Afternoon all :)

I normally make it a policy not to initiate threads/rants in this forum, but after having listened to the Dubya's rhetoric last night about how we as Americans "have a destiny from beyond the stars" to "advance freedom" amid all the pre-emptive arresting of folks before they could even set up protests this week, encountering the rewording and restructuring of government websites at the EEOC, the Department of Education, and other government entities systematically removing references to civil rights that citizens possess and removing or obscuring crucial information on how to apply for DOE grants as well as failing to post them until their due dates (I was trying to get some work done when I noticed a *marked* change in the site from last year, vital information pages are now buried and printed in grey on grey, in tiny print ;) ), and numerous other things the current administration has done to 'advance freedom' abroad while subverting it at home, I began to get a little piqued. (Let's not even get into that very cynical call for 'medical malpractice reform' raised in his speech (and yes I have physician friends) that is a thinly veiled excuse to remove citizens' right of last resort against HMOs, other insurance companies, and medical facilities when they receive incompetent, inappropriate, or insufficient treatment).

Despite my growing annoyance at the (as The Daily Show' put it) "unmitigated gall" shown at the convention, and the transparent 'set-up Zell Miller as a poisonous court jester so that no-one realizes how scary Dick Cheney is or spends time analyzing his speech' bit of theatre on Wednesday night, I managed to 'keep it in my pants', so to speak, until I came across the following, courtesy of those radicals at the American Library Association. I've never been fond of John Ashcroft or the Patriot Act, but when I read the following, it became quite clear to me that this whole thing has gone *way* too far:

The Department of Justice has asked the Government Printing Office "to instruct depository libraries to destroy five publications the department has deemed 'not appropriate for external use.' Of the five publications, two are texts of federal laws. They are to be removed from libraries and destroyed, making their content available only to those with access to a law office or law library," according to the American Library Association. All the documents concern either federal civil or criminal forfeiture procedure, including to how to reclaim items that have been confiscated by the government during an investigation. As Molly Ivins put it, "I don't know how you feel about living in a country where the citizens are not allowed to read the law, but I find it... surprising."

Frankly, I'm sick of this. Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and his cronies are waving the banner of freedom abroad over our heads as a bright shiny object while deliberately and systematically tunneling under the very soil of what makes us a free society (the right to be aware of our rights, and not to have those rights trampled on illegally, among many other things). And the administration has made clear that "if you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists" is an axiom that can be applied to anyone who dares to oppose any part of their agenda, and used as a hefty political lever against their rivals (witness the unbelivably vile campaign against Max Cleland for daring not to support the 87 billion dollar appropriations bill for Iraq as an example).

As the risk of sounding like I'm ready to be fitted for my tinfoil hat, I just have one thing to say: This is how fascism happens, kids. Charismatic leader + 'righteous crusade' + whipping the citizenry into a patriotic fervor + 'emergency' restrictions on civil rights for an indefinite period of time due to a 'war' being on and violations of those rights (Bush 'admitted' last week that we didn't see us being able to 'win' the war on terror and predicted that it would go on indefinitely) + consolidation of power and restriction of access to information about what the government is doing...

It doesn't happen overnight (that slide is both slow and deceptively exciting and pleasant, couched in patriotism and the need to show 'strength'), and we can and should demand accountability from this government. But don't be so naive to think that it can't happen here. All of the elements are in place, and at the risk of going completely over the top, when you hear George W. talk about us having a 'destiny' to 'advance freedom' in another part of the world, keep someplace in your mind that Hitler also invoked intense patriotism, destiny, and the need for Germany to be 'safe' when he began 'liberating' his 'fellow Germans' in the Sudetenland and Germany's other neighbors over 60 years ago.

This power grab, this crusade that Bush's theocratic posse has embarked upon, isn't about terrorism, folks: and while I'm not for a moment suggesting that the threat from Al Qaeda and other extremist groups against us isn't real, there's an entirely different 'war' being waged here at home, and the conveniently nebulous "War on Terror" is being used as an (unquestionable, lest your patriotism be impugned) smokescreen to propagate actions on an unprecedented scale which have nothing to do with making us safer, protecting us from terrorists, or promoting freedom. It needs to be exposed for the poisonous snake that it is and dealt with accordingly.

"The moles have built their palace beneath us: we have not far to fall."
- Edna St. Vincent Millay

Regards,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

Ahhh yes it`s true the thousand year reich has been reborn !!!

G.W. Bush is none other then adolf hitler reincarted and the homeland security act is just a ploy to reinstate the SS.

Any day now i forsee the passing out of black jackets with yellow stars .

/yawn someone has their tin hat to tight lol

Heh, maybe we need to put on our tin foil hats a little tighter. The more uneducated our public becomes, and the less we challenge our own government, the faster our rights are taken away. Maybe our citizens should put that into stronger consideration.

Even with those out of libraries most if not all laws are still online accessable,

I've never been fond of John Ashcroft or the Patriot Act, but when I read the following, it became quite clear to me that this whole thing has gone *way* too far:

What Communist publication you pull this from? It's not in Google.

Man after eurotrash now they use communist every time someone that doesn't agree with them say something.

Dear Akipt:

The original quote came from a column from that famous Texas liberal journalist, Molly Ivins, but more concrete factual information about the DOJ's request, and the ALA's response to it, can be found at American Libraries Online, the web page of the American Library Association:

http://www.ala.org/

The order I referenced (which was sent from the Justice Department to the Government Printing offices and then to depository libraries) was ordered in June, sent out to the libraries on July 20, and rescinded on July 30,

...shortly after the ALA's Washington office filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the documents, an action that Office of Government Relations Deputy Director Patrice McDermott explained would force the DOJ to either provide the documents or reveal the reason for the order by specifying one of nine FOIA exemptions to withhold them. “There’s no excuse for them to ask libraries to destroy these materials, and no reason in the world to ask libraries to destroy statutes,” McDermott told American Libraries.
In other words, they had no valid justification for asking the documents to be removed, and so were forced to rescind the order.

You can read all about it here: http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=july2004ab&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=72146

The ALA website contains links to all sorts of interesting information, such as the fact that specific portions of the Iraq National library dealing with sensitive topics (knee-deep in ash, while older material in adjoining rooms lay untouched) were torched by arsonists in a very professional manner:

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=june2004ab&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=68074

or

Prison inmates suing to prevent the closing of the law libraries in Broward County, Florida's jails (they would be replaced with an online serivce that they would not be able to access, but could submit one request per week for research from):

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=july2004ab&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=71006

or

The House narrowly rejecting an effort to block funding for section 215 of the Patriot Act (allowing the DoJ to conduct searches of library and bookstore records without said library or bookstore knowledge or consent):

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=july2004ab&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=70036

All of those articles came from the July 2004 issue; much more interesting reading can be found on the site as well.

Regards,
Nydia

Even with those out of libraries most if not all laws are still online accessable,

And for those who don't have access to the internet?

Why don't we take a peek at section 215 of the Patriot Act, shall we?

You know, to see the part about the DOJ searching bookstores and libraries without their knowledge or consent?


SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.



Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following: `SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.



`(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.

`(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall-- `(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and `(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

`(b) Each application under this section-- `(1) shall be made to-- `(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or `(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and `(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

`(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.

`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.

`(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context. `SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.



`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period-- `(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and `(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

It's a freaking court ordered warrant!

With Congressional oversight!

That can only be carried out on people who are not citizens of the US!

The reason the library or bookstore can't talk about the warrant is so that it can't tip off the person being investigated.

Let me just repeat that: It's a court order, which the DoJ is required to justify before Congress!

Given that the website you are pointing to has a pretty disclaimer:


ALA encourages publication in the news columns of American Libraries of news about all matters of import to libraries and librarians. The editor is guaranteed independence in gathering, reporting, and publishing news according to the principles of the Association's policies on intellectual freedom.
Statements of official ALA positions on any matters shall be clearly identified as such when published in American Libraries. The editor must be free to analyze and interpret such matters as his or her judgment dictates, and such analysis and interpretation should appear over the editor's signature.

News and views have their place in American Libraries, and every opportunity shall be assured for expression of diverse views when members believe such views run counter to their own, or when news is considered to be inaccurately or not fully reported.

saying that they are not actual ALA statements or views unless stated to be so, and that they encourage reporting from just about anyone(as long as it involved libraries in some way)..you should understand that those articles can be widely inaccurate.

Man after eurotrash now they use communist every time someone that doesn't agree with them say something.And "fascist" is so much better? Get real.

And Nydia, don't be like L2, supply links to avoid such reposts :p

I have some problems with Crist0's reading of legal material, though I admit I am not a lawyer.

That can only be carried out on people who are not citizens of the US!

provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely

Think you got that one wrong.

It's a freaking court ordered warrant!

Except if you follow the "judge designated by section 103(a)" bit, you find that

Proceedings under this chapter shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible. The record of proceedings under this chapter, including applications made and orders granted, shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence.

So, it is a warrant, just the "security measures" exempt the court from any public review. I still believe in "we the people", you don't. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Also, this is not an adveserial court. The judge is not supposed to argue, just makes the determination as to whether an "investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" fits, and since he gets all his facts from one side, rarely is a request rejected.

With Congressional oversight!

Well, let's look at these two parts.

(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

Where I come from, this is called the fox watching the henhouse. If the DoJ did do something that wasn't entirely....honorable, what incentive is there to report it?

(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--
`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'

Hot damn, statitistics. Insert obligatory Josiah Stamp quote here, I'm too tired to look it up.

Maybe more on this later, as I'm out of here for the weekend. 215 gets most of the attention, but some other parts are worse. Then some parts are actually necessary updates to law enforcement. Enjoy Labor Day.

Fil

And for those who don't have access to the internet?
every library that I have ever been in, in the last 12 years has at least 5 pc's for interenet access and use.... everyone has access to the internet.

Dear Bise:

You are correct that most public libraries have internet terminals now - and this actually has contributed to why the public libraries (and their libriarians) have ended up being on the front lines of the current battle that is being waged by this administration on our rights to freedom of access to information (including when we are being spied upon, which is what the stink with section 215 of the Patriot Act deals with).

Want to know who has been pushing things like the Communications Decency Act of 1996? I'll give you a hint: it's not the librarians, who, while they aren't so fond of folks porn-surfing on the public dime, have strenuously resisted efforts by government and law enforcement to restrict what people can research on public terminals (there is currently a controversy going on over this in Phoenix after a sex offender admitted he was able to download porn at a Phoenix library, the mayor is trying to force filters on them).

Unfortunately, as state budgets have been hit very hard in the last couple of years due to a loss of income from the federal level, many public libraries, along with their internet terminals, are being closed in order to address state budget shortfalls, as in this case from El Paso Texas and in many places elsewhere across the country:

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cfm?Section=alonline&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=74810

Another thing to consider is that, in addition to the access issue, when an online resource replaces a text one, the replacement may not be equivalent; online resources are frequently limited in scope to the most recent years' publications, and/or heavily edited/selected down in the interests of web 'space'. Or, as in the Broward County Jail case, the level of access itself may be different. Having free access to texts is not the same as being able to *submit* a request to have someone else research for you - not to mention that online browsing is not as private as text research is - even if the request doesn't have to go through an intermediary (your browsing habits can be, and are, easily monitored).

Thankfully, the Communications Decency Act was declared unconstitutional, but in the last few years, this administration has tried to restrict the public's access to a lot more than porn... and this is what I take issue with. Ashcroft's June demand that federal depository libraries *destroy books containing federal statutes*, in other words, remove the right of citizens to access and read laws which affect them, simply defies reason and is unconstitutional. That our current DoJ has a pattern of trying to restrict the public's right to know, and its willingness to try to skirt, bend, or violate the Constitution in order to do so is deeply, deeply troubling, and frankly, dangerous. I can't imagine the sheer chutzpah, and contempt for the Constitution, it took to issue that order.

Since it was brought up, Section 215 of the Patriot Act not only gives law enforcement the right to access library and bookstore records, but doesn't even require them to notify the library or bookstore, much less the person/persons being monitored, and includes provisions for punitive actions against libraries or bookstores who notify their clients that they are being monitored or refuse to cooperate (two of the main reasons the language was put in not being required to notify them, btw)!

And to respond to Cristo's knee-jerk defense of section 215: This act applies to citizens, as well as non citizens, and only requires that Congress be notified every six months about what has *already* been done, and the Attorney General isn't even required to provide any details of the cases! (just how many were approved, and how many denied) As far as those judicial permissions go - I worked in the bail bond industry for several years and can tell you how much 'evidence' is required to get permission for such warrants in many jurisdictions. This section of the (cough) 'Patriot' Act, gives the DoJ a virtual blank check to go snooping about the reading habits of citizens/residents, and it does so without even allowing the library or bookstore the *option* of objecting to the practice, as they aren't required to be notified of it. How would it make you feel if you were a bookstore owner or librarian, particularly if you carried books on unpopular subjects?

The broadness of this act means that anyone who is 'suspected' of engaging in 'clandestine intelligence activities', whatever that means, can have not only their records, but the records of businesses they patronize, searched and seized. I have a couple of friends who run an occult bookstore. What if someone at the DoJ in this hyper-Christian administration decided that *that* sort of research was considered 'clandestine intelligence'? Can you imagine how the folks who run Muslim bookstores feel, or head shops? Not to mention what will happen one of these days when some poor shop owner finds out he's sold a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook to the wrong person (in other words, someone who actually does something other than hurt themselves in their own back yard while fooling around trying to impress his friends ;) ) when the jackboots arrive at his door, or for that matter even a copy of the Bible or the Koran (after all, both contain passages that incite violence)? Can you see, now, why this might be problematic? When you decide what books to purchase, what do you risk, given that it's now potentially the DoJ's business, and if it becomes their business, you won't even know about it? What if I run a bookstore or library and don't *want* to be an agent of the government? Is it right to force them to do so?

/shakes head)

Regards,
Nydia

Wow Nydia, I didn't realize in all your practice in "bail bonds" you had so many opportunities to request warrants in front of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That Court, by the way, is set up to determine the validity of warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which the Patriot Act modified) and is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 7 years.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1803.html

So please, enlighten us as to how easy it is to obtain warrants from these judges. Enlighten us as to how "corrupt" this Court has been under those evil Republicans; particularly since it was established in 1978.

*ahem* It's the USA PATRIOT Act. And, as such, I prefer to refer to it as the "You Sap at Riot Act." USA PATRIOT is an acronym, and I see no reason to put the word break before "patriot," as most of us know - it's anything but patriotic.

U-SAP-AT-RIOT

I don't have the patience to read this thread, honestly, even Nydia started this thread knowing it's uselessness... ...but, if you'd like a good reference on the whole thing, I suggest reading links provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation - my favorite online liberal defender of rights. (heh)

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/

First off nydia will you marry me?
secondly John Ashcroft must be dancing in his jackboots to see moron's like cristo and furtivus towing the line and spending thier efforts to nit pick a detail to no end while (like good little "patriots") completly failing to see the larger picture.
Nydia's nailed it quite nicely. this is an administration bent on establishing a theocratic fascism form of government.
for the first time in our history we have the government giving federal funds to orginization's of a religious nature(hello seperation of church and state)
Also for the first time in our history we have an administration calling for a constitutional amendment that will deny right's to a segement of our population.even if bush is only proposing the latter in an effort to pander to the ultra-religious vote(hello hate filled kill anything that doesnt agree with me sector) it's still reprehensible to play with the basis of our law in that manner.
Bush run's around decrying freedom and american idealism's for the entire world while finding it expediant to throw human bieng's in indefinate lockup with no charges and little to no access to lawyers in an off-shore prison encampment(hello hipocracy).
four more years means fours years to seed the judicial system with like minded fascists who will have little or no trouble making decidedly unconstitutional ruling's.

<offtopic>Oh, and since Nydia is actually reading this thread, did I miss it elsewhere, or was I the only one who had the hots for Mohini Bhardwaj during the olympics?</offtopic>

every library that I have ever been in, in the last 12 years has at least 5 pc's for interenet access and use.... everyone has access to the internet.

That's not true at all, Bise. In the last 12 years, have you visited a library in rural Iowa? How about a native American reservation? Some of those people are lucky enough to even have a library within driving distance, much less have access to the internet.

That's not true at all, Bise. In the last 12 years, have you visited a library in rural Iowa? How about a native American reservation? Some of those people are lucky enough to even have a library within driving distance, much less have access to the internet.
Im sure some school system or town hall has an internet access for the public... This just isn't an excuse.

There certainly were some good looking gymnasts in Athens this year, Palimax =)

Get laid guys :P

Also for the first time in our history we have an administration calling for a constitutional amendment that will deny right's to a segement of our population.That's completely false. The 13th and 18th amendments, for example, denied rights to whole segments of our population at the time they were passed. Though the 18th was repealed, the 13th continues to today. The 26th amendment effectively denies the right to vote to millions of U.S. citizens. All of those predate the proposed (and defeated) marriage amendment. It helps to actually read the Constitution before you go spouting off dumb statements.

You're also forgetting that the Patriot Act was originally passed in 1978. Kinda hard to accuse Bush of having a hand in that. In fact, I believe it was a Democratic President and Congress who passed the original Patriot Act (I may be wrong about the Congressional makeup at the time).

Im sure some school system or town hall has an internet access for the public... This just isn't an excuse.

Bise, I lived in Alaska for a while, and in some of the towns I stayed in, I could not have had access to the internet without hopping on a plane and going to a more developed part of the state.

Yes, that's a relatively small segment of our population, but there's a larger one... those who aren't educated in the use of computers and the internet. That's a pretty large chunk. Are you going to deny them those rights as well, or do you feel it's their responsibility to learn about this resource for the sole reason that their government feels they should not have access to it in writing?

If they cant even use a computer do you think the information being available to them will mean anything anyways? For christ sake my 90 year old grandmother can email me and use the internet.

Not being able to use a computer might one day become the definition of literacy, but for now, it's simply being able to read the written word. Believe it or not, people living under those conditions are quite often literate. Their inability to use technology has to do with their upbringing, not their intelligence.

Dear Furtivus:

You are in error. What most folks refer to as the Patriot Act (actually the USA Patriot Act) was conceived and signed into law in late 2001, under the auspices of the Bush administration:

The USA PATRIOT Act (officially the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) was quickly developed as anti-terrorism legislation in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The large and complex law received little Congressional oversight and debate, and was signed into law by President Bush Oct. 26, 2001.


You are thinking of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which was much more limited in scope (terrorism or espionage, for example, had to be 'the cause', rather than just 'a cause', of an investigation for the FISA to apply) and had many safeguards which the USA Patriot Act undoes or circumvents. Provisions of the USA Patriot Act actually supercede portions of a wide variety of laws concerned with intelligence gathering and law enforcement, including the FISA of 1978, the Family Education Records and Privacy Act of 1974, and quite a few others.

And in regards to 'how easy' it is to get one of those warrants, I did some research, and the answer is that it is even easier to get a search/seizure warrant under Section 215 than it is in a garden variety criminal case. Why? Because, if the FBI certifies to the FISA court that the documents it wants are going to be used in an investigation of terrorism or 'clandestine intelligence', the FISA court *must* approve the order. In other words, it's a rubber-stamp. Sounds like a great deal if you're working for the FBI, doesn't it? You don't even have to show probable cause!

You may find this thread, off the page Palimax linked, of interest here:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/sunset/215.php

This Act, plain and simple, was a knee-jerk overreaction to our intelligence agencies getting caught with their pants down on September 11th (and a conveniently timed wide-ranging power grab). It was an ill-conceived and unconstitutional piece of legislation which allows the FBI and law enforcement a dangerous degree of latitude to violate the privacy and other civil rights of citizens/residents while only paying lip service (if that) to the notion of checks and balances.

In itself, it's only disturbing. Combined with the other inroads that this administration has shamelessly bulldozed (or tried to perpetrate) through our civil rights, and systematic attempts to obscure or eliminate the public's right to know, it points to a more... unsettling pattern, hence the use of the word 'facism' in my original post.

Regards,
Nydia

P.S. Dear Palimax: Yum! Yes, Mohini Bhardwaj was something to look at, wasn't she? Truth be told though, this past Olympics, the one that I couldn't keep my eyes off of was Catalina Ponor of Romania:

http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletebios/5015014/detail.html

This picture doesn't do her justice (her black event finals outfit with the off-the shoulder look was just gorgeous), and she just has an incredible grace and ferocity in motion that's magnetic to watch. She's the first gymnast I've seen who really had the 'complete package', so to speak, since my all-time favorite, Svetlana Boguinskaya, whose pic I'll also gratuitously link (off a very outdated page): :)

http://members.aol.com/taml/Bogi.htm

Btw, how did you get those little fingernail pic links done? That's incredibly cool...

Warm regards,
Nydia

Their inability to use technology has to do with their upbringing, not their intelligence.


Ah like I said my 90 year old grandmother wasnt braught up to use computers..

Not knowing how to use a computer these days will get you no where. You wont even be able to work at a fast food restraunt..its a matter of survival not how you are being raised.

Ibudin

If your 90 year old grandmother can use computers, then she had an upbringing involving education of computer use. I don't know about you, but I'd consider my 'upbringing' to be a series of events that shapes my intellect, something that doesn't stop at any age, including your grandmother's. Just because it happened later on in life doesn't mean that training never existed.

I am not in error Nydia. The Patriot Act, in part, modified some Sections of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The original base was passed in 1978 under a Democratic Presidency. That's the law I was referring to together with the Patriot Act.

Perhaps no provision of the Patriot Act has excited greater false commentary than Section 215, the so-called angry librarians provision. Before the Act, law enforcement agencies could obtain business records and other similar evidentiary items in furtherance of the traditional investigation of a variety of federal crimes. Law officers needed only to obtain a grand jury subpoena for such actions. Section 215 merely extends this provision to terrorist crimes and adds a further protection for the citizen — a judge's order must authorize such evidence gathering.


That's from the Heritage Foundation which has some excellent analysis and commentary on the Patriot Act. This is the section you're demonizing in your post? Something that has been done for ordinary crimes for many years and was extended to acts of terrorism by the Patriot Act? Want to talk about a rubber stamp, do you know how often grand juries turn away a prosecutor's request? At least under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act a special court order is required.

Here's another site that is helpful for learning the truth about the Patriot Act and dispelling the many myths out there:

http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/

Yeah yeah, offtopic picture.

Anyway, to upload a thumbnail, just use the "manage attachment" button at the bottom of your screen, and you can attach a SMALL picture you've got on your own machine. Get them to your own machine by just saving them however you'd normally save a picture.

After you upload them, you can delete them.

--

U SAP AT RIOT's problem is the lack of direct oversight. Pure and simple.

What the hell does the ability of someone to access the internet or use a computer have to do with the fact that the Attorney General is ordering the destruction of books and public information in public libraries?

You spin-doctors that want to keep running off on tangents and arguing one or two single lines of the original post are exactly the folks that this administration is counting on to assist them in turning this country into a virtual police state.

It is easy to focus on one line of a speech, or one section of a bill, or a single sentence of a sermon; they are usually inserted precisely for their ability to distract from the cumulative message.

Being unable to see the forest for the trees has never been more obvious.

A) I echo Bylimet's point. It's bizarre that people are so focussed on how much access people should have to computers and how much facility they should have in their use that they overlook the basic fact of what Ashcroft is doing.

B) I'm back from my trip. Please keep this thread on topic. Hint: Olympic competitors are not on topic.

/shrug

I initially started that tangent off in response to someone's justification for actions taken through the Patriot act, which seems valid enough for the purposes of debate. If that went too far, I apologize, but I'm not so sure it did. Anyways, debate on.

Just as a last post in the temporary hijack, I actually found the russian Svetlana Khorkina to be oddly attractive. I'll be damned if I can't find a decent picture of her online though.

And back on topic, I was raised by a librarian, so you can be damned sure I'm disgusted at the idea of ordering destruction of books like that. That is just downright scary that someone in the goverment would even think of doing something like it.

I love all the anti-Patriot act links, they're hilarious. They go into great detail about what the Patriot Act does without a shred of proof or even any cases where it happened(in fact they say things that are flatly contradicted in the Patriot Act itself).


Another humorous note is the "libraries destroying law texts" rant.

Let me just quote for you from the linked material you provided Nydia:


department officials said the materials were “intended only for the internal training use of Department of Justice personnel
They weren't actual law texts, they were training materials..and they weren't in public libraries, they were in a government depository.

Then, your rant about the evil Nazis goes even further off base when we find out..


Boston Public Library President Bernard A. Margolis noted that he had contacted Lester Joseph—acting chief of the asset forfeiture and money laundering section of the DOJ’s criminal division, who reportedly made the decision to remove the items—and asked him to reconsider his request. “I believe all he really wanted was that new editions/publications not be placed in the depository system. I do not believe . . . that he actually wanted these to be destroyed,” Margolis said.
Oh, wait!

They didn't want to destroy the training materials, they just didn't think the new editions needed to go to the depository.

The Horror!

Dear Cristo:

Nice try, but it won't wash. The works in question were five books that were being held (and are legally required to be held, and the public is required to be allowed to access them) in depository libraries, two of which contained statutes, specifically search and seizure statutes. What the DoJ asked was that the texts be removed, destroyed, and *not* replaced with the updated ones, in other words, *removing* access by the public to them. Why? The DoJ wouldn't say other than that they considered them 'inappropriate for public use'. In order to legally remove a text containing statutes (which *must* be available for public use, due to that pesky Constiution) from the depository libraries, the DoJ is required to show compelling reason (there is a list of nine possible exemptions) for doing so. The DoJ failed (or should I say refused) to give *any* justification for requesting that the texts be removed, and so when one of the libraries filed a Freedom of Information Act request (which would force them to disclose their reason, or make the information public), they withdrew their request rather than provide any justification whatsoever for why they wanted these texts removed. In other words, they got caught trying to do an end run around the law. The Boston librarian that you quoted was trying to be charitable, because he found the request to be completely incredible and could not *believe* that the DoJ was actually asking that the texts be destroyed.

Btw, these weren't 'training materials' (although they might have been used as such). They were texts containing the actual search and seizure laws associated with specific cases (drug investigations). Now you may not particularly like drug dealers, and neither do I, but they, and we, do have the right to *read* the laws of this country and to be aware of our rights. This administration has shown a pattern of repeatedly making attempts to erode, obscure, or just rewrite (as in the EEOC's sudden *non* protection of homosexual rights on its website) right-to-know laws, civil rights statutes, and oversight protections, and that, sir, regardless of whether one is liberal or conservative (we have one each in my household :) ) is a problem.

Pull your head out of your neo-con ass and think, just for a minute, about this from a non-partisan, Constitutional rights perspective. What kind of precedent does it set when the DoJ has such contempt for Constitutional protections (they are particularly troubled by that pesky 4th Amendment lately, it would seem ;) ) that it asks librarians to illegally remove laws from public access just because they 'didn't think it was a good idea' for people to be able to read these laws? What do you think it would be like to live in a country where you *couldn't* read the law, and were, heaven forbid, charged with something? Did you ever imagine that that country might be the 'freedom loving' United States of America?

My partner is as old-school conservative as they come and is as appalled as I am.

My system has 70% crashed on me again as I was writing this (while trying to access another web page, hence no links), so I will cut this short. I can hear folks breathing a sigh of relief now... ;)

Regards,
Nydia

/hijack on) Wliten, just do a Google on Svetlana Khorkina. There are not only good pictures of her on the web, there are good *topless* pictures, as she did a shoot for Russian Playboy some years ago... :)

awhowhatnow?

I searched google images... Back to google I go!

*runs off*

Deselect "moderate safe search" when using google images if you want nudes :)

You'll find UNSAFE WORK LINK - Svetland Khorkina - NUDE GYMNAST HERE (http://www.radiotango.no/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=1149) multiple nude images on the first page of google images that way.

---

Back on topic:

Alaska Passes Anti-Patriot Act Resolution; Second State to Oppose Feds (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/alaska_patriot030523.html)

Critics cite PATRIOT Act abuse and misuse (http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2003/09/14/StateLocal/Critics.Cite.Patriot.Act.Abuse.And.Misuse-465391.shtml)More than 150 local governments have passed resolutions opposing the law as an overly broad threat to constitutional rights.
Patriot Act Used in 16 Year Old Deportation Case (http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/09/23/patriota.html)The Bush administration has decided to pursue a 16-year-old effort to deport two Palestinian activists who as students distributed magazines and raised funds for a group the government now considers a terrorist organization, despite several court rulings that the deportations are unconstitutional because the men were not involved in terrorist activity.
Critics: Patriot Act Warnings Come to Fruition (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103812,00.html)WASHINGTON — Critics of the Patriot Act (search (http://clickit.go2net.com/search?cid=307797&site=srch&area=is.clicktracking&shape=link&cp=info.foxnws&clickurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.foxnews.com%2Finfo.fo xnws%2Fredirs_all.htm%3Fpgtarg%3Dwbsdogpile&ext_qcat=web&ext_qkw=Patriot%20Act)) say the 2001 law, which was intended to enhance police powers to track terrorists, has recently been misused to investigate a political scandal in Las Vegas.
Man the U SAP AT RIOT act is awesome!

Nice try, but it won't wash. The works in question were five books that were being held (and are legally required to be held, and the public is required to be allowed to access them) in depository libraries, two of which contained statutes, specifically search and seizure statutes.
Won't wash?

It's YOUR source that says they were training materials, where did you get the information that says they were anything else?


Pull your head out of your neo-con ass and think, just for a minute
Perhaps if you would pull your head out of your liberal ass and think, just for a minute, you'd realize that not everyone with conservative ideas is a "neo-con".

In fact, here is a nice breakdown for you:


Isolationist

The term isolationist is most often used negatively; few people who share its beliefs use it to describe their own foreign policy perspective. They believe in "America first." For them, national sovereignty trumps international relations. Many unions, libertarians, and anti-globalization protesters share isolationist tenets.

Isolationists…


Are wary of US involvement in the United Nations
Oppose international law, alliances, and agreements
Believe the US should not act as a global cop
Support trade practices that protect American workers
Oppose liberal immigration
Oppose American imperialism
Desire to preserve what they see as America's national identity and character
Historical isolationist: President Calvin Coolidge

Modern isolationist: Author/Commentator Pat Buchanan

[/url]http://www.csmonitor.com/images/centerDotLine.gif

Realist

Realists…


Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
Weigh the political costs of foreign action
Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest
Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

("]http://www.csmonitor.com/images/centerDotLine.gif

Liberal

Liberals…


Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
Oppose American imperialism
Support international law, alliances, and agreements
Encourage US participation in the UN
Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor
Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson

Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

[url=")http://www.csmonitor.com/images/centerDotLine.gif

Neoconservative

Neoconservatives…


Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower
Share unwavering support for Israel
Support American unilateral action
Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security
Promote the development of an American empire
Equate American power with the potential for world peace
Seek to democratize the Arab world
Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies
Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan



I am a realist, in case you are wondering.

That's great Palimax, however those cases are examples of inappropriate use that won't stand up in court. It's wishful thinking to try and apply the Patriot Act to a guy who runs a meth lab, it's clear that isn't what the law applies to and it just won't stick. Amusingly enough, you provide yet more ammo in defense of the Patriot Act, such as the "critics" link which goes into detail about how it worked as intended in most cases.

Then you have the Alaska link, which really comes down to "bookstore and library records could still be sought by law enforcement, but only with evidence of probable cause" ..yeah, like probable cause isn't required to get a warrant in the first place.

Your "deportation" link is posted on an extreme leftist propaganda site, and the two men involved were supposedly raising funds for a terrorist group...perhaps most importantly, they are not US Citizens. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if we find out people are raising money for terrorists, it's not a bad thing to deny them citizenship and deport them to their home countries.

As for your last link, again we have your sources confirming what has been said repeatedly: " the Patriot Act gives courts oversight to ensure that its powers are not abused ".

You can abuse any law, the real test is whether those abuses actually make it through the courts..and these aren't making it.

There's Liberal as a concept, and there's liberal as a political party Crist0. You described the party. Then there's people like me who adhere to the universal (non-american) definition.

Dictionary.com:

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

People like me places emphasis on the individual's rights and freedom in a society, and the pursuit of making the unalienable rights (Life, freedom, the pursuit of happiness) take hold everywhere in the world.
We tend to be reformists, but more to the right than left.

Label's aside, it is clear to me that the office trying to have *public* laws hidden or made unavailable to the public was abusing the law as intended. Find out who was responsible and reprimand them appropriately. Issue closed.

(edit: bleh, hard to effectively display this shit like this. did my best ;p)

The terms liberal and conservative mean different things depending on how you're applying them. Obviously, when you're looking at politics on the world and historical stage, the US really only takes up a very, very small part of the spectrum. If you're putting political ideology onto a linear spectrum, a lot of scholars agree on this one as a representation of international/historical ideology:

Far Left - - - - - US Political Spectrum - - Middle - - - - - - - - - - - - -Far Right
<-|------------------------|---|---------|-------------------------------------|->
(communism) - - - - - - (liberalism) - - - - (realism/centrism) - - - - -(conservatism) - - - - - (fascism)

Obviously, for the purpose of US politics, it usually breaks down to something like this:

Left Middle Right
<-|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|->
- - - - - - - (Liberalism) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(Conservatism)

Now, before someone goes and says "omgz, (US) liberals are almost commies!!11" or "*gasp* (US) conservatives are fascists!!!111" remember where the US effectively fits on that political spectrum. The words liberal and conservative are different depending on where you're applying them; both Christ0 and Kivorn are correct. Has the US 'warped' the usage of those terms? Yeah, I guess. It doesn't really matter, as long as people understand the difference between how the two sets of terms are applied.

Good post, Roliel, and you're dead on.
Even my old professor in political theory would have anything to argue.

You can abuse any law, the real test is whether those abuses actually make it through the courts..and these aren't making it.That's the problem with U SAP AT RIOT, by the time they've reached the courts, the violations have already happened. People have been detained or searched without cause.

Probably a good bet that more than 70% of those who complain about this sort of thing will for whatever reason decide they had something better to do than go out and vote or send in an absentee ballot in this coming election. Yes, we did not get to vote on such things as the Patriot Act, but we did have a partial say in the chain of events that placed the authors of it in power. If Dubyah and his Root'n Toot'n posie of good ole Texas hooligans ( most of them are not from Texas but the ones that count are :p ) produce policies you do not favor, than please, attempt to vote them out of office. I know I am going to do whatever it takes to make sure my one vote gets cast, because even a river is made up of drops of water. Vote, even if its only to take a vote away from a canidate you distrust or despise. There are reasons why there are Ralph Nader type canidates allowed on the ballot.

The United States and the world as a whole used to live under the constant threat of global nuclear destruction, which is 1 billion times more catastrophic than anything your friendly local terror cell can dish out, and yet life went on without resorting to fascism or the desire to build a United States of Planet Earth, in spite of the stakes being so much higher. The GWoT is going to be about as much of a success as the War on Drugs, in that we will use the military to interfere with the lives of citizens of other countries when the true roots to the problems have nothing to do with particular nations or governments. Still, people will always demand that "The government must act! They must do something in reaction to this! Deploy some carriers off the coast of this 3rd world shithole nation! Send in the Marines and the Army! Bomb them with Stealth Aircraft and Tomahawk missiles! I paid for all this hardware and training as a taxpayer! Use it goddammit!"

So, there you have it. Register to vote and go vote if you truely love America.

That's the problem with U SAP AT RIOT, by the time they've reached the courts, the violations have already happened.Gee, I wonder if that'd be the case when other laws get abused too?

You know, it'd be really cool if there was a way they could..i dunno..like take a lawyer..and file a case against the agency that overstepped its limits.

That'd rock.

DOH!

Some here live in a disconnected reality were anything they disagree with must immediately be labeled fascist and heralded into the world by the evil Bush regime. Nevermind the complete lack of intelligent comprehension for what real fascism is, it just gives them their security blanket to make such comparisons.

If you truly believe that our president is a fascist, or conducts in any fascist activity, you're hopelessly innocent of what true fascism and evil are. I don't know whether I should pray you remain ignorant or become schooled in it by firsthand experience. Perhaps you should just ask the nearest Polish immigrant, or elderly Jewish halocaust survivor what real fascism is like.

And yes (dear Nydia) this is directed to your original post here, but others have bandied out the ignorance here as if it were candy on Halloween. Such drivel usually gets shoveled into the dumbass dump, but seeing someone as obviously as intelligent as yourself start down that road, I felt a comment was required.

Dear Akipt:

Despite the attempts by both well meaning individuals and dumbasses on the other side of this argument to minimize, trivialize, or belittle me and/or my concerns on this issue :), I stand by my original closing statement to that post: that this country, should it continue to remain blind to the deliberate and systematic attacks that are being made on our civil rights and liberties by this administration in the name of making us 'safer' (and in my opinion this premise is being used very cynically as a smokescreen for an independent desire to consolidate power on many fronts), *is* at real risk of sliding into fascism (and I'm well aware of what the term means).

Whether you wish to see it or not, the current 'freedom loving' administration has, to an unprecedented degree, waged a cynical and unabashed war on civil rights and civil liberties in this country since 9/11, has engaged in efforts to wrest power from other branches of government and/or the people in many areas and on many issues completely unrelated to international terrorism since it has been in office, and has responded with nothing but arrogance and contempt when confronted with the illegality of certain of its actions. That it has fallen to librarians to force the DoJ to comply with the Constitution in this case is in itself reprehensible.

And as problematic as The Patriot Act is (and no, systematically and illegally searching and seizing folks and then expecting the courts to act as a safety net to rescue those who have been abused by our law enforcement community is not acceptable, in my opinion), this administration did not think that it went nearly far enough, and devised a second, even farther reaching act, Patriot II (also called the Victory Act). This 'enhancement' to Patriot had *no* planned expiration date, would further weaken court oversight and other checks on surveillance, detention, and prosecution, and the available evidence suggests that the administration was planning to attempt to push it through the Congress on the eve of our war with Iraq before it was leaked, at which point it denied it. In case you aren't familiar with Patriot 2, or have forgotten, here's a link:

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot2draft.html

It's 89 pages long, but a decent analysis can be found here:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12161&c=206#_ftnref3

and an extremely detailed analysis can be found here:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206

This proposed 'updating' of Patriot contains such mind-boggling provisions as the ability to strip citizenship even of native-born citizens, the ability to label anyone in direct action civil protest groups 'terrorists' (and therefore they can be wiretapped, searched/seized, detained indefinitely, etc, without any special permission or oversight), and the right to conduct *secret* arrests and detentions of suspected 'terrorists', whether they have been charged with a crime or not. It hasn't gone anywhere... yet, but what does it say that this administration would even think that assuming this level of unchecked power over its citizenry was acceptable?

I'd like to repeat - this is not a liberal vs conservative issue to me, nor Republican/Democrat, and I don't like John Kerry. This is a Constitutional issue, this is the proper functioning of our democracy, respect for the necessity of checks and balances, and due process that is at stake, and what is happening behind the unassailable smokescreen of all the waving flags and slogans of 'making the world safer' is dangerous and very un-American. Simply put, yes, I feel that George W. Bush and his crusading bunch of zealots (and I don't consider them conservatives, they haven't 'conserved' a damned thing while in office) are doing harm to our democracy and need to be removed. I don't like Kerry, and would actually have voted for McCain in 2000 had he won the nomination (both the R and the D in my house pulled the lever for Nader), but these people are *bad* for the country, and ironically, on our national security, on many levels, and I don't feel ashamed, nor do I feel like a kook, for saying so.

I wouldn't have initiated this thread in the first place had I not considered this a serious issue (it's been building for a long time, the library incident was simply the 'straw that broke the camel's back' for me), and at the very least I feel that all of us, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, need to wake up and take a *good* look around at what's happening and ask ourselves: "Is this really what being 'freedom-loving' means?"

Sincerely,
Deborah A. Dixon
"Nydia Ywalmoriel"

P.S. My partner (y'all know him as Faervas) and I actually sat up a couple of nights ago arguing/discussing which would be worse for the country: letting Bush and his theocratic crew of hatchet men/women have four more years to chop away at the underpinnings of our system of government, or ending up with an ineffectual President unable even to defend himself from attack. I felt that, yes, no matter how ineffectual or beholden to his own special interests Kerry was, that getting Bush out was so important that it was worth the risk; his hope was that four more years would give people time to wake up and see what terrible things were being done under the guise of patriotism with the result that we might get something other than another dangerously short-sighted crusading neo-con in 2008. In the end, the discussion came to a draw...

And as far as 'try asking the nearest Polish immigrant'... I am not trying in the least to be flippant here, but it seems to me I could simply ask that fellow who was just released from Gitmo yesterday after being held for two years without being charged with anything, and who was found not even to *be* an 'enemy combatant', what fascism is like, yes? :)

Regards,
Nydia

dumbasses on the other side of this argument to minimize, trivialize, or belittle me


I'd like to repeat - this is not a liberal vs conservative issue to me, nor Republican/Democrat


Pull your head out of your neo-con ass

Nice double talk.

Nice "out of context" quotation.
Pull your head out of your neo-con ass and think, just for a minute, about this from a non-partisan, Constitutional rights perspective.
More accurate isn't it? Don't use "neo-con" arguments when it is a constitutional issue.

I am not trying in the least to be flippant here, but it seems to me I could simply ask that fellow who was just released from Gitmo yesterday after being held for two years without being charged with anything, and who was found not even to *be* an 'enemy combatant', what fascism is like, yes?Your comparison shows how woefully ignorant you are.

Your comparison shows how woefully ignorant you are.
Nydia is not now nor ever has been "woefully ignorant". She may hold political viewpoints diametrically opposed to yours but that in itself isn't ignorance.

Being fairly conservative myself, how about you explain to me how in the fuck it takes 2 years to figure out someone isn't an enemy combatant?

Persons captured in military operations go through several stages of processing by first the soldiers who capture them and then the MPs given the task of safeguarding (that's right...safeguarding) them pending disposition. There are processes in place that are supposed to insure that shit like unlawful detention of non-combatants doesn't happen. That it did in at least one instance is a good indicator that something got broken and needs to be fixed. Some of the current adminstration's policies and interpretation of the Geneva convention directly contribute to that brokenness.

We're nowhere near the fascist paradise the way-way-left would have us believe but that doesn't mean everything is right and true just because its done "in defense of freedom".

Persons captured in military operations go through several stages of processing by first the soldiers who capture them and then the MPs given the task of safeguarding (that's right...safeguarding) them pending disposition. There are processes in place that are supposed to insure that shit like unlawful detention of non-combatants doesn't happen.
At risk of sounding flippant, but this is war. That's why it's a bad thing.

So the process worked to free this man that was presumably wrongfully imprisoned during a time of war. I say presumably, because the details are still unreleased about why he was imprisoned in the first place or where he comes from. Need I remind you that in our lawyer-empowered country with all the protections of a just jury and access to all the law books John Ashcroft allows us to read, people are wrongfully imprisoned all the time?

If this was an example of fascism, we'd not hear about it. He'd be a lump on the ground somewhere in Cuba, feeding the worms.

Nydia's comparison of what happened to a person suspected of being an enemy combatant and captured in a foreign country we are at war to the persecution put upon the Polish by the Germans is woefully ignorant of the true horrors of a fascist government. The two examples (hers and Akipts) are simply not comparable.

I'm not saying its an indicator of fascism. Its an indicator that something went wrong however and even though we're at war its a dangerous mindset to fall into to brush it off as a hazard of the times. We don't stop trying to prevent innocent people from going to jail in our civil criminal system do we?

Justice doesn't only apply to "our side". Humane treatment of individuals isn't an act of cowardice or enemy sypathizing. They are part and parcel of the principles our nation was founded on. The principles we keep insisting we want to share with the rest of the world. We cannot allow our elected officials run roughshod over those principles under the guise of defending them.

I have zero empathy for people proven to be terrorists. Zero. Burn em at the stake for all I care. But until they are proven guilty we can't just toss em in a cage and say "oh, we'll get around to sorting it out sometime".

But a law that may shorten the scope of freedoms in some areas of everyday life with the German nazism of the 30s and all it has done is comparable? o.O

But a law that may shorten the scope of freedoms in some areas of everyday life with the German nazism of the 30s and all it has done is comparable? o.O
You seem to be implying the horrifying things done by Nazi Germany and the rise of fascism just showed up overnight?

It was a political process that took place over time. We have the luxury of hindsight and can say now "Oh that was a horrible time". It wasn't so apparent to the people of the time or it wouldn't have happened. To downplay that lesson and just assume that everything our government does will turn out for the best is ignorance in its purest form.

Nobody is infallible and, if you'll permit me to by cynical for a moment, we all know that in our current society if something can be abused somewhere someone will abuse it. Whether its a law, a social program or an all you can eat buffet.

So no, Nydia's comparison isn't a direct correlation, but it is a valid comparison if her intent is to get people to think about the possible consequences of continued unquestioning acceptance of the limits being placed on our freedoms.

It wasn't so apparent to the people of the time or it wouldn't have happened.Talk about projection, wow. Or maybe there's a more applicable pyschological word to use, but your matter-of-factness here is curious.

To downplay that lesson and just assume that everything our government does will turn out for the best is ignorance in its purest form. No one here is assuming "everything our government does will turn out for the best". That would be just as disconnected as saying everything they're doing is fascist.

Nobody is infallible and, if you'll permit me to by cynical for a moment, we all know that in our current society if something can be abused somewhere someone will abuse it.We agree on this :p

Nydia's comparison isn't a direct correlation, but it is a valid comparison if her intent is to get people to think about the possible consequences of continued unquestioning acceptance of the limits being placed on our freedoms.No, it's dillusional, alarmist, and fear-mongering to make such statements. But hey, we're at war and I've been called all these things for just stating that. So why is it okay for you and Nydia to rant drivel about fascism when it's completely disconnected from reality? If you can't make your argument based on reality, you might as well make a cartoon out of your argument. No one with any real historical perspective is going to listen to you.

Hmm sorry Mukaz, I wasn't referring to Nydia comparison, but to Akpit ones.
Like you said we have history to not repeat errors, but that doesn't mean choices made by politicians are always right (sic), nor laws shouldn't allow so many holes.

Dear Furtivus:

I have a well-worn copy of Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago", as well as a great uncle who was a PoW in WW2 (and feel free to address me in the first person, if you are going to challenge my statements :) ). I am not making the claim that the situations are identical - but that we have not, yet, descended to such a state in *no* way excuses the human and civil rights violations that we are *currently* perpetrating and seeking to expand. I'm glad, of course, that we aren't Stalinist Russia, or modern Cuba, but it amazes me that folks are easily able to gloss over the not insignificant fact that the current administration has been willing to flaunt the Geneva convention. This is not only vile, but endangers our own soldiers abroad.

Sincerely,
Nydia

Sorry for the delay in response btw; I was called into a meeting mid-my last response and didn't come back until an hour later, and didn't recheck the thread before posting. As to the 'intent' of this thread:

Nydia's comparison isn't a direct correlation, but it is a valid comparison if her intent is to get people to think about the possible consequences of continued unquestioning acceptance of the limits being placed on our freedoms.

Bingo.

Regards,
Nydia

No, it's dillusional, alarmist, and fear-mongering to make such statements. But hey, we're at war and I've been called all these things for just stating that. So why is it okay for you and Nydia to rant drivel about fascism when it's completely disconnected from reality? If you can't make your argument based on reality, you might as well make a cartoon out of your argument. No one with any real historical perspective is going to listen to you.
You're welcome to call it what you want.

Its not fear-mongering to suggest that there are things that can be done better with regard to national security and the protection of individual rights. Its not delusional to acknowledge the weaknesses in the system before they become a problem.

Its also not alarmist to hold the opinion that one of the candidates for president has an actual plan to fight the war on terror while the other one just keeps tooting the same old "The other guy did it wrong!" horn without offering a real alternative.

Thankfully I'm an equal opportunity cynicist, willing to listen to both sides and take what they say with equally large grains of salt. :)

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=websense

Related or not? When companies want to protect their customers from satire...

And the link about MAM is hilarious... and scary at the same time. Like Maddox said it himself : "You see, parents today don't have the time to be bothered by things like supervising their kids and teaching them right from wrong, so what we as a society need to do is ban everything objectionable."

Like Maddox said it himself : "You see, parents today don't have the time to be bothered by things like supervising their kids and teaching them right from wrong, so what we as a society need to do is ban everything objectionable."
the american = selfish, greedy, LAZY. as viewed by many non-americans.

"Shutup Bitch; Go fix me a turky pot pie." -- The Breakfast Club.

THe intent from her post, was that she didn't need to talk to a Polish immigrant about the effect of fascism because she could just talk to the guy from Gitmo about it. I'm sorry but that is not a valid comparison no matter how many ways you cut it. Might as well ask a Baptist about what it means to be a Buddhist. Their experiences are totally different. She can backpedal all she wants but her original statement was totally off base.

She's only way off base to those unwilling to entertain the thought that maybe, just maybe, Lady Liberty has managed to get a skid mark in her lily white panties.

Let's look at it this way:



In the case of a victim of Nazi Germany- they were strong-armed into a concentration camp, where the intent was to work them to death or kill them outright. The Nazis knew before hand what the general outcome of the incarceration would be- death.



In the case of the person in Gitmo, one or more people were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were strong-armed into jail and had to cool their heels for a little bit while things got worked out. After all, we are trying to invade a few countries and lay the smack down- and the people involved are not citizens of the US, so they are not entitled to the same rights as someone who is.



Currently, the two are worlds apart. The Gitmo detainee was released after it was found out that they didn't belong there. Odds are good that there will be some compensation coming their way.



However, if one was to look deeper, the willingness to chuck someone into a detention facility and let them chill for a few years could indicate a mindset that is more willing to disregard certain rights the citizens of this country enjoy. This mindset might be something that those with a libertarian bent are reluctant to stomach without throwing up the red flag- and that is *fine*. One of the great things about our government is that we have the ability to question it. In fact, I'd say it is our patriotic duty to do that.



How this is handled in the future and what is done for the person who was wrongly held will shape my final opinion on this. Yes, it sucks, and yes, it could possibly have been handled better.



We must also remember that the rights of private citizens of the United States are much, much different from those of people in the military and those of foreign nationals suspected of being involved in activities against the security of the United States. It is good to be wary against a slide into barbarism (such as was shown in the Abu Ghraib prison).

She's only way off base to those unwilling to entertain the thought that maybe, just maybe, Lady Liberty has managed to get a skid mark in her lily white panties.
She's not off base. She is inarticulate in her argument at the least, and paranoid delusional at worst.

So what happens when "Lady Liberty" gets in a real car wreck? Still going to try to use the same disconnected comparison?

You act as if this is the first time someone in the government has tried to take away someone's rights.

2nd Amendment anyone?

Dear Akipt:

(coughs) You can address me in first person as well - I'm quite capable of defending myself :). I'm sorry if you find my argument 'inarticulate' or paranoid, but I'll try to spell it out clearly for you:

1) Major nations don't typically become fascist regimes overnight.

2) The current administration has, over the past several years, enacted or attempted to enact, legislation significantly curtailing individual rights, liberties, and our right to know, as well as simply acted on its own without any authority whatsoever and violated existing rights and Constitutional protections.

3) The perpetrators of this activity, when confronted with their behavior, deny that said activity happened and/or attempt to browbeat or smear individuals who protest such claiming that their patriotism is somehow lacking (in other words, attacking the character of the protestor rather than the argument). This form of nullification by character assassination is one of the hallmarks of, yes, fascist regimes ("If you are not with us, then you are with the terrorists").

4) Examples of inroads/attacks on civil rights/liberties are widespread and not necessarily related to terrorism, and include: The Patriot Act (and particularly its 'broadening' and inappropriate use in ordinary criminal cases), illegal detention of individuals for extended periods of time without cause without charges, and without access to representation; removal of access by citizens to the law (the library case that kicked off this thread), the removal, without any discussion whatsoever, of previously existing gay rights protections from the EEOC, etc. There are many more examples (lets not even get into what's going on with treaties we've *un*signed, or the Wilderness Act), but those are the ones that have already been mentioned in this thread.

5) If this trend continues unabated, then yes, the United States government is in serious danger of becoming something less than free and democratic. If we find this objectionable (and I do :) ), then it is our duty to speak out against it.

And while I agree with you that this isn't the first time that someone in the government has tried to take away the rights of individuals, this is the first time in my recollection, wartime or no, that an administration has attempted to curtail or simply step on so many rights, and remodel or eliminate checks and balances in so many areas of our government.

Perhaps more disturbing is the casual disregard or outright contempt that Bush and some in his administration have displayed with respect to our basic rights: witness the behavior of the Secret Service under this administration. Just yesterday, they violated three provisions of the First Amendment (freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom to peaceably assemble), as well as the Eighth Admendment, in their treatment of both a group of seven AIDS activists peacefully heckling at a Bush campaign stop yesterday, and the journalists who attempted to talk to the protestors:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9703-2004Sep9.html

Particularly interesting was the part where:

Journalists were told that if they sought to approach the demonstrators, they would not be allowed to return to the event site -- even though their colleagues were free to come and go. An agent, who did not give his name, told one journalist who was blocked from returning to the speech that this was punishment for approaching the demonstrators and that there was a "different set of rules" for reporters who did not seek out the activists.

This has wandered far afield yet again, but the intent of this thread was to attempt, through the use of the library and other examples, to get people to look at the larger picture here. There *is* a pattern here, and it is a disturbing one. As Bylimet said, "we're failing to see the forest for the trees"... and while we're on the subject of trees, while the example I just listed may seem to be trivial to some, remember that, as the saying goes, "mighty trees from little acorns grow".

Poor Lady Liberty not only has a few skidmarks on her lily-white panties, but may need a pair of Depends before much longer if we, as her citizens and guardians, don't act to clean her up.

Sincerely,
Nydia

I hate to repeat myself, but I want to raise an example of rights being abused one more time, even though it is just one tree in the forest.

Max Cleland(sp), who left an arm and both legs in Viet Nam, refused to vote for the Patriot Act as initially proposed by Bush due to the stripping of civil rights from those employed by the federal government, because the taking of these rights had nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terrorism.

Bush, who White House officials now acknowledge disobeyed the order given by his commanding officer, condemned Cleland as unpatriotic and akin to Asama Bin Laden and unleashed his attack dogs to jack up a phone canvassing during the elections to let folks know what a evil person Cleland was for being against protecting the US and it's citizens.

Bush, the Commander in Chief of the US Military who by his own actions in the Military could have faced at the least being tossed from the Guard and placed on active duty and at worst faced a courts martial for disobeying a direct order from a commanding officer, had the gall to liken Cleland, who left three limbs in Viet Nam while serving his country honorably and admirably, to the terrorist leader Bin Laden simply because he would not follow the program like a well-trained lap dog and take away the civil rights protecting over one million US citizens employed by the federal government.

That is the kind of behavior and policies that are the precursors of a police state, if not a fascist one, if left unchecked.

By the way, hope my distaste for Bush did not come out too much in this post. I hate when that happens. (Sorry for adding another tangent)

VOTE McCAIN:D

Bylimet, you might want to step back to reality for a bit with the disobey order line.



Nice "out of context" quotation
Anterak, the point doesn't change if I added more of her post..she was upset because people were belittling her and talked about how this wasn't a liberal or conservative issue for her. I simply showed where she, in one single sentence, went about belittling and labeling the issue as conservate/liberal.

No one else would get away with contradicting themselves like that..why do you think she should?

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=websense

Related or not? When companies want to protect their customers from satire...
We use websense. Our primary reason is that by stopping me from visiting inappropriate-site-du-jour the company I work at reduces THEIR risk of being involved in the lawsuit when my co-worker is offended by what I'm viewing.

[QUOTE=Crist0]Bylimet, you might want to step back to reality for a bit with the disobey order line.
QUOTE]

1. Bush was ordered to have the physical by his commanding officer to comply with requirements for flight certification.

2. Bush did not get the physical as ordered, and was suspended from flight status as a result, for failure to comply with standards.

3. White House officials have acknowledged that Bush did not comply with the order, saying "there was no reason for Bush to take the annual physical required of fighter pilots because there were no suitable planes for him to fly in Alabama", where he had applied for transfer of his training. National Guard and Air Force standards requiring annual physicals do not stipulate any waiver for those applying for transfer to Alabama, according to any of the military folks I know.

4. There is no record of Bush's commanding officer in his order, or any Air Force regulations, stating that the physical would not be required per regulation for anyone seeking a transfer to Alabama.

5. Failure to follow the direct order of a superior or commanding officer is punishable by disciplinary action up to and including a courts martial and dishonorable discharge. Failure to perform to National Guard standards and meet requirements can result in loss of National Guard status and placement on active duty listing.

What part of reality am I missing? The above are recorded facts, as published in numerous newspapers, reported on numerous televison news programs, and written in the military laws, military code of justice, whatever.

By the way, upon receiving his transfer to Alabama, it took him four months before reporting to a unit. That is where the accusations of AWOL came from, seeing that he had not reported within the time frame proscribed in the national Guard standards and regulations.


VOTE McCAIN:D

White House officials have acknowledged that Bush did not comply with the order, saying "there was no reason for Bush to take the annual physical required of fighter pilots because there were no suitable planes for him to fly in Alabama", where he had applied for transfer of his training. National Guard and Air Force standards requiring annual physicals do not stipulate any waiver for those applying for transfer to Alabama, according to any of the military folks I know.

Like I said before Bush probably had his physical, they are required. Just probably didnt have his flight physical which is most likely an extra page or 2 and/or dissertation by the MO saying he can fly. It is not a big deal I did not have my special physical when told to do so(And I was Enlisted, not an Officer), but still completed my regular physical. My special physical was not needed due to the fact I was no longer working in that area.

(and no, systematically and illegally searching and seizing folks and then expecting the courts to act as a safety net to rescue those who have been abused by our law enforcement community is not acceptable, in my opinion),



I know this response is three pages late but this is the way our legal system works..
please suggest a better system?

Oh I don't know, maybe a system in which systematic and illegal searches don't happen in the first place?

Dear Cristo:

Mea Culpa (sorta). However, the reason I used the phrase "pull your head out of your neo-con ass" in association with you, and not with other folks that I responded to in the thread, is that I have observed that 1) you take pride in your sometimes extreme political views (you've brought up that people have called you a 'Nazi' before in text and laughed about it) and 2) you frequently use similar language and the tactic of trying to overbear or intimidate in your arguments. So I did it for emphasis, and figured you'd 'get' it.

And thanks for clarifying where you stand on the political spectrum. My observation has been that with this particular issue, that as many 'conservatives' are as uncomfortable with what has been happening to our rights as 'liberals' are, and that this issue is *largely* personal politics-independent. After all, there are a fair number of liberals who don't mind the government having a large degree of control over our lives if it's perceived to be for the public good, wouldn't you agree?

So it probably wasn't the best idea to use *that* particular epithet to browbeat you with in that phrase ('Nazi' just seemed silly ;) ), but the two phrases *were* intended to be independent of each other.

Warm regards,
Nydia

Dear Nydia:

I can cough too (cough)

When I am replying to someone else's posts, in this case Mukaz's, I will refer to you in third person. Otherwise, when I am posting directly in reference to you, as I am now, then you get all the first person yous you're entitled too. Expecting otherwise, would just be rude to Mukaz since he was defending you while you were in absentia.

So anyway, I read your entire post this time because you did a better job of leaving your fascist comparisons off the table.

Throughout our nation's history, it has seen temporary restrictions to its residents' civil liberties (not just to its citizens!) - from Washington's ending of the Whiskey Rebellion, John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, through Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, FDR's internment of 120,000 Japanese and the tracking down of resident German sabotuers, to the Cold War's McCarthyism.

And yet we survived all those trials to be the greatest superpower in history, securing democracy and freedom to all regions of the world. All other nations stare in envy as their citizens tear down doors and break laws to get here.

There is a spontaneous celebration of freedoms during each war period we face, but ironically, there is a reaction to restrict freedoms and place sacrifices for the betterment of the country. There in lies the meat of this argument.

How many freedoms and how many sacrifices are enough, and which ones are too much? How much authority should the president have during a time of war? What should Congress do to ensure the public's safety? Did Congress pass a bill it didn't even read? What the hell is the Supreme Court doing to make sure the other two branches are not crossing the line?

That's for debate, and this is the type of thing we really have a government for. Not just a president, but we need the entire system to step up and do its responsibilities.

Why have two US Citizens been labeled "enemy combatants" and spent more than a year in a military prison without access to a lawyer?

Why did two foreigners, during the same time period, get access to lawyers and charged before a federal court?

What the hell is going on here?

Just my wild assed guess, our Constitution and government weren't set up for this type of war. A war against a group of foreign and domestic people, driven by some FASCIST religious beliefs who want to bring us down to a barbaric level of existence.

Slowly, but methodically with as much political correctness as possible, the issues are being worked out. Today, we'll detain the 85-year old Army veteran at the airport while allowing the fifteen Islamic musicians to board the plane, because restricting a few customers of the same enthicity would impose a substantial fine from the FAA. Rediculous? You bet!

That's why Congress must get involved, doing its duty in this time of new war. When the executive, legislative, and judicial branches all agree Constitutionally on the freedoms and lawful procedures for our citizens and our residents, the possibility for abuse is as low as it can ever be.

This security is sorely lacking at the moment. Not because our president wants to be the next Fuhrer as you plead the case, but because he's been dealt a very sorry assed hand - just like the other presidents I listed earlier.

How's our current government doing anyway? I say pretty damned good. There's no hate crimes being committed against Muslims by our citizens, there are no internment camps, and there are no mass arrests as other critical times in our history have wrought. And most importantly, there have no terror attacks committed on our homeland.

A couple of last notes. When our laws are reworked and clarified, and the end results are more arrests and prosecutions in other areas of unlawful activity, it's not a bad thing Nydia.

And lastly, despite your farcical comparisons to fascism and Nazi Germany, we didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq for lebensraum. We did it to ensure our security, which is something the president and every member of government swears an oath to do. But that's an entirely different argument.

maybe a system in which systematic and illegal searches don't happen in the first placeAnd what would that be? Certainly not our criminal justice system as it has existed for several hundred years because systematic and illegal searches happen every day.

Throughout our nation's history, it has seen temporary restrictions to its residents' civil liberties (not just to its citizens!) - from Washington's ending of the Whiskey Rebellion, John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, through Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, FDR's internment of 120,000 Japanese and the tracking down of resident German sabotuers, to the Cold War's McCarthyism.

Akipt I can tell you from experance that laws can be pushed through with the public getting told the intent of a given law will not effected you but then it is abused against you. While political figures will tell you any old crap so you will let the law pass. Back in the Mid 80's Tipped employees were told the IRS will automatically assume the employee got an 8% tip on all thier customer checks. A fight to stop this from happening because the fear that the IRS would go back 5 years and start penalizing tipped employees based on the new law. Given the fact that all tipped employees fully followed the law in the past and changing the law should not effected how they reported thier income ion the past. No grandfathering prior income should be allowed. Right before the law was going to be voted on. The adminstration promised that they would not grandfather the law and tipped employ would not have to the fear of getting billed for prior yearsincome adjustments. The day after the law pasted tipped employees were receiving tax bills for 8 years back. The IRS knew that no one would complain because for fearof getting aduited. Even with those who reported income correctly got billed but would not fight because they feared the IRS would find something else.

Any time someone is given more power the power can be used anyway they see fit. You no longer have the power to restrict what they can do with the power even if you gave them the right to have it and use it against you. Getting the power back is harder to do then to give it away.

And Bylimet as usual, your post is almost 100% wrong.

Cleland opposed the Homeland Security Act because it did not cater to special interests he favored. When he ran for Senate, his opponent, Chambliss, criticized him for putting special interests ahead of national security (which Cleland had done).

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200402200857.asp

You can also check at your library for back issues of the Atlanta Journal Consititution for more articles supporting this.

I believe Cleland voted in favor of the Patriot Act (only 2 Senators opposed it I think). I don't believe Cleland's vote on the Patriot was featured much in the campaign between Chambliss and Cleland.

Akipt you need to read Atlas Shrugged if you think laws that restrict freedoms in time of "danger" are a good idea.

- Those who would trade freedom for safety deserved neither
Paraphrased from Benjamin Franklin

Akipt you need to read Atlas Shrugged if you think laws that restrict freedoms in time of "danger" are a good idea.You must've only read about a third of my post?

And Franklin would have no problem restricting your freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor would Rand. Perhaps she could understand the unhappiness and sympathize with the families of those trampled to death in the theater?

As Rand would say, keep it objective :p

What part of reality am I missing? The above are recorded facts, as published in numerous newspapers

And are based on a set of memos that we now know are a hoax that Dan Rather fell for. The White House statements don't say jack shit about any orders, just that he didn't need to take a flight physical because there were no planes for him to fly there.

Nydia - I don't think my political views are that extreme at all with very few exceptions. That being said, I *do* argue aggressively(particularly with people I can expect to argue back in the same manner), partly because I know that's where it is going to end up anyway and a stitch in time..

I don't have a problem with people giving it back at the same level(unlike some others around here- not directed at you, fyi), but you have to own up, and can't say one thing while doing another.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-09-12-greatest-presidents_x.htm

An interesting and relevent editorial for this thread. The author is less concerned than I am though, while Nydia will find herself shivering from frustration, as she continues to construct her warning bell.

driven by some FASCIST religious beliefs who want to bring us down to a barbaric level of existence
You mean fanatical.

And Franklin would have no problem restricting your freedom to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nor would RandI'm quite sure both people would have a problem with someone being detained for a year without a trial when they were guilty of no crime.

Esbat - if you can't keep up, don't bother posting
You mean fanatical.
No, I meant fascist. Fanatical would work, but it would not have allowed me to poke fun (hense the all CAPS) at Nydia's liberal and incorrect use of fascism drivel.

I'm quite sure both people would have a problem with someone being detained for a year without a trial when they were guilty of no crime.
Again, you missed the boat. Maybe you can catch the next one.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040929_295.html

Sept. 29, 2004 — NEW YORK (Reuters) - Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Wednesday.

Sorry for the late bump everyone, but, well, U SAP AT RIOT is a rotting piece of shit, and it's getting dismantled one unconstitutional piece at a time.

How did I miss this?

No, I meant fascist. Fanatical would work, but it would not have allowed me to poke fun (hense the all CAPS) at Nydia's liberal and incorrect use of fascism drivel.
All caps can also be used as emphasis. If it was more clear, you'd get your point across.

Again, you missed the boat. Maybe you can catch the next one.
Not at all- my statement is accurate. I understand fully the desire to hold possible terrorists and wring every ounce of information out of them- but I'd be up front about what I was doing.

How did I miss this?Probably because you keep missing the boat.

All caps can also be used as emphasis. If it was more clear, you'd get your point across.I really didn't think it was too much to ask people to agree with my more correct usage of the word FASCISM by describing it in proper context of Muslim extremists. I suppose all the stuff I've read recently about IslamoFASCISM is just gossip.

Phew, now all we have to worry about are those pesky Islamic fanatics. :rolleyes:

PS - you just missed the boat again, maybe next time.

Oh no. I missed the boat!

That, or I'm not as rabidly interested as you are. I also know what fascism means. The focus of fascism is more centered on race and nationalism and social issues.

The Religious groups of which you speak are not fascist, as their focus is on the
doctrine they follow. They might share many of the traits of fascism, but they are not the same.

/shrug not much point in going any further, as the odds are very good you'll continue to use the word incorrectly, just as Nydia (and many others) have done.

It all depends on what Akipt means by 'muslim extremists.' It might be more accurate to call it political islamism, but many of those groups are essentially fascist (or at the very least, authoritarian conservativist) in their beliefs.

The focus of fascism is more centered on race and nationalism and social issues.

Not exactly. Fascists have often been racist, and so have authoritarian conservatives, but it's not exactly a key part of their ideology. Fascism really boils down to this:

-Strong government
-Favor of property rights over human rights
-Strong Nationalism (which has often developed into racism; or, racism has been used by government in order to bolster nationalism (ie: Nazi Party))
-Highly stratified, competitive society

As far as the focus of fascism being on 'social issues,' you're going to have to be a little more specific. All governments focus on social issues. That is the purpose of government - to organize society.

What I was trying to say is that Fascism doesn't focus on religion as its primary social issue.

It doesn't have to focus on religion, but it certainly could. Hitler's views against Judaism could certainly be considered religious.

One of the purposes of fascism is to create a stable (or what they would believe to be stable) society through a powerful, oppressive government. If they do that through religion, why can't it be considered fascism?

Because government by religion is a Theocracy.

Theocracy is a type of government; fascism is an ideology. Therefore, it's quite possible that a theocratic government be fascist.

I say tomato (toe-may-toe) you say Tomato (ta-motto).