Hey, who said waiting 20 years?

Meh, you guys just won't let things like this die do ya?

12 days hardly qualifies as "being a dead thread", and I'd prefer it if people didn't say as much if someone else is interested in the topic! Discussion is always interesting as long as it's within bounds and doesn't get too personal

one thing that strikes me in this discussion is this, you are all worried about the internet, but when it comes down to it, people can survive without it, they did pre 1990, why cant they now?

all you really need to over thro the government is a group of determined citizens, it may take 100,000, but it can be done.

something that many may not be aware of, its not just the US government, its the UN, the UN is bent on banning private ownership of firearms world wide. I'll be the first to say that I own a shorgun, and plan on getting more weapons. IF such a ban happens, my belief is that there will be 10,000+ people in washington in one week or less, saying F*$K NO!

Id go.

Government was created for one reason, to bring order to chaotic groups of people living together, without people to govern, there is no government.

007

It is distinctly ironic that now, with the laws that the US are pressing into service, that the only people that actually have freedom are pirates and terrorists.

I am actually surprised at the arrogance that the US government, that they truly believe that they can control the people of not only the united states, but thier allies. The Internet is a global system, and by implementing this new law, they are effectivley forcing the entire world to obey the descision supported by a country that is not even related to them, If people in the US do not stand up and fight this descision, then many people around the world that must rely upon US telecommuncations trunks will . The US is actually slowly degenerating into a very opressive society, and will continue to do so until someone stands up and takes a stand against them.

@007: Actually, if the interenet were removed at this very moment, a large number of very high-level systems on this planet would effectivley cease to function (Or at least cease to function in any constructive fashion). In the 1990's, most people wouldnt even have a cell phone, now many people wont leave home if they cant find it. IF the internet was shut down, many communcations lines across this planet would be cut, along with access to many large information databases that many corporations actually RELY upon to function properly. Many hospitals now use the internet for patient information exchange, Banks use it for wire transfers (Including many people that use online services to pay bills), many government departments use the internet to exchange information. I have personally seen a grown person panic because they had to get used to a new version of internet explorer (True story. they actually demanded that it be changed back because they didnt want to get used to the new interface. The new version didnt come with an uninstall option, either). People will survive, yes. Humanity as a society will break down at a very rapid level, and we will be reduced to a FAR more primitive society than one decade ago.

@TerraN: Very good saying on Benjamin Franklin's part there. I'm sure he would be very... upset to see how the society that he fought hard to create has degenerated into how it is now. As would most of the other founding fathers...

Personally, i find it ludicrous. The US government will find it VERY hard to implement this sort of thing. Hell, the Hacker subculture on the internet has enough power to bring it down if they all worked together (I read in a report once that one particular internet 'resident' had about 250 machines at his disposal for pretty much the same purpose). Not only that, they will recieve ALOT of pressure from thier foreign allies once it is put in place (Forcing this sort of law onto countries other than your own is distinctly opressive), and if they dont, they will get pressure from foreign citizens who will get fed up with paying off-shore companies for internet access.

You folks speak of government and hackers shutting down the internet when its only a few clicks away!

Well, there is SOME good news. A federal judge has ruled that Bush's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional. I was wondering how long it took. According to the judge, the wiretapping program violates the first and fourth amendments as well as violating the separation of powers clause. As expected, Bush's administration is going to appeal this ruling, but I really don't think those appeals will succeed. If the Supreme Court of the United States determines if this program is unconstitutional, the government will have no choice but to shut it down for good. I'd say this is a very good thing. If this is the first to go, then I can see the Patriot Act being axed, for being unconstitutional. It's only a matter of time.

*dig dig*

ya i felt a little redeemed as an american today - our system may not be perfect or even among the best, but checks and balance's still work 232 years later and i think we'll be seeing in november that voting still works too

i'm predicting that the anti-incumbent vote is likely to flush out as much as 50% or more of the braindead congressmen in DC

---

the government will have no choice but to shut it down for good. I'd say this is a very good thing.

---

I wouldn't be too optimistic if I were you. Believe it when you see it. They're supposed to abide by due process and habeas corpus and grant everyone a fair trial too, yet there's hundreds, possibly thousands, locked up indefinitely on the basis of no actual evidence who get routinely tortured. It's called "the paradigm of prevention" I believe - lock 'em up (and torture them) anyway, because they *might* be up to something, if not now then in the future. Essentially the US and UK have short-circuited the evidence-based process of justice to one where suspicion alone is sufficent. You'll recall that a majority of the population were in favour of this post 9/11 I certainly do, and I was called all sorts of names for saying that it was a bad idea then (and it's still a bad idea now)

How does someone ever disprove what they might or might not do in the future?

And don't be too certain that future administrations will necessarily abandon such methods, despite what the courts say; it's far too useful as a means of power for whoever is in charge.

Years ago I saw a superb documentary about the lives of ordinary citizens in Stalin's Russia. One old man was recalling his arrest during the Purges of the '30s; he said to the NKVD man who was interrogating him, "but what am I suspected of?" to which the NKVD replied "Suspected? YOU are guilty!" and pointing to the outside world, he added, "THEY are under suspicion..."

it's a telling and quite naked revelation of the true nature of power. A tragedy that our "liberal democracies" have adopted the same methods.

I'd first like to say that, on balance, I agree with the opinions above and believe liberties are being sacrificed for "security".

However, perhaps you should look at things from another point of view for a moment, mainly because a discussion where everyone agreed would be fairly dull. The Government's main priority (aside from re-election, obviously ) is the safety of it's citizens and preserving the sovereignty of it's country. Whether they like it or not many western governments, in particular the US and UK, are fighting a "War on Terror" that threatens to destroy both of these principles. The issue is that is a war , but it's a war against an unknown, disassociated enemy who can't be fought using the conventional means adopted by countries since wars began.

The only members of this enemy force within the government's reach are the people who actually carry out the atrocities. These are often poorly-educated young men indoctrinated into thinking they are fighting for Islam. Islam, which shares a common root in Arabic with the word "salaam", meaning "peace". Catching these people is not going to harm their cause in the slightest, if anything it will make it stronger.

I think Taw (perhaps unwittingly) hit the nail on the head when he said that "the majority of the population were in favour of this post 9/11". Public opinion is an extremely fickle and short-term thing. Post 9/11 people were calling for retaliation, the government's opinion polls rose exponentially and the American army rode into Afghanistan on a wave of public support. Now, five years later, the event is sufficiently distant that people are able to get on their high horse and condemn the government for trading their civil liberties for security. If terrorists had succeeded in carrying out their attack in the UK last thursday - potentially the largest ever terrorist attack - then I'd imagine public opinion would swing the other way and the government would once again be the protectors of the free world. As it is, despite foiling the plot and saving hundreds if not thousands of lives the goverment is now being condemed by the public and media for the disruption they are causing. Airlines like Ryanair and Virgin are now complaining about their falling profits and demanding compensation from the government, but London Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world and as such the security needs to be rock-solid. When some airlines essentially demanded the security measures be stepped down or they would take legal action against the government I think John Reid (the Home Secretary) took a very commendable stand and near enough told them to take a hike.

Whatever the government does will be criticised, whether for genuine reasons, by politicans looking to further an agenda or by people who disagree simply because it is the government, and in some way they're doing their bit to "fight the machine".

The governments of the western world are fighting what is likely the hardest war they have ever fought, and to be brutally honest I'm not sure it is one they can win. Perhaps all that remains to see is whether they are brought down by the terrorists or by their own citizens...

You know? when I was 18 years old, you could drive out to the airport, park for .25 cents, walk anywhere in the airport with big band music playing in the back ground, catch a meal at one of the restaurants, then walk out onto the observation deck and watch the planes land and take off. All without seeing a cop or security person, and without taking your shoes off. That was taken away from me by some totally idiotic nuts that HATE freedoms that other people have. I will never get this freedom back again thanks to them. Makes me want to take something valuable away from them, know what I mean?

*Shake head at the world today*

Edited by - Finalday on 8/19/2006 5:25:32 AM

The problem with the war on terror, is that as long as there is at least ONE person who wants to kill everyone, the war isn't over. This war on terror is one that should be fought, but I don't think that it's one that can have a desisive victory, if any at all.
@Taw: All good points. I do think that the American people, including myself, have had it with the current administration. If Shrub tries to get more power and cut our freedoms, again, then by God, we should take them back. By force if necessary. I'm sick and tired of living in a world where our governments are trying to scare us silly about terrorism. In that regard, the terrorists have already won. People are so scared of what the terrorists are going to do, it's affecting the way they live. What are the terrorists going to? Blow up another building? So, what? If you get caught in that explosion and you die, guess what? Your worries are over. That shouldn't deter you from living your life the way you want to, though. People need to get a grip on reality. They're all going to die, one way or another. It's just a matter of how and when. It's a fatalistic point of view, I know, but that's how I see it. That's my rant on the subject.

---

If terrorists had succeeded in carrying out their attack in the UK last thursday

---

that'll be the one where turban-wearing brainwashed Al-Quaeda fanatics sneak onto 'planes at some of the most highly guarded airports in the world with ipods and baby-milk and Ribena hidden inside children's colouring books, is it? that "terror plot" that was, and you CAN quote me on this, completely made up.

seeing as how the Pakistani govt and intelligence won't do anything about the Taleban (seeing as said Taleban are, and always have been, Pakistan's de facto proxy army in Afghanistan) yet Pakistan likes to align itself with America (quite disingenuously, and really just for huge amounts of aid) every now and then Musharraf has to announce a new "victory" in the "war on terror" especially this year when Pakistan has been under intense criticism for doing bob-all. So off go the ISI, round up some halfway-convincing suspects, beat a confession out of them, which then gets hailed around the world as "terror plot uncovered!"

and the "home-made" bomb making materials will turn out to be nothing more than Toilet Duck. I can guarantee that this latest "terror scare" is again be nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to distract the public's attention away from the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably to force the id card Bill through again, and the 90-day detention.

don't believe anything, it's all lies. I don't even check out the BBC anymore. I only watch Al-Jazeera and the other Arabic channels, they're the only place you can get the truth these days.

---

that'll be the one where turban-wearing brainwashed Al-Quaeda fanatics sneak onto 'planes at some of the most highly guarded airports in the world with ipods and baby-milk and Ribena hidden inside children's colouring books, is it? that "terror plot" that was, and you CAN quote me on this, completely made up.

---

Sources? How do you know that this is completely made up Pete?
Furthermore, I was under the impression that the reason it all kicked off was due to Pakistani intel picking up agents linked to the potential attacks, whilst the UK security forces wanted to trail them further. The police appeared to be happy they had all the people needed, it was a precautionary measure taken... not a "an attack is a dead cert", but just to make 100% sure that if they had missed someone, an bombing may still be prevented.

However, how do you know that it was made up? Is this based on a yet another news channels say so?

A war on terror can never be won, that's just a catch-phrase. There have always been psycho nutters in this world. Some just murder, some just bomb - and some manipulate others into doing their bidding. Into every generation, there are plenty whom are missing those vital little bits of their makeup that turn them into nuts.