US drive to Fascism goes up to 11....

[segovius]

Not content to rest on their laurels, the architects of the impending US Theocratic Totalitarianism kick on with yet more repressive legislation.

A new bill introduced to the House of Representatives stipulates the monitoring of all internet activity (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2174524/republican-bill-calls-email) including all emails and surfing activity for all citizens.

Indefinitely.

A bill introduced to the US House of Representatives would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.

The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records.

"A crime is still a crime, whether it occurs on the street or on the internet," said Congressman Smith.

"In this age of increasing digital and technological sophistication, cyber-crimes and cyber-terrorism pose a serious threat to the US. Law enforcement and the private sector must be prepared to deal with these crimes."


Seems like the sheep are soon to be moved to the abattoir.

[SDW2001]

Not content to rest on their laurels, the architects of the impending US Theocratic Totalitarianism kick on with yet more repressive legislation.

A new bill introduced to the House of Representatives stipulates the monitoring of all internet activity (http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2174524/republican-bill-calls-email) including all emails and surfing activity for all citizens.

Indefinitely.



Seems like the sheep are soon to be moved to the abattoir.

Why the term "theocracy?" Secondly, why not just say you disagree with the bill and think it infringes on personal liberties? Why indict the entire US government? I don't agree with the bill either. It's a bad idea, and I would work to defeat it.

But that's too reasonable for a winger, now isn't it? ;)

[segovius]

Why the term "theocracy?" Secondly, why not just say you disagree with the bill and think it infringes on personal liberties? Why indict the entire US government? I don't agree with the bill either. It's a bad idea, and I would work to defeat it.

But that's too reasonable for a winger, now isn't it? ;)

Well, it's like saying 'murder is a bad idea' - it's kind of not the point. We all KNOW that - the point is more about the minds behind the idea....what sort of person would think it is a GOOD idea and what we can do to remove them from positions of public office.

Theocracy: I do think the religious right has undue influence on the US political scene. Ok, it is not a theocracy in a literal sense....perhaps it is more true to say that the US government has no actual allegiance but is more akin to a band of mercenaries - guns for hire if you will - and the religious right (and Israel of course though these share a symbiotic relationship) are merely the current paymasters.

[segovius]

Why the term "theocracy?" Secondly, why not just say you disagree with the bill and think it infringes on personal liberties? Why indict the entire US government? I don't agree with the bill either. It's a bad idea, and I would work to defeat it.

But that's too reasonable for a winger, now isn't it? ;)

PS - ok, I will stop calling you a winger.

But only because you look positively left-wing compared to the more extreme examples that infest these boards.

;) :devil:

[Omega]

Obligatory post:

http://homepage.mac.com/omegaosx/.Pictures/eleven.jpg

;) :D

[SDW2001]

Well, it's like saying 'murder is a bad idea' - it's kind of not the point. We all KNOW that - the point is more about the minds behind the idea....what sort of person would think it is a GOOD idea and what we can do to remove them from positions of public office.

Theocracy: I do think the religious right has undue influence on the US political scene. Ok, it is not a theocracy in a literal sense....perhaps it is more true to say that the US government has no actual allegiance but is more akin to a band of mercenaries - guns for hire if you will - and the religious right (and Israel of course though these share a symbiotic relationship) are merely the current paymasters.

1. Come on..you're equating this bill to murder? The bill presents some serious privacy concerns. Just say that. There's no reason to condemn the person(s) who proposed it. They clearly have some reasons and even good intentions for the bill, whether or not it's something you or I would support. It doesn't make them fascists.

2. Well, that's democracy in general. You'd feel differently if we had a Democratic president I'm sure. In any case, the term theocracy is ludicrously inappropriate. If anything, we see faith being pushed out of the public square at an alarming rate.

The problem here is that you have anti-Christian views in general, as has been well demonstrated here in the forums. You're always on the lookout for theocracy because Christianity frankly scares the shit out of you. Moreover, I think you believe that Christians (all Christians) are sheep and simply a giant cult.

No?

[@_@ Artman]

Add this to your list...


Making Martial Law Easier (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html?ei=5090&en=b63c905ac9525ffe&ex=1329541200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

"A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any 'other condition.'

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate."

[SDW2001]

Add this to your list...


Making Martial Law Easier (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/19/opinion/19mon3.html?ei=5090&en=b63c905ac9525ffe&ex=1329541200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)

"A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any 'other condition.'

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate."

This has been discussed. I think you're overreacting.

[@_@ Artman]

This has been discussed. I think you're overreacting.

http://world.std.com/~mica/mib.jpg

Nothing to see here, move along...:smokey:

[SDW2001]

http://world.std.com/~mica/mib.jpg

Nothing to see here, move along...:smokey:


Oh stop. Something tells me that if it was a Democratic president, you'd be fine with this authority as it's spelled out.

[midwinter]

Oh stop. Something tells me that if it was a Democratic president, you'd be fine with this authority as it's spelled out.

You've been doing an awful lot of mind-reading lately.

[SDW2001]

You've been doing an awful lot of mind-reading lately.

Am I wrong? It's like there's this pit of hungry wolves, waiting for the meat to be thrown to them. They snarl and pace back and forth, eying the White House and Republicans. The meat is anything that could even be construed to mean any expansion whatsoever in Presidential power, for whatever reason. Then the wolves go wild, ripping and tearing the newly tossed food into shreds. "Fascism Watch! We Told You! Civil Liberties! Marital Law! We Knew It!"