the hands of whoever wants one then the argument for needing a 'home security' weapon drops. People feel safer, there are fewer shootings and the whole situation de-escalates.

I'm not saying barring suspected terrorists from owning firearms will accomplish that, but it would be a (very) modest start in the right direction.

No one said anything resembling that.
I said that protecting your right to not self incriminate requires people doing things like this, legally and reasonably. Quite a different thing from the straw man red herring you bring up, that support for this single action is equitable to saying 'anything legal is good' and 'anything illegal is bad' EDIT: or that if you think this specific kind of thing is 'good', you support fighting "every single battle I possibly can". I feel that if you must hyper-exaggerate what the other side in a debate said in order to rebut it, it indicates you have no answer for what was actually said.

If people like him didn't do things like this, the remaining states wouldn't need to adopt any restrictions, because they'll simply implement those restrictions without adopting them, as the cops in this instance (illegally) did. Without people like him, you've LOST those rights already. He's not the reason they're disappearing, he's the reason they still exist anywhere.

If this gets the cops fired, it helps stop police abuse. If it gets them seriously reprimanded, it helps stop abuse. If it just shames them for being idiots, it helps stop abuse.

Again, quietly filming is NOT being a threat. If you are threatened by being filmed, boy howdy are you living in the wrong century.

Again, IF he is on the watch list, it's just another example of why the watch list is useless, because anyone the police or fed or technician doesn't LIKE ends up on it, not suspected terrorists. (EDIT:it's been found that many of those that work directly with the 'terrorist watch list' have abused it by adding ex-wives and other personal enemies to it, making it an 'enemies list' of random people's personal enemies...and a few people being watched as terrorists...which is why so many of those committing terrorist acts are found to be on the list, but are not being watched)

@lucky760 , The DA seemed to indicate he had no obligation to produce ID in that state by dropping the charges, as did the judge that got involved. Not proof, but a good indicator.

They are federal agents and would do bad things to you in return.

I am tired of being a suspect but this will not stop. They will cross the line more and more. One day you will click on the news and see "suspected terrorist killed by drone attack in Nevada".

It's ironic to think that the Bush administration's policy of abducting terrorism suspects and keeping them forever without trial is actually far more humane than the Obama administration's policy of exploding suspected terrorists without trial, along with everyone else nearby. The ends do not justify the means.

Ya I sorta wondered about the age of this clip as well but it still shows the TSA asserting their authority for no other reason than to make themselves look important. I mean really this kid was flagged as a threat? Seriously come on! He had an obvious broken leg and needed the wheelchair to move around.

What do they really suspect terrorist are using 5 year olds in bomb laden wheelchairs with fake broken legs to blow up planes it's just plain old abuse of power if you ask me.

>> ^njjh201:

So: the TSA security pantomime is tremendously silly, as Salon's Ask The Pilot and many others have pointed out.
But the toddler in this video is not terrified, he's hungry and slightly grouchy. Notice how when he appears upset, parent reassures him they'll be eating soon?
Notice also how the 'terrified' toddler doesn't scream with fright, cry, and utterly obstruct the TSA agent, as a genuinely terrified child would (ever watched a child of that age who has serious phobia of needles get a shot?)
Notice also how the TSA agent performs his (intrusive, pointless and yes maybe unconstitutional) task sensitively, in a calm and reassuring manner. He is gentle, he gets down to the child's level, he doesn't raise his voice or rush. (In particular I note that he doesn't fondle the child's genitals. I thought that was standard TSA practice?!)
Yes the TSA security pantomime is silly, but so is the right wing claim that investigations such as these amount to child-rape. They plainly don't.
Which leads me to my question: this happened almost two years ago. Why has it only just surfaced?

>>@bmacs27: marbles
Who flew planes into the WTC on 9/11? By the way, I read "Which Path to Persia".
Have you heard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"



Haha, let me guess. You have a argument to make that the "Which Path to Persia" manual is fraudulent?

So is that 9/11 question troll bait or what? Who made all the abnormal amount of Wall Street put bets on American Airlines and United between Sept 6 and 7. And on American Sept 10 at the Chicago Board of Options Exchange. Better yet, who sent US government made anthrax with hand written notes saying "Allah is great" to Congress men who were likely to oppose the Patriot Act?

Oh the alleged hijackers (courtesy of Paul Joseph Watson/Infowars.com):
Every single shred of evidence concerning the alleged 9/11 hijackers points to the fact that they were patsies controlled by informants working for the US government.
The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11, but when the head of the program, Colonel Anthony Shaffer, tried to pass the information on to the 9/11 Commission, he was gagged and slandered and the vital information his team had passed on was ignored and buried.
Curt Weldon, Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, documented how the US government tracked the hijackers’ movements before 9/11.
Louai al-Sakka, the man who trained six of the hijackers, was a CIA informant. A number of the other alleged hijackers were trained at US air bases. In the months prior to 9/11, alleged hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were renting rooms in a house owned and lived in by an FBI informant.
In a 2002 article entitled The Hijackers We Let Escape, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman documented how, “The CIA tracked two suspected terrorists to a Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000, then looked on as they re-entered America and began preparations for September 11.”
The fact that there were numerous Al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists involved in the pre-planning stages of 9/11 is unsurprising given former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds’ testimony that Bin Laden was working for the US right up until the day of 9/11.

On the very morning of 9/11, the money man behind the alleged hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials.
Indeed, even after 9/11, the so-called spiritual leader of the very hijackers who allegedly slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Anwar al-Awlaki, was himself invited to dine with Pentagon top brass mere months after the attack.

@NetRunner, well, let's assume the government never lies and their version of the story is 100% accurate. Granted. How did they expect OBL to surrender exactly? Surely if this was a "capture or kill" order, then they must've offered a chance for him to surrender, right?

Their first story was that a gun battle occurred, then later it was revealed he was unarmed. Also they claimed he used his wife as a shield, then later it came out that he didn't. So, the real story is he was unarmed and asleep when they stormed in and shot him. I'm curious when and how was he supposed to surrender and get his day in court?

Too circumstantial for you? Okay. How about Obama's track record? In 2009 military commanders told Obama's Administration they were able to located and capture one of the most wanted leaders of Al Qaeda, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. Instead of capturing, Obama's Administration said they wanted him dead. And the SEALS bombed him from the sky. No arrest attempt.

And the drone aerial attacks have increased over Pakistan under Obama, according to Long War Journal, a website dedicated to tracking the attacks. They estimate that the drones over Pakistan have killed almost 1500 people. Not capture, killed. Innocent people live there in tribes. Murdered as a casualty. But look at you and people like Yogi, the brave people who're out of range of danger that just don't give a fuck about those who are targeted and murdered - unless of course it furthers your political agenda, right? Yep.

Most damning is the time when Obama's Administration authorized the assassination of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. He wasn't even Osama. He was some radical cleric they gave "explicit" authorization to murder without due process. That's your guy, Obama, side-stepping the rights of people like a pro authoritarian fascist.

Osama's murder without trial looks like more bloodthirsty progressivism to me. Hiding behind civil righteousness. By contrast the Bush Administration "captured" (not killed) thousands of suspected terrorists. And we all hated him.

But if you cut defense spending how will our airforce get awesome stealth jets that can fly at mach 3 and fire a $500k guided missile from 50k KMs up in the stratosphere with enough precision to hit the milking goat tied up to a post outside a suspected terrorist's stone and dung hut? Answer that one Mr. Maher!

Im not advocating torture, warterboarding, or anything of the sort. I want to point out though that you can not speak in objective terms with stuff like this. Waterboarding works by provoking fear and panic in the captive, which understandably can cause mental problems in the long run for some percentage of captives.

If you think about it though, even in your made-for-tv law shows what happens when they have a suspect? They start talking about them going to jail for life, maybe getting pegged as a snitch even if they're set free, maybe its just a longer jail sentence for not cooperating or confessing. Any one of these things is a possible cause of panic, especially if your innocent but being confronted with 20 years in jail for something you didn't do. Now would you argue that even threatening jail time could not POSSIBLY cause long term mental issues? Can you guarantee that everyone comes out of even routine interrogation without a nightmare/panic attack regarding it for the rest of their life? You might argue "but most people would be ok after such questioning" but what if 1% of people had a lasting nightmare or panic attack because of it, what percentage of people suffering side effects is ok or justifiable? Who decides that percentage and what side effects should be taken into account?

My point isnt that waterboarding is like normal interrogation, anyone with half a brain can see its a much more severe method of getting information out of someone and I personally would not want it to happen to anyone i know. But the point is if you say that you shouldn't use panic or fear to coerce confessions or information, then where do you draw your line? Is that line objectively justifiable to everyone? If its not, how do YOU defend where your line was drawn? Who ultimately should decide where that line lies?

And a very good point was brought up, what methods of getting someone to talk who otherwise doesn't want to talk has no harmful effects? Keep in mind i havent even addressed the topic of effectiveness and reliability of information.

So as with many issues that people argue about forever, you may identify that one thing is a problem (such as waterboarding or cutting limbs off) but what is the ultimate solution to the problem of:

How do I get needed information out of someone in a fair and humane way who otherwise does not want to give said information?

With CAREFUL scrutiny on the words fair and humane, which are both subjective terms (not to say I'm wishy washy on that topic, but id hazard a guess that you couldn't come up with a definition of said words that would be agreeable to every person in the US much less the world).

I spose even "Needed" is subjective, is it needed information when you're trying to find out if a suspected terrorist IS a terrorist? Or if the captive might have info on another person we have reasonable or specific intel stating that they are planning a terrorist attack that may kill 1, 5, 10, 100, 1000 people? Lets not forget the obvious and cliche question of, "would you have waterboarded a person if it meant you could have prevented 9/11?" How many peoples lives would need to hang in the balance before waterboarding is justifiable if at all? What about even worse torture? What would you be willing to do for intel that would prevent the detonation of a dirty bomb or small nuclear device in a major city?

hmm, well... the video makes three points: 1. 13th amendment vs compulsory civil service, 2. "terrorist list" vs 2nd amendment, and 3. "crisis times" vs selfish opportunism

first off, this video screed, imho, deliberately attempts to strip much of the context from these issues

1. this c-span interview is from august 2006, and perhaps wrongly attributes "involuntary servitude" to the issue of civil service (e.g. butler v. perry)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&invol=328

2. this emanuel speech took place at a brady center event in may 2007, and is more of a democratic "stump" speech in favor of *reinvigorating* the purpose of the brady bill... whereas i think most of us would support banning *suspected terrorists* from the right to bear arms, the emanuel speech says *nothing* about the *real* problem with these "terrorist lists* ... i.e. the inefficient screening process leading to, imho, bloated lists

3. this wsj interview is at least current, but almost completely stripped of its context, i.e. extraordinary challenges test the mettle of those challenged, *not* crisis necessarily gives gov't the *excuse* to strip civil liberties

Winkie. It's about a teddy bear who comes to life and is arrested as a suspected terrorist. Soon, however, I will be reading GRE prep books.

From the sourcewatch page you link, they have a link to the floor statement Obama made before the vote.

Here's a few choice pieces of that statement:

We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that.

...

Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.

...

Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:


* We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

* We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

* We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

* We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

* And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

...

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

It appears that proponents of 3rd party candidates can smear and distort their opponents' positions with just as much disregard for the truth as Republicans.

If you care about civil liberties vote for Obama. A 3rd party will not win the Presidency this year, and "sending a message" by voting 3rd party will fall on deaf ears within the major parties, and in the public at large.

It's time to stop looking for your ideal candidate, and make a choice to either support a candidate who got his degree in Constitutional Law or help elect someone who thinks disagreement with the government is unpatriotic.

If he wants to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth, why hasn't he started with the thousands of Jews that live in Iran?

Israel offered those Jews money to move to either California or Israel, and the Persian Jews refused, calling it an obvious political tactic.

And notice in the video he says, "Death to Israel," not "Death to Jews."

Also:

Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all suspected terrorists from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history.

Do you really see Bush that way? Because I do.

>> ^choggie:
I can.
Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all Jews from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history..
Kill this piece of human garbage quickly-if we don't Israel will.....excise the cancer, from the host, before it becomes aggressive and unstoppable....
Oh but wait....part of the deal Bush and his ilk made with the oil sheiks, was this phase of geopolitical abortion, that this is their time, to run free, in the name of peace, unity, acceptance and tolerance of another's religions, customs, and fucking sick programs.....forest for the trees folks, forest for the trees......Who lets a cocksucker like this run a country into oblivion???.....Find these fuckers and destroy their bloodlines......

the so-called "good points" thinker, are part of any successful propagandist's rhetoric.....appeals to everyone, very effective, especially with an undereducated and subservient populace.....
Strap Hackmenhandjob to a nice missile, and launch his stupid ass onnit, trajectory: Dead Sea.

Some people wouldn't know the truth if it slapped them in the face, which it has, and was duly ignored. The so called warrantless wire tapping was aimed at connections from known/suspected terrorists OUTSIDE the USA contacting or being contacted by parties inside the USA. It was not aimed at private citizens talking to their mothers. Why are you people so in a twist over this? Something to hide maybe? Involved in voter fraud or political campaign scams? Afraid to get caught? I find it interesting that those who scream about freedoms the loudest are the very ones who wish to take those freedoms from people who disagree with them. I have nothing to hide and if some one wants to listen in on my phone they are more than welcome to be bored to death.

In the fall of 2003, Jack L. Goldsmith was widely considered one of the brightest stars in the conservative legal firmament. A 40-year-old law professor at the University of Chicago, Goldsmith had established himself, with his friend and fellow law professor John Yoo, as a leading proponent of the view that international standards of human rights should not apply in cases before U.S. courts. In recognition of their prominence, Goldsmith and Yoo had been anointed the “New Sovereigntists” by the journal Foreign Affairs. [ ... ]

Immediately, the job put him at the center of critical debates within the Bush administration about its continuing response to 9/11 — debates about coercive interrogation, secret surveillance and the detention and trial of enemy combatants. [ ... ]

Nine months later, in June 2004, Goldsmith resigned. Although he refused to discuss his resignation at the time, he had led a small group of administration lawyers in a behind-the-scenes revolt against what he considered the constitutional excesses of the legal policies embraced by his White House superiors in the war on terror. During his first weeks on the job, Goldsmith had discovered that the Office of Legal Counsel had written two legal opinions — both drafted by Goldsmith’s friend Yoo, who served as a deputy in the office — about the authority of the executive branch to conduct coercive interrogations. Goldsmith considered these opinions, now known as the “torture memos,” to be tendentious, overly broad and legally flawed, and he fought to change them. He also found himself challenging the White House on a variety of other issues, ranging from surveillance to the trial of suspected terrorists. His efforts succeeded in bringing the Bush administration somewhat closer to what Goldsmith considered the rule of law — although at considerable cost to Goldsmith himself. By the end of his tenure, he was worn out. “I was disgusted with the whole process and fed up and exhausted,” he told me recently. [ ... ]

After leaving the Office of Legal Counsel, Goldsmith was uncertain about what, if anything, he should say publicly about his resignation. His silence came to be widely misinterpreted. After leaving the Justice Department, he accepted a tenured professorship at Harvard Law School, where he currently teaches. During his first weeks in Cambridge, in the fall of 2004, some of his colleagues denounced him for what they mistakenly assumed was his role in drafting the torture memos. One colleague, Elizabeth Bartholet, complained to a Boston Globe reporter that the faculty was remiss in not investigating any role Goldsmith might have played in “justifying torture.” “It was a nightmare,” Goldsmith told me. “I didn’t say anything to defend myself, except that I didn’t do the things I was accused of.”

...

Read the full article at NYT Magazine.