USA - The "Slippery Slope" of new laws

[Woodman]

Hi Folks!

Look, this is a bit of a "What-The-Fuck, Woodman?" post, so please bare with me.

Point #1

Whenever US Lawmakers (legislators) pass a bill into law, it stands as a potential precedent.; so if I (as a politician) am "allowed" (by public interest -or lack thereof) to levy a tax on cigarettes, then it becomes general law that such a tax is allowable by way of public mandate.

Right now, the tax might be 3 cents per pack, but later, it may grow to $20.00 per pack, and there is no public recourse because the precedent has already been established.

You might not like it, but you have no choice.

This "Slippery Slope" is applicable to many other issues where politicians and institutionalized bureaucrats (FDA, FBI, HUD, IRS, DHS, NTSB, FCC, FAA, etc. etc.) wish to gain control over the general public.

It can apply to drugs, driving, food, sex, TV, Radio, any form of mobility (running, jumping, swimming etc), and just about any other thing that you can think of.

It is called a "Slippery Slope", because once you allow the government (by way of your own civil abdication) power to regulate a "thing", you legally divorce yourself from authority over that "thing".

You now have no sovereign rights (as you have surrendered them to the government) and are reduced to a whimpering imbecile who must plead your interest before a body of sociopath sycophants (politicians), and bureaucratic administrators (department heads of public institutions) with little or no chance of getting your desired outcome.

I refer to public committee meetings and legislative floor sessions.

So, check this out. This is why I am opposed to the Patriot Act; because it allows government agencies access to personal information that would otherwise be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The "Pro-Bush/Pro-War" lobby argue that this (the Patriot Act) is a necessity for "national security."

I say, "BULLSHIT!"

Point #2:

The President of the United States has authority under the "War Powers Act" to put troops in the field and engage enemies of the USA without ANY authorization from congress. This basically means that if the US was attacked in any way, the President could set (and carry out) the initial terms of retaliation against the enemy in any fucking way he wants.

After 9/11, it was clear that the US was engaged in a "different kind of war", involving civilians targets; so why the fuck didn't we turn around and fight back in the same way?
Well, NOW, it is becoming painfully apparent that we had absolutely NO INTENTION of finding ANY definitive solution to end this threat, and we now find ourselves in a "Vietnam-Type" situation.

...and only Now, the US Government wants expanded control over US Citizens.

Read the following article and notice how officials attempt to downplay the application of this "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," known as "FISA", with no mention of the precedent created by it's authorization, nor addressing any concern over it's potential for widespread application (there's your slippery slope, folks; because that means YOU!).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spy Chief Reveals Classified Details

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...752.shtml?s=lh

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Aug. 23, 2007


WASHINGTON -- National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell pulled the curtain back on previously classified details of government surveillance and of a secretive court whose recent rulings created new hurdles for the Bush administration as it tries to prevent terrorism.

McConnell's comments -- made in an interview with the El Paso Times last week and posted as a transcript on the newspaper's web site Wednesday -- raised eyebrows for their frank discussion of previously classified eavesdropping work conducted under the Among the disclosures:

McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued for their cooperation. "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help.

He provided new details on court rulings handed down by the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves classified eavesdropping operations and whose proceedings are almost always entirely secret. McConnell said a ruling that went into effect May 31 required the government to get court warrants to monitor communications between two foreigners if the conversation travels on a wire in the U.S. network. Millions of calls each day do, because of the robust nature of the U.S. systems.

McConnell said it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a single telephone number. "We're going backwards," he said. "We couldn't keep up."

Offering never-disclosed figures, McConnell also revealed that fewer than 100 people inside the United States are monitored under FISA warrants. However, he said, thousands of people overseas are monitored.
Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.

"Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he said.
McConnell was in El Paso, Texas, last week for a conference on border security hosted by House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas. The spy chief joined Reyes for an interview with his local paper.
At the end of the interview, McConnell cautioned reporter Chris Roberts that he should consider whether enemies of the U.S. could gain from the information he just shared in the interview, Roberts said. McConnell left it to the paper to decide what to publish.
McConnell appeared days after Congress passed a temporary law to expand the government's ability to monitor suspects in national security investigations _ terrorists, spies and others _ without first seeking court approval in certain cases. The highly contentious measure expires in six months.
After Sept. 11, Bush authorized the terrorist surveillance program to monitor conversations between people in the United States and others overseas when terrorism is suspected. Until January, no warrants were required. But as the Democratic Congress took over, the Bush administration decided to bring the program under the oversight of the FISA court.

McConnell said the court initially ruled that the program was appropriate and legitimate. But when the ruling had to be renewed in the spring, another judge saw the operations differently. This judge, who McConnell did not identify, decided that the government needed a warrant to monitor a conversation between foreigners when the signal traveled on a wire in the U.S. communications network.
McConnell said the government got a temporary stay on the ruling, but it expired at the end of May. "After the 31st of May, we were in extremis because now we have significantly less capability," he said.
At the same time, the intelligence community was wrapping up years of work on a National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the homeland _ an analysis that is considered its most comprehensive judgment. It found the threat was increasing, McConnell noted.
Because he sees FISA as a major tool to keep terrorists out of the country, McConnell said he pressed Congress to change the law.
McConnell's interview raised concerns at the Justice Department, where senior officials questioned whether the intelligence chief had overstepped in discussing the secret FISA court.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse referred questions to McConnell's office, where his spokesman Ross Feinstein declined to comment.
In a phone interview, Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra said he never felt at liberty to discuss some of the information that McConnell did, including the FISA court rulings, but the executive branch gets to decide what is classified. "What I think it tells you is how important they believe it is to get this FISA thing done right," said Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.
He said McConnell is hurt by the personal attacks on him during the FISA recent debate. Among them, Democrats have alleged that he negotiated in bad faith and was too beholden to the White House.
In addition, Hoekstra said he thinks McConnell wanted to push back on accusations that the legislation gave the attorney general unprecedented new powers. "I think they felt they had to become more public," he said.

© 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's been seven years since 9/11, and politicians are busy trying to convince their constituents (that would be us) that we have to spy on the American People on the basis that we are STILL at war.

Bullshit!

As far as I'm concerned, if you have not found a solution by now then you NEVER will.

Get the fuck out of Iraq, and go spy on your mother you perverted fuck!

Reputation Comments on this post:

WTF woodman =D

[Felonious Skunk]

By God Woody, I would have thought these the rantings of an incorrigible Bush-bot if I didn't know better!

[Woodman]

Felonious Skunk,


If that is what you would have thought, then I really don’t think have a clue what a “Bush-bot” really is.

I’ve tried to explain it to you, before, in another thread, but let me try again if only for your edification.

There are two different, and very distinct, types of Bush-bots;

1.) there are the ones who mindlessly support Bush & his policies, and respond to his defense when critics raise concern, and...
2.) those who mindlessly attempt to condemn him, using every opportunity to vilify Bush and the “Eeeeeeevviill” Republicans. They don’t usually have anything to offer as an alternative agenda, mostly just witless rants and a cacophony of complaints from sour liberals.

Bush-bots never seem to catch on to their own mental shortcomings, even as it is explained to them. It's like trying to explain algebra to a group of severely retarded children.

At least a group of retards can excuse themselves on the basis that they were born with an extra chromosome. Bush-bots, on the other hand, choose to wander the path of idiocy entirely of their own volition.

Get the picture?

[Felonious Skunk]

It was a joke. But regardless, consider me edificated.

[Heretic.Ape.]

beep, beep "down with bush, up with weed!"... click, whirrrr, snap... "all hail the great security regime, may I sleep peacefully tonight knowing I am safe from the violence of the dark skinned hoards!"...
damn getting my bush bot circuits crossed again

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by heretic.ape.

damn getting my bush bot circuits crossed again

It's those Bush-bot circuit boards; sold at Wal Mart, made in fucking China.

[Nagognog2]

That's a good prelude to what happened, Woodie. Nicely posed. And the glaring truth is: It WAS/IS your faults (American citizens) that this happened/is happening.

"Democracy isn't someplace to hang your hat on." - Abbie Hoffman.

[Woodman]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

That's a good prelude to what happened, Woodie. Nicely posed.

And the glaring truth is: It WAS/IS your faults (American citizens) that this happened/is happening.

We do what we do, Brother.
It's for the Children.

They need context in order to filter and fully understand.

[El Calico Loco]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

And the glaring truth is: It WAS/IS your faults (American citizens) that this happened/is happening.

Meh. I don't believe in collective guilt. I'm a Merkin citizen, and I've opposed Dubya on virtually every issue. Not my fault that most of my countrymen are ruled by fear and wrath instead of love and reason.

(Or, maybe, are just morons. )

I never thought anyone could make me miss The Billary, but BushCo managed.

Things will get worse. There will be another major terrorist attack, perhaps larger than 9/11. Rather than seeing this as evidence that all the nonsense of the past six years - the Patriot Act, the enemy combatants, The Military Commissions Act, the eavesdropping, the secret gulag - didn't make us one bit safer despite the damage to our rights, they will use it as an excuse for martial law. The aforementioned MCA allows the executive branch to declare anyone on Earth - even an American citizen - an enemy combatant and imprison them without due process for as long as it wishes. It is the opposite of a free country.

The Internet is changing things. It's not as easy to fool people when you can't monopolize the news via a handful of networks beholden to you for their FCC license. I hope it's not too late.


ECL

[Nagognog2]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

The Internet is changing things. It's not as easy to fool people when you can't monopolize the news via a handful of networks beholden to you for their FCC license. I hope it's not too late.


ECL

I have an FCC Broadcast Permit. The heavy duty one. I slipped in under the wire before the clampdown on who can have one. They are good for life. Unless you break the rules.

I keep my eyes more than open.

[Harry]

Hillary for PREZ! And I ain't even an american. But seeing as the U.S. tv networks monopolize our Canadian airways, I say the Clintons would make for another fun 4 years of 'film at 11'.

Oh yea, and your sneaky House of Representative's guy Bill Frist snuck through an anti-online gambling amendment to a terrorist based Ports and Harbors Bill by way of a last minute attachment that had virtually nothing to do with the bill it ran on the coattails of. I'm all for Democracy, but...c'mon.

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Woodman

.

It is called a "Slippery Slope", because once you allow the government (by way of your own civil abdication) power to regulate a "thing", you legally divorce yourself from authority over that "thing".

You now have no sovereign rights (as you have surrendered them to the government) and...

I would contend that this paragraph and a half touches upon a central social problem experienced far more acutly in Western Europe and Britian, but is also starting to seep into American society. It is the beleif that, if something goes wrong, it was the government's fault for not protecting you from it. I would furthermore contend that this problem has its roots in the Social Welfare movement which, whilst being greatly beneficial in many ways, has fostered as sense of irresponsibility. People are quite eager, in some cases, to throw away rights in the hope of also throwing away responsibility.

For instance, there were a recent spate of flood in the UK. Some of those people flooded had only house insurance and not contents insurance. Some people lost up to 40,000 pounds ($80,000) in contents that were uninsured. They demanded that the government pay for thier loss of property. This actualy made me angry - contents insurance is a bet you make, just like betting on horses. If you lose that bet by failing to insure your property then you have only yourself to blame. Similarly if you go through life without a single loss of property, but you were insured all along, then you have 'lost the bet' because you have shelled out large amounts to protect your property and nothing ever happend to it.

People seem to look first to the government and then to themsleves. It's one of the reasons we still have this ridiculous drug prohibition - people don't want the responsibility of saying "I had a free choice, and I chose heroin", they want to say "It's not my fault I tried heroin, the government should have stopped me!" If drug legalisation is to ever happen, people must first be made to take responsibility for thier own actions to a much greater extent. We need to stop saying "it's not my fault I can't read or I skip school, I'm dyslexic/dysgraphic/dyspraxic", or "it's not my fault I steal, I grew up in a neighborhood where eveyone stole." These are mitigating factors, not causes.

I want to be able to say "I had a free choice, I chose to smoke/shoot up/drop and I accept all of the comcombitant health risks. I agree that illness caused by my drug use should be treated with the money garnered from taxing the drug trade only, so that no one has to pay for myself but me."

[Broshious]

Starting to seep into American society? I'd say it's been here for quite awhile, and I have no idea how we will ever change it. Everyone loves to turn to the government for everything. They don't seem to realize that when you demand money from the government you might as well just go to your neighbor's house and steal some because that's all that's happening.

[El Calico Loco]

^^ Compared to Britain, yes. From what I've read and been told by friends who live there, the government has all but said that you have no right to defend yourself from crime. Those who do - by, say, beating up a burglar (Or serial killer - how could one be expected to know?) who broke into their home - are prosecuted.

Contrast this with Texas, where "He needed killin'" is a defense against homicide in some cases.

I agree that it's a bad trend, but you can't deny that Europe is well ahead of the curve on this one. Too bad there's a bottomless cliff just around the bend.


ECL