Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I believe the intent was to communicate that none of the vaunted political leaders question it -- some because they firmly believe that it's a necessary evil, and some because questioning anything with the word 'security' in it has become political suicide.
    --

    ------------------------------
    You are what you think.
    • I believe the intent was to communicate that none of the vaunted political leaders question it

      That's false too. Many Republicans have spoken out against provisions of the PATRIOT Act that they suspect might violate civil rights. Many conservative political leaders spoke out against the handling of the Padilla case, for example.
      • Any leaders I would have heard of?
        • by pudge (1) on 2005.03.30 17:14 (#39288) Homepage Journal
          Sure. John McCain has been very vocal in this regard. Some say he's a moderate, but he certainly falls down on conservative sides a ton more than liberal sides of issues.

          And heck, look at Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where -- by any standard conservative -- justices Rehnquist and Scalia said the federal government could not hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without access to the courts to challenge his status as an enemy combatant.

          There are others, but those are some of the most prominent.

          That said, again, I don't think he was talking about conservative political leaders. The context was a letter someone wrote to someone who is not a political leader, saying "conservatives won't question it, will you?" But either way is fine; there's plenty of people who are leaders.

          The context was ID cards, and here it is a bit problematic, because the author, John Gilmore, was begging the question: there is nothing in the legislation for national ID cards, or for the practice of use of IDs or lists of them, that constitutes a de facto violation of Constitutional rights. He claims that his First Amendment right to free speech was violated, but that is specious: it can only be true if the *purpose* of the travel restriction were to restrict his right to speak.

          That's why I went to the Hamdi and Padilla cases, because those are obvious violations of Constitutional rights we can point to as the direct result of official policy, unlike ID cards.