Wednesday, October 18, 2006

...bwuh?

Is America really doing this? Or do I wander lonely as a cloud in a fever dream?

[link via the estimable Pandagon]



"It is the shining light of freedom I espy."
"No srsly, wtf is this shit?"


(I apologise. I have to take recourse in teh_frivolitee as a defence mechanism.)

13 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:46 am

    What are your reservations against this? Just curious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes.

    My government has moved beyond the point of me wanting to cry over their actions to me being moved to black despair and mourning for what used to be a nation of rights and freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. anonymouse1:58 pm

    "No srsly, wtf is this shit?"

    Stop calling me srsly.

    I think you could make this into a better post (I wrote a long rant about it in IRC once, but I can't reproduce it here (private channel), will rewrite as a different rant if so asked for):

    Welcome to the United States of America, the land of the free (please send the rebate form with the original receipt before the end date to claim your rebate), the RIAA, MPAA and DMCA.

    You have no rights, save those given you by the rich and the powerful at their whim. You do not have the right to justice or to your own opinion.

    Remember the great American truths:
    War is peace!
    Freedom is slavery!
    Ignorance is strength!

    Anyone who opposes this is unamerican, and no unamerican creature is a human being. They are beasts, and shall be marked as such on their forehead and right hands.

    Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
    Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
    Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

    The torturers are merely following the instructions from Bush^WGod.

    It must be true, the people on TV said so!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymouse: How you make me laugh!!

    Ros: You are surprised? Why??
    Dubya Bush has lost his powers to surprise or shock me....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sigh. I saw Nesta once at an airport. He was even prettier in real life. Let me not even get started on Kakà. No words.

    The defence mechanism is working!

    ReplyDelete
  6. anonymous: Uh, unless I misread the information, this takes away the right to habeas corpus from anyone the US Government identifies as a 'terror suspect.' It takes away grounds to try military officials guilty of torturing prisoners. Throw in a 'any confession made to the police stands as admissible evidence in court' clause and you have a slightly more unkind POTA in place. In a country that has Gitmo on its conscience.

    @ nicole: I am sorry. We had something like this law enacted in India a few years ago, but it was repealed in 2004 with nary a regret from anyone. I do hope things change when your government changes. This is nuts.

    @ anonymouse: I'm very grateful for the improvement to my blog.

    @ szerelem: I was just a little surprised - mostly because I hadn't even heard of this act before it got done signed. Just. Wow.

    @ the poodle's friend: I saw Nesta once at an airport.

    BRAIN-FZZT. :D Lucky you!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Roswitha,

    You're correct, by the way, in saying the habeus corpus is getting thrown out for anyone labeled a 'terror suspect'. Stuff like this doesn't make me scared of terrorism--it makes me scared to see what's happening to my country.

    All through the votes on this (and, trust me, there hasn't been that much talk of this on the mainstream news--not in so far as actually telling people what's in this bill) all I can keep thinking is what Benjamin Franklin is credited as having said: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous1:20 am

    I dont agree with this claim. This is basically saying that all people are essentially nice and sane, and sometimes all they need is legal representation. If the govt wishes to misuse its powers, it doesnt need to enact laws for it. I believe that the way you treat a terrorist, maybe a suspect, and I'm fine with the paranoia as I dont want my plane to be crashed into a building, is fundamentally different than a normal criminal. You cant fight the pig in the gutter, 'cause then no matter what you do, the pig always wins.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:31 am

    The other problem I have with people who are worried about the rights of terrorists etc, is that they seem to have an unexplained bias in such cases. I mean they dont ever talk of human rights when terrorists massacre innocent people, but when a terror suspect is caught, all of a sudden there is a whole lot of concern about human rights and what not. How do you even make sense of that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous11:11 am

    You're only now noticing that my government's losing what little sanity it once had?

    (In my more cynical mooods, I figure that this makes a wierd sort of sense. If, as Bush's supporters so often claim, the terrorists "hate us because of our freedoms," giving those freedoms up is certainly one way to solve the terrorism problem!)

    Ithilwen

    ReplyDelete
  11. anonymouse11:43 am

    Anonymous: Magna Carta. Learn from history for once!

    Szerelem, if that laughter wasn't hysterical, I wasn't good enough.

    Roswitha, http://www.indianexpress.com/story/14724.html

    *weep*.

    ReplyDelete
  12. anonymous the first,
    This is basically saying that all people are essentially nice and sane, and sometimes all they need is legal representation.
    Can you please explain where exactly you got the impression that respecting the basic value of another human life (esp one not yet proven guilty of the accusation) was the same as 'basically saying that all people are essentially nice and sane'?

    I believe that the way you treat a terrorist, maybe a suspect, and I'm fine with the paranoia as I dont want my plane to be crashed into a building, is fundamentally different than a normal criminal.
    So you're saying you'll live with the fear of being taken into custody. Come to think of it, you're even saying that you'll live with the fact that thousands of innocents are being tortured. You're a brave man.
    Did you know that of the 300 odd people arrested under POTA in the aftermath of the Gujarat pogrom in 2002, only ONE was a non-Muslim? And wait, he was Sikh.
    I am not a brave man.

    And I dont see any irreconciliability between being concerned between concern for innocent victims of terrorist attacks, and innocent victims of the "war against terrorism".
    The measure of tolerance and humanity in any civil society is not exclusive of the humanity it shows while dispensing justice.

    A barbaric justice system begets even more barbaric acts of crime.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous1:33 am

    angry_fix: "A barbaric justice system begets even more barbaric acts of crime." This is utter nonsense, and you must be out of your mind. The law is just giving the people on the field, the police officers, FBI the right tools to deal with suspected terrorist. Making it a level playing field, if you will. This debate comes up again and again: sending officers with warrants after guys armed with guns!! Would you do the job?

    And about Gujrat.. does misuse of a law imply the law itself is useless? Unless you want utopia, racial/religious profiling is the reality.

    ReplyDelete