The Continuing Hunt for PATRIOT Act Abuses 1182
Throtex writes "Orin Kerr, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University writes at The Volokh Conspiracy that the Department of Justice is having trouble finding abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act. This follows from the fact that what the media originally aired as abuses were merely allegations of abuse at the time. Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?"
Why Am I Not Surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
These assholes covered up the murder of a Federal inmate at the Oklahoma City Transit Center, among numerous other situations.
My real concern... (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that now there is legal precidence for abuse later.
We need to get rid of it incase the next president is even worse!
it's hard to prove anything without evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, duh (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:One place to look (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One place to look (Score:0, Interesting)
That's because... (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if there have been any abuses or not.
What matters is whether the potential is there for abuse or not.
America has stayed free for 200+ years because her people learned a lesson earlier than most others: you don't wait for the secret police to show up at your door to start demanding your rights. Because by then it's too late.
Take a deep breath... (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I think that the PATRIOT act is both problematic and unecessary. However, I do not think that it is the end of American civilization. In fact, the most problematic elements of the act are those which seem to suspend Habeas Corpus, at least under certain circumstances. However, during the civil war (and, arguably, during WWII w.r.t. Japanese internment) Habeas Corpus was suspended outright. Was this a problem? Yes. Was it the end of everything? No.
So, take a deep breath, relax, and rest assured that you will have another chance to unseat the dastardly Republicans in a couple of years. And, if you want PATRIOT repealed, lobby your congressman in the meantime.
As long as you're still free to decry the PATRIOT act, I don't think we have a major problem.
The PATRIOT Act Is Not Unprecedented (Score:2, Interesting)
For all the talk of how the PATRIOT Act is somehow systematically unraveling our freedoms, it's not the only time this sort of thing has been done during a time of war.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus entirely [teachingam...istory.org], essentially ignoring the right of jury trials and the Bill of Rights. Clearly American democracy did not perish afterwards, and the right was later reinstated at the end of the war. No matter how odious the PATRIOT Act really is, it barely compares to Lincoln's actions.
During the Second World War, President Roosevelt was granted the power to try American citizens as enemy combatants as well. In the landmark case Ex parte Quirin [umkc.edu] Chief Justice Stone wrote:
It is quite clear that members of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda are enemy belligerents in every sense of the word. They deliberate target the civilian population, do not follow the rules of warfare as laid out in the Geneva Conventions, and are willing to use the most deadly weapons in existence in order to kill as many people as possible without regard for their status as non-combatants.
More recently, library records were instrumental in locating Andrew Cunanan, the man responsible for the murder of Gianni Versace. Yet very few civil libertarians seemed to have an issue with this. If it is acceptable to search library records to find a serial murderer, why not a terrorist. And why a library records so sacrosanct when other private records such as phone conversations and financial records could already be examined by the government under RICO and other laws?
There is something about the furor over the PATRIOT Act that suggests its motivated more by political opinions than an honest belief in civil rights. Certainly those who protest the PATRIOT Act now must recognize the horrendous erosions of civil liberties that occurred in the previous Administration under the guise of the "war on drugs" including no-knock warrants and other practices.
I can find some agreement with those who say that the PATRIOT Act goes to far, and there is nothing wrong or unpatriotic about holding the law to a high standard. However, I would lend far more credence to those who make their arguments in full understanding of the nature and intent of groups like al-Qaeda. We cannot afford to give more civil protections to Tony Soprano than we do to Osama bin Laden, which was the state of US law before September 11. If the PATRIOT Act is too onerous, the critics have the obligation of suggesting how we might better balance the needs to protect the safety of our nation while maintaining civil rights.
Re:WHAT?!? "Fuss"?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Someone working for our president can point his finger at you and say, "you, come with me," and then you spend years in a cage without a lawyer, due process, a phone call, etc, is bad." Well Lincoln did that to lawyers and newspaper editors that didn't go along with the War. Has Ward Churchil been thrown in jail or kicked out of the country yet? Nope, in the 1860s he would have been.
After the Revolution thousands of families were forced out of the Colonies because of thier Loyalist feelings. In the First World War Germans were discriminated against and the speaking of German was all but outlawed.
German Agents found in the US were declared spies, denied Civil Trials and executed.
What are you, CommuniSociaLibertarianist?! (Score:3, Interesting)
You want to destroy our way of life, don't you?
The continuing hunt for terrorist threats (Score:5, Interesting)
The reality is that the 9/11 attacks resulted in very few people being killed compared to the number of people that die in, say, auto accidents. The potential for abuse by government officials is simply too great, and even if no abuses have yet been found, the track record of the government is pretty poor in this regard.
Re:One place to look (Score:2, Interesting)
First, bush doing this isn't the fist time it has ever been done. Second so what. If someone is a terrorist and holding them indefinatly allows them to further pursue other objectives without harmign inteligence or person obtaining it then who cares?
If this is all that is needed to make you sick, you need to get exposed to more life in general. Bush wasn't the best man for the job, he was just the best man we had to pick from. You prop up a canidate thats better and run him in the next election, then we can all go vote for the best man again and you won't need to an excuse ofr feeling the way you do.
Re:One place to look (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Headline is Disingenuous (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: One place to look (Score:3, Interesting)
Similar to Vietnam [navy.mil]?
I don't know why this reminds me of what you said but it seems to fit. No due process, torture, years at time of imprisonment. I guess the only charges that they could be held on were war charges. Or terrorist charges...I guess it all depends on who you ask.
As for Guantanamo, I agree that it's barbaric.
Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing" (Score:3, Interesting)
In other words, the federal government would have no ability to send federal agents into a state to bust someone for drug possesion. However, if the State ruled that said activity was illegal in their state (per their electorate), the State Police or local police could arrest said drug possesor. This decentralizes the groups who hold power, thereby weakening the hold that power can have over the citizens.
The idea that the Federal government should have the majority of power, is called statism and runs the gambit from Communism to Socialism to the current hodge-podge of Statism/Libretarian values that are conflicting here in the US.
This is where I think the true dichotemy of the American electorate lies. Since 9/11 the Liberal vs Conservative shoe no longer fits. George Bush is Libretarian in his views of government regulation of business and social security, but is extremely statist in his fiscal policies, civil rights and security. On the other hand, Democrats are usually extremely Statist on almost everything except for Civil Liberties (and then only the ones they favor).
AnarchCapitalism is much closer to what this country was founded on than the socialist democracy we have today.
Note: If you believe that you are a "Citizen of the United States" you are probably misinformed. "The United States" refers only to DC and territories held by the federal government. If you live in one of the 50 States, you are a "Citizen of The State of ___________" and since your State has agreements with the other 49 you are, by extention a "Citizen of the united States of America" (note the lowercase u).
I recommend you do some research on the country you live in, and exactly how its supposed to work.
Re: Defensible (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides which, how on earth could you know that any of the detainees were guilty of crimes? They haven't been charged with any, let alone had their cases heard in any form of court. Or are people now guilty of crimes simply because the US military thinks they are?
You can't complain if you are under a gag order (Score:1, Interesting)
Forget the PATRIOT Act (Score:4, Interesting)
There is nothing in the Patriot Act about Guantanamo Bay. There is nothing about torture, or deporting people to countries where it is practiced. Nothing about depriving anyone of the right to counsel. Nothing about secret trials. Nothing about the way people who aren't subject to the Geneva Conventions are treated.
Do these things happen, and should we be concerned about them? Absolutely. Do they have anything to do with the PATRIOT Act? Nothing whatsoever. Do people who complain about the PATRIOT Act being responsible for these things spread FUD and cloud the real issues? Yes. Is that a real problem? I think so.
Gitmo wasn't established by the Patriot Act. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why worry? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm also saying, yes, that in any sufficient large and loosely controlled human organization, if there is scope for abuse, it will happen. Can you think of a counter-example?
Which is more likely?
a) in every instance, reported and unreported, of the use of PATRIOT act powers, even those where the person involved was forbidden from revealing the act had been invoked, all governmental agencies and operatives behaved precisely within the rubric of their powers under the act; or
b) they missed something?
Re: One place to look (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, the Taleban really came about after the Soviets had withdrawn. US support went to selected segments of the mujahideen, not the entire movement. Various countries (including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, etc) supported various factions in different ways.
I've read numerous reports that Mullah Omar and bin Laden have significant differences. Omar is a Muslim from out of the distant past, and among other things has real problems with bin Laden's use of television because Omar believes that using cameras on people is anti-Islamic.
Re:One place to look (Score:3, Interesting)
just as an aside to you, William S. Cooper's 1991 book entitled 'behold a pale horse' has a chapter that goes into great lengths about FEMA and various other bits of (pending) federal regulations that are frighteningly similiar to our current day patriot act. the word PATRIOT appears many many times, i always found it interesting, especially when his thoughts and fears and whatnot about the 'coming legislation' and the conditions that will exist prior to a [he claims] 'new world order'. it's conspiracy hooplah, so take it at face value, but the similarities are uncanny.
Re:The Headline is Disingenuous (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One place to look (Score:5, Interesting)
Even for normal crime, the death penalty appears, if anything, to be a negative [deathpenaltyinfo.org] deterrent [deathpenaltyinfo.org]. Yes, it might make you feel better - if you believe that the criminal justice system should be about retribution instead of prevention, then you can certainly justify it. But from a prevention standpoint, it's a pretty hard claim to make.
Re:One place to look (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that you don't care about those human beings or their loss of due process in the slightest demonstrates to me that our education system truly has failed as it has produced a nation of voting age adults who have no idea what the words "freedom", "liberty", "rights", or "critical thinking" mean. The government said it, you believed it.
It frustrates me so much that sometimes I just want to cry about where this country is going. In your eyes, that probably makes me an "America hater".
in a recent 'the Week' (theweekmagazine.com, a wonderful 'get the world news at a glance' publication), a survey of american highschool students said: (and i'm close, but not accurate, i cannot find the origional wording)
39% of high school americans believe the first ammendment is too vague, and the government should provide more regulation.
i will continue to try to find the article, but it's absurd. what kind of propoganda do they show the kids in highschool these days that makes (some/most of) them spineless apathetic boobs? is this really the future of america?
Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing" (Score:5, Interesting)
"ACTUALLY", the framers were quite varied in their views. From Hamilton's Jay's, and Madison's strong central government to Gerry's, Monroe's and S. Adams's ideals of a weaker one (in favor of stronger states). If there was ONE lesson we could ALL learn that seems to have been forgotten by the right AND the left is that COMPROMISE is was what built this nation and has held it together for the past 200+ years. Longer than ANY other democratic type of government in the past.
The rest of your post is so full of actual ignorance of the facts as to defy comprehension. Unless you are intentially trying to decieve people. Are you? I suggest you re-take your high-school US history class. It's obvious that you've slept through quite a bit the first time.
Re:well Jeremy (Score:3, Interesting)
Breeding ground of intelligent discussion for almost a decade
My entire post is open to interpretation. Thats just one possible scenario. I thought it would be fun to point it out. You can argue both ways but I hate the presumption that we are outright denying these guys rights. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. How can we really judge since we don't even know who most of these terrorists or would be terrorists, or maybe terrorists, or "folks" as GWB puts it are? I am just saying, the Geneva convention doesn't instantly apply because we have them detained at Gitmo.
There will always be collateral damage. My heart goes out to the truly illegally detained. Its a messy world. How can we possibly make everyone happy?
Jeremy
Re:One place to look (Score:3, Interesting)
Being captured by the enemy and given the death penalty isn't the same esteem as dying on a sucide mission. If you don't believe that you don't understand middle eastern culture.
Even for normal crime, the death penalty appears, if anything, to be a negative deterrent. Yes, it might make you feel better - if you believe that the criminal justice system should be about retribution instead of prevention, then you can certainly justify it. But from a prevention standpoint, it's a pretty hard claim to make.
The criminal justice system should be about justice, and the only justice for a murder victim is for the murderer to be put to death.
Re:One place to look: History (Score:2, Interesting)
because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the labor leaders, and I did not speak out
because I was not a labor leader.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one
left to speak out for me.
--The Reverend Martin Niemöller
I do not want to ignore Guantanamo.
Re:One place to look (Score:5, Interesting)
As an example [islamicity.com]:
"A shaheed, which means martyr, is a person who is killed as a result of the efforts he makes in support of Allah's cause. Whether he is felled by an enemy bullet or assassinated or taken prisoner and executed is immaterial. As long as the prime reason for killing him is the effort he is making in support of Islam, then his death is martyrdom. He is a shaheed and a shaheed is admitted into heaven without having to account for his sins."
the only justice for a murder victim is for the murderer to be put to death
That is known as "retribution", not prevention. I didn't say that believing in retribution instead of/more than prevention is an invalid concept; only that it is quite hard to validate the death penalty in terms of prevention.
Re:"a lot of fuss over nothing" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One place to look (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, it wouldn't be illegal to detain the suspected terrorists at Gitmo even on US soil. I suspect the only reason the Bush Administration is doing it in Cuba is to quell fires from the extreme left before the start. The fact is, these were all people captured on the battlefield engaged in some kind of resistance or another. There's no need for a trial, there's no need for Geneva Conventions, etc. They were foreign nationals committing organized acts of war against the US, most or all of them weren't in battlefiend dress, none of them are operating as part of a foreign army.
We have to have some way of protecting ourselves against things like this. Why wouldn't we throw these people in the can and forget about them? Who cares about civil rights? It's not like these are citizens that we picked up off the street on suspicion of doing something--we got these guys red-handed, on the battlefield. They don't operate under our Constitution. I just don't see any problem with this whole thing. Can someone explain it to me?
Re:One place to look (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One place to look (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes I despair when I see the current face of the once great nation you live in, but then I stumble over Americans with your intelligence and hope is restored (i know a few). Good luck (I'm not sarcastic, I mean it).
Simple analysis... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) "The PATRIOT Act isn't abusive."
2) "The PATRIOT Act isn't being used for abuses."
--are two very different statements.
The first is about the ethics of the law itself. The second is about the specifics of its enforcement. Given how some people pretend legality IS ethics, the second statement can become downright tautological--and that is probably all that the cited report is saying.
What people have been protesting is that the PATRIOT Act clearly states conditions and dictates which if enforced will reduce what semblance of freedom and democracy exist in the USA. If some law enforcement personnel have had the decency to not enforce certain aspects of the law, then that is not any credit to the law itself nor the institution advocating it. It merely means that for the time being a few people still have a sense of ethics and therefore aren't doing their job.
This is entirely ignoring issues such as the legality of using Gitmo, and internal nonsense in the law such as gag orders. Guess it's pretty hard to be short-winded when the death of democracy is at issue.
Hey, here's a vaguely related idea...
If Gitmo is legally Cuban territory, then what is stopping Fidel from doing this: Invite Russian/ Chinese/ Iranian/ etc. elite forces to have a little live-fire training exercise, and let them keep half of any territory gained? Any drawbacks, besides the depleted Uranium pollution?
Re: One place to look (Score:2, Interesting)
That's gotta be the most disingenuous post I've ever seen. How about posting the entire definition? If you did (or if you even bothered to read it), you'd see that the activities need to meet more criteria than what you just posted there.
But, hey......why let the truth get in the way of a good point, right?
For those too lazy, here's the ENTIRE section that's referenced (note the "and"....it means that ALL of the conditions must be met):
(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
My credit card company... (Score:3, Interesting)
I called back and got another operator, who took my new billing information and would change it. She didn't.
I called again and finally got an operator who would change my billing address to a PO box for a bill payment service.
I don't know if this really has anything to do with the patriot act or not (requiring a home address?), but it sure did piss me off and cause me a lot of trouble.
Re:One place to look (Score:3, Interesting)
He said quite clearly that he doesn't trust the feds and that he thinks that any power they get will be abused. How the hell is is sig more extreme than that?!
No, I don't trust them. I think I understand how my Republican friends in the South felt when they perceived that liberals in Washington were telling them what to do. Now the shoe is on the other foot -- Conservatives in Washington are telling me what to do and I don't really care for it.
It's probably an odd set of views for a Liberal Democrat such as myself to hold but I am coming to realize that the individual states in our union should be left to their own devices as long as they aren't violating the US Constitution.
I won't tell Texas what to do with the death penalty, prayer in schools or abortion if they don't tell me what to do with it.
Normally people around here would agree with me. Look at the recent discussions and disgust about the FCC trying to tell local communities that they can't deploy broadband. What's next? Is the Department of Energy going to force the Village I live in to get rid of our electric co-op and buy our power from energy traders in Texas?
Unfortunately it seems that when "terrorism" is mentioned all values and logical discussion go out the window and people divide themselves into two extreme camps: The kill them all and let god sort them out camp and the flower children spare-all-the-poor-innocent-people-at-Gitmo camp. Can't we have some common sense and some fscking middle ground here people?
Trust in government (Score:2, Interesting)
If you really want to talk about the Patriot Act, then let me be so bold as to suggest that even if it isn't being abused now it will eventually be abused and probably not even against terrorists. Recall how the RICO statures were intended to be used against organized crime. Nowadays the Feds will threaten RICO prosecutions against just about anybody to force a favorable plea or seek harsher sentences then the normal laws will provide.
Reminds me of what the Volusia county sherif's office was doing in Florida several years ago, how they used RICO to seize people's private property just because they thought the person was suspicious. The only way these people could get their property back was to hire a lawyer and sue, which could cost more than what was seized.
Might I even be so bold as to suggest that I don't really trust the Federal Government
Agreed 100%. Don't really trust state government either, but at least the closer the government is the more responsive it is to the citizens.
Why does the Federal Government need to step in and take yet more power away from the states? The role of the Federal Government should be to assist the states -- not bypass them. In any case you know that power is going to be abused in the future.... we've already had cases of the Patriot Act being used in drug cases. Hardly what Congress had in mind when they passed it I'd say.
The federal government ignores what the US Constitution says and that the Founding Fathers specifically wanted a small and limited government. As typically happens bureaucracies want more and more power, and so do congress critters along with presidents. That's why I supported Michael Badnarik in 2004. Bet not many people recall what Ralph Nader did when congress was working on the PATRIOT Act, he said he'd give to any charity $10,000 the congess person chose if they could answer correctly a quiz on what was in the act. Not one of them took him up on it, they couldn't because none of them read it.
FalconRe:One place to look (Score:3, Interesting)
Assumedly you're forcibly kept naked for prolongued periods of time; other people in rooms similar to yours have had pepper spray sprayed directly into your eyes, leaving them blind. Assumedly there are people in your room who regularly drag you off, and an Extreme Reaction Force which is in charge of disbursing "punishment beatings". One US soldier, when playing you for a training drill, was left crippled by the techniques used on you.
When you're dragged off, you're often left in situations, such as described by the FBI, in which detainees were shackled hand and foot in a fetal position on the floor. The agent states that the detainees were kept in that position for 18 to 24 hours at a time and most had "urinated or defacated [sic]" on themselves. On one occasion, the agent reports having seen a detainee left in an unventilated, non-air conditioned room at a temperature "probably well over a hundred degrees." The agent notes: "The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night."
Naturally, there would be an executive order from President Bush authorizing "inhumane interrogation methods" against you. You would be wrapped in the flag of a national enemy and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights for long periods of time while chained as such. There would be "strangulations, beatings, [and] placement of lit cigarettes into [your] ear openings".
Quite the room you would have. Yes, this is all Guantanamo - and just Guantanamo. Don't get me started on some of the less 'controlled' prisons like Shabargham...
Sleep deprivation is uncomfortable, but hardly brutal
And more. [iowansforpeace.org]. Be sure to check the links; the summaries don't do justice.
Slashdot US centrism (Score:2, Interesting)
As far as I can see, to slashdoters, non-american citizens are not even humans beings. They have no rights and nobody should care if US goverment abuse of those people.
Re:One place to look (Score:5, Interesting)
I would like to address a reality regards "martyrdom operations." We have seen thousands of suicide bombings in the middle east in recent years. These appear to be some religeous zeolotry and a few of them are. Most are not! What is going on in the middle east is mostly a case of gangsters of the worst type (even worse than the mafia) who will come and hold a family hostage unless they sacrafice one or more of their children to such operations. This has been exposed in Iraq by the Iraqi TV stations of late and it has cut into the support for such dramatically.
These people are nothing but cold blooded gangsters of the very worst sort ever to appear on earth. Any other presentation is a serious mistake. These gangsters use drugs to completely "Zombify" some persons into doing this as well. Their history of doing so is where we in the English Language get the word Assassin. This accounts for most of what we in the west mistakenly think is religious extremism.
Regards using life in prison to deprive these people of "Martyrdom" is another western IDIOTIC MORONIC notion. I have in my past worked as Registered Nurse in the Tennesse State Prison Hospital. (1996-1997 time period) During that time I learned about the internal dynamics operation in a prison. Essentially prisons are run by the inmates. They splinter into 3 groups in order to survive. Whites join the Skinheads or die at the hands of the Black Gangs. (Prison population is about 80% Black) The only alternative is to join Islamic Gangs. Odd man out dies or has a miserable life. Islamic Gangs being the dynamic power brokers they dominate the prison evironment and did so well before 911. Sentancing someone to life in prison who is a genuine Al Qaeda type leader claiming Islamic Status is like giving them a life tenured position in an Al Qaeda College. They train all the short term persons. It is like putting an Al Qaeda recruiter on perminant state payroll.
This is what we saw when the orginal WTC Bombers were organizing and running the 911 coordination from a New York State Prison. Please note that my experience is prior to 911! Our prisons were already inflitrated by Al Qaeda prior to 911 and I saw it then.
I simply do not understand the idiotic notions of people that our prisons punsh or rehabilitate. They do neither. They function mostly as schools for crime. I also do not understand the idiotic notions running round about the death penalty not being a deterrent to crime. Anyone believing this has never worked in a prison. When will people see that the death penalty has nothing to do with corrections it is simply taking out the trash!? Mods get a life if you disagree.
A final note on the Patriot Act, what about SECRET don't people understand. Of course abuses are not being found to be documented. Do you think the Government is going to let you read the records? Heck they are not even keeping records at least not public ones anyway.
Hello Big Brother (Score:3, Interesting)
One everyday consequence of the Patriot Act is that your government is making your bank spy on you. I recently moved some money from a money market account that I have with one bank to my checking account at another bank. I then wired the money from that account to make an investment. (It was easier for me to wire money from my checking account). I got a call on my answering machine from the bank saying that it was about my checking account. I figured they just wanted to be sure it was me who was wiring that money, not some thief with my drivers license and bank card. So I called them back. The lady at the bank started asking all sorts of questions -- who I worked for, where the money I had deposited came from, what the "business purpose" of my investment was, etc. I asked what this was all about and she said it was required by the Patriot Act.
You have no privacy any more.
Re:One place to look (Score:2, Interesting)
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it -- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
USA Basher (Score:1, Interesting)
Supplant EU for USA and you can see why the rest of the world is a bit pissed. Seriously, america has gone into countries and f*cked them up for many many years. Look at what the USA is trying to do to poor chavez RIGHT NOW. Or do you really think that the USA has no "world power" or "wolrd influence". I would rather an organization be thinking Globally - as in for the benifit of all mankind - then locally, as in the benifit of one country like we have now.
Who do you think a major interest in the WTO is? America. Do you seriously think those WTO protesters are right wing?? whats the name of this universe you live in...
Re:After looking at the USAPA (Score:2, Interesting)
Any President who must shape the intelligence to match his whims [slashdot.org] is not acting in defense of U.S. security interests.