1. The US inspected a Soviet Union fighter jet that landed in Japan in 1976, but protested that China should not search an American plane that landed in China in 2001.

2. The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights clearly states that people should not be subject to the same offense twice, but sex offenders can be convicted of crimes and then later be required to register as sex offenders and be held for life under indefinite civil commitment laws even after they complete their original sentences. “John TV” shows that embarrass and punish people arrested on prostitution charges also violate the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process rights.

3. The Sixth Amendment guaranteeing the right to speedy trials is violated by holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without charge. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments and is violated by torturing Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Whether the prisoners are foreigners or not makes no difference because it violates the intent of the Constitution and sends the message to other nations that human rights violations are acceptable. Taking the moral high ground is difficult when you are immoral yourself. If you want to prevent terrorism, give terrorists a trial, improve airline security, and don’t give out visas easily. Torturing suspected terrorists only recruits more terrorists. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

4. The Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches is violated by the Patriot Act that allows secret warrants.

5. The Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and seizures, the Fifth amendment that allows due process, and the Eighth Amendment that forbids excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment are all violated by DUI checkpoints and asset forfeiture laws.

6. The Fourth Amendment protection against illegal searches and the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees equal protection of the law is violated by Arizona’s immigration law that requires police to question people who look like illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration would be better stopped by having a strong border and fining employers of illegal immigrants, not by profiling Americans who look like foreigners.

7. The United States criticizes Iran and North Korea for developing nuclear power, but the US helps the United Arab Emirates, India, and Vietnam develop nuclear technology.

8. The USA supports democracy, but has overthrown democratically elected leaders in Iran and Chile. The US also supports countries that do not have religious freedom and democracy like Saudi Arabia and has supported dictators like Ferdinand Marcos from the Philippines, Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam, Suharto in Indonesia, and Saddam Hussein from Iraq .

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06353/747165-109.stm

http://www.military-veterans-for-justice.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=13

9. The US opposes terrorism, but has supported Osama bin Laden and freed the accused Cuban terrorist Luis Posada Carriles suspected of blowing up a plane in 1976.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/15/osama-qna.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/15/theterroristbushisntafter

10. The United States says that it supports free trade, but foreign companies can currently only own 25% of an airline in the US, while American companies can buy 49% of an airline in Europe.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=atMw6Pzh8Ls0

11. The United States criticizes Airbus for receiving European government subsidies while ignoring the fact that Boeing accepted government tax breaks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/business/global/04wto.html

Maybe it is just human nature, but Americans have always looked for an enemy to blame from witches to blacks to Communists. Today people are aghast that the US had Japanese concentration camps and once allowed slavery and segregation. How will people look back on the treatment of sex offenders, Muslims, and illegal immigrants in the USA 60 years from now?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/opinion/05kristof.html

Criminals should be punished, but only in a way that doesn’t violate the Constitution. Even innocent people can be arrested and wrongly convicted.

If you care about your freedom, write your elected officials. Governments would love to take away all your freedom if they could. Our freedoms are diminishing, not growing. Stand up, fight for your rights, and protect our freedom now!

——–

First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak for me.

If only one person is not free, then no one is free.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

On G-G-to-be:

” …. who became briefly famous in public law circles for pioneering the practice of using tear-off post-it labels to make disparaging comments to colleagues about applicants or respondents in a way that facilitated avoidance of FOI disclosure?”

What?

That’s been standard practice in government departments, pretend-independent authorities and major corporations for yonks. What was so different about hers? Did she use mint chocolate flavoured notes or did she write them in a font resembling Ancient Syriac script? I’m busting with curiosity.

Dreadful show, but contained gay gene chat.

but seriously, theyre writing some excellent stuff on the Civil Unions campaign in the ACT, and on trans issues and feminism.

Ah, there’s a whole section of ML for them…around the bottom…/bad joke.

~ ~ ~

clarencegirl is unimpressedby Senate President Alan Fergusons willingness to accede to Steve Fieldings belief that some internet content is Not Suitable for Senators.

What is clarencegirl’s problem? Since labor has already announced that ‘some internet content is Not Suitable for us‘, Ferguson’s conclusion can hardly be doubted. The major premise might be absurd, though, but the fault is certainly not Fielding’s or Ferguson’s.

Maintaining healthy communities isn’t though. The internet is littered with the corpses, living and dead, of communities that didn’t manage it.

Disclosure: Both Ryan and Bec are mates of mine, but seriously, they’re writing some excellent stuff on the Civil Unions campaign in the ACT, and on trans issues and feminism.

Serves me right for shooting from the lip. Now back to fishing through census data – on housing as it happens. Bleg coming up later, I think.

least cost, least controversy basis

It also doesn’t provide “least controversy”. The developers themselves seem fine with it. They’re subject to a number of other requirements – eg a certain amount of open space, etc. The residents in the “luxury apartments” are another matter entirely, as are commercial tenants.

(1) To supplement the collapse in funding from the Commonwealth by drawing on private sector sources;

(2) To ensure that inner city areas remain socially heterogenous to some degree and that people who require services (ie social welfare, drug rehab) can live close to where they’re actually located.

It’s good policy imho.