5 ms·

I'd be happy if the name was at least changed to something less Orwellian.

by staunch 15y ago

ck2 15y ago
The real, full title of the act is even more scary: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
- raquo 15y ago
  Is it only US public sector that is so obsessed with pretty acronyms that seem to have more meaning than their unwrapped form, or is it common in Europe too? note: I'm not from US, honest question
  - ck2 15y ago
    Politics loves acronyms to rally behind some vague concept. You should see some of the PAC names and referendum law names, they are often the exact opposite of what they actually aim to accomplish, very much on purpose.
    - mcdoh 15y ago
      Digital Rights Management
  - dp1234 15y ago
    When it comes to proposed US laws, the simple way to tell if the law is good or bad is as follows. If the name makes it sound like it is good for you, then it is definitely bad for you and should be voted against.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Terrorism
  - nikcub 15y ago
    I thought it was Tequila
fredleblanc 15y ago
In W.'s book (Decision Points), he wrote that he regretted the way congress named it because it eludes that if you don't support it, you're not a Patriot. Not that that's of much help, but it's interesting to know that not everyone responsible for it was behind the name.
- jbooth 15y ago
  Easy to write now. At the time, he was already drumming up support for the Iraq war and had 1,000 surrogates saying, almost exactly, "If you don't support this administration then you're not a patriot".
  - bouvier 15y ago
    I believe his exact words were: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
    - jessriedel 15y ago
      That's out of context. The full quote is "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This makes it clear he was talking about nations, not individuals. Neither of us may agree with that proposition, but it's a lot more reasonable in the context of a world with many nations that stated they were against terrorists but secretly sheltered them.
      - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
        Thanks for the whole quote. While not a W fan, I think it is also clear in the quote that you have to take action to be against us: harbor or support terrorists. The default, do nothing, state is "with us".
      - afterburner 15y ago

I'd be happy if the name was at least changed to something less Orwellian.

by staunch 15y ago

I'd be happy if the name was at least changed to something less Orwellian.

ck2 15y ago

The real, full title of the act is even more scary: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct

raquo 15y ago
Is it only US public sector that is so obsessed with pretty acronyms that seem to have more meaning than their unwrapped form, or is it common in Europe too? note: I'm not from US, honest question
- ck2 15y ago
  Politics loves acronyms to rally behind some vague concept. You should see some of the PAC names and referendum law names, they are often the exact opposite of what they actually aim to accomplish, very much on purpose.
  - mcdoh 15y ago
    Digital Rights Management
- dp1234 15y ago
  When it comes to proposed US laws, the simple way to tell if the law is good or bad is as follows. If the name makes it sound like it is good for you, then it is definitely bad for you and should be voted against.
redthrowaway 15y ago
Terrorism
- nikcub 15y ago
  I thought it was Tequila

fredleblanc 15y ago

In W.'s book (Decision Points), he wrote that he regretted the way congress named it because it eludes that if you don't support it, you're not a Patriot. Not that that's of much help, but it's interesting to know that not everyone responsible for it was behind the name.

jbooth 15y ago
Easy to write now. At the time, he was already drumming up support for the Iraq war and had 1,000 surrogates saying, almost exactly, "If you don't support this administration then you're not a patriot".
- bouvier 15y ago
  I believe his exact words were: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
  - jessriedel 15y ago
    That's out of context. The full quote is "We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This makes it clear he was talking about nations, not individuals. Neither of us may agree with that proposition, but it's a lot more reasonable in the context of a world with many nations that stated they were against terrorists but secretly sheltered them.
    - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
      Thanks for the whole quote. While not a W fan, I think it is also clear in the quote that you have to take action to be against us: harbor or support terrorists. The default, do nothing, state is "with us".
    - afterburner 15y ago