7 ms·

I sometimes try to imagine what would have happened had Flight 93 reached it's presumed target, the Capitol Building [1]. I was young at the time, around 12 or

by pvnick 13y ago

I sometimes try to imagine what would have happened had Flight 93 reached it's presumed target, the Capitol Building [1]. I was young at the time, around 12 or 13, but I do remember quite vividly the atmosphere of fear that engulfed my country in the wake of the attacks. I cringe to think of how much worse it could have been had Congress been directly and successfully attacked. Our democracy was already in an extremely fragile condition. A plane hitting the Capitol Building on that day likely would have guaranteed it's immediate demise [2]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

VLM 13y ago
Wasn't our democracy destroyed anyway? No more civil rights, eternal war, single party rule (the rich guys) etc?
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  At least 'the rich guys' give themselves super high tax rates. Edit: For those who won't read the whole comment thread, the US has one of the highest top income tax rates in the OECD, one of the highest (or the highest?) corp tax rates in OECD, and arguably the lowest tax burden on poor/middle class in OECD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
  - nkoren 13y ago
    That was sarcasm, yes? Just checking! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_high-income.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_hi... [edit] Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax... [/edit]
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      First chart cuts off in '09, before Obamas tax hikes. Also probably doesn't include state/local income tax burden (!!). US has one of harshest tax regimes for top earners, and amongst most progressive regimes in OECD (arguably THE most progressive). Second chart is straight nonsense: counts unrepatriated money - capital stuck abroad whilst awaiting change in broken US corp tax policy - as taxed at zero percent! Both are cute gimmicks and nothing more.
      - FireBeyond 13y ago
        Please, before you start calling things 'cute gimmicks', provide a citation, especially for this claim: "US has one of the harshest tax regimes for top earners". Because per multiple sources, including this one: http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-tax... - it's demonstrably wrong, and not even close: "France has the highest tax rate with a 75% rate on millionaires. In the U.S., the fight is over whether to extend the top rate to little more than half that amount." "In Washington, of course, the fight is over whether to raise the top rate to a level just over half the amount they are arguing about in France -- to 39.6% from 35%. By contrast, numerous countries have top rates in the low to mid-50s, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Japan and Sweden. The world's highest rate is levied in sunny Aruba, where people making more than $171,000 face a top rate of 58.95%, according to figures compiled by KPMG." As does this link: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-high-the-5-countries-with-the/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-... - which also casts significant aspersions on your claim: "For comparison: The United States 2012 top rate of income taxes: 35% (rising to 39.6% in 2013) Effective tax rate on $100,000: 26% (7.3% Social Security, 18.7% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of $100,000: 55 Effective tax rate on $300,000: 30.5% (3.7% Social Security, 26.8% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of $300,000: 53"
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Top US tax rate is over 55%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates Going over 58% in 2014, thanks to Obamacare levy. Like I said, one of the highest in OECD. And arguably most progressive in all of OECD: US lacks severe excise taxes and VATs which target the poor and middle class, coupled with generously progressive income tax brackets. And of course those infamously high US corporate tax rates: often double the rates of other OECD nations (same link).
  - avn2109 13y ago
    This is something I often wonder about on HN: Is this guy being downvoted simply because we disagree with him/he's making absurd claims? His comments are correctly punctuated, grammatical, at least tolerably respectful, etc. Though his map does not seem to correspond to the territory, in my eyes that alone doesn't merit downvotes.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      My claims are obviously factually correct (citation provided, even). Sole reason for downvotes is because I'm going against anti-fatcat anti-inequality hysteria of the day.
      - avn2109 13y ago
        I guess my claim here is that the content of your comment ought to be in general decoupled from the number of downvotes you receive.
  - mpweiher 13y ago
    The rich gave themselves low capital gains taxes and shifted their income to be capital gains, so the income tax rate is less and less relevant. Just as an example, Mit Romney's publicized tax rate was around 14.1% in 2011 on income that very comfortably puts him in the top income tax bracket. He just doesn't pay income tax on it.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Another misconception. Well two in one post, actually. 1) Capital gains income is often first passed through a corporation, thus getting taxed at the insanely high US corp tax rate before getting taxed a second time at the moderately normal US cap gains rate. So US citizens are still paying more on average, even if it all doesn't show up as such on a tax return. 2) And Mitt's specifically! Let's count the misconceptions (note that I don't blame you - the media never described them and let the infamous "14.1%" figure stand because it's a good story): a) Doesn't include state tax rate. That right there could easily tack on another 9%. Though it could also be zero if in Texas. Mitt of course lived in Mass, so it's just 4% or so. b) No one deducted charitable contributions. As a Mormon, that was 10% of his income. So add another 1.4% to his tax rate there. c) People counted his off-shore income, which is counted as income but not taxed until repatriated, as taxed at 0%. In fact it would be taxed at normal capital gains, which today is ~20% Federal + 4% Mass. Depending on the blend of foreign to domestic income, this could amount to a lot or just a little. Let's say his offshore income constituted 10% of overall income, for a ~1-2% higher average tax rate overall? d) Most impactfully, no one's counting the Corp Tax rate which was paid before he took the Cap Gains. That's 39% Federal and another 8% Mass (~46% total), assuming that it's coming from Mass based corps. I'd say a solid chunk of his income is coming from this sort of income, probably in the ballpark of 70%, but let's just say it's 30% (of his income subject to this sort of double tax) to be super conservative. Starting with base 14.1% + 4%(a) + 1.4%(b) + 1-2%(c) + (.3)(46%) = 21.5% just with very simple adjustments, and as high as 31.4% with a corp tax rate blended in a bit.
      - mpweiher 13y ago
        Once again, you are confusing nominal rates with effective rates, and simply assuming that corp. tax was paid at that nominal rate, which has a statistical likelihood so low as to be indistinguishable from zero. Effectively, a quarter of corporations pay zero corporation tax. Considering that the whole purpose of these constructs is to reduce the tax burden, I'd wager a guess that the rates paid tend towards the low end of the scale. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-companies-pay-no-taxes/2480281/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-...) Of course tax should be paid on income that was shifted off-shore for tax reasons, but of course the monied interests are lobbying for a "tax holiday", which they have "successfully" done in the past. "Success" in quotes because the policy failed to achieve the things that were used to peddle the ludicrous idea: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203633104576623771022129888 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020363310... It was highly successful in avoiding taxes, which is why they are lobbying for it again. What do voluntary charitable contributions have to do with taxes (apart from him not deducting some of them in order to not have his tax rate look even more ridiculously low than it already is)?
- efuquen 13y ago
  No more civil rights? Just because there are major issues with transparency and some aspects on the civil rights front is a far cray from "no more civil rights". http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world Eternal War? Long and fruitless war, maybe? The Iraqi war is over and the Afghani war is all but over. Keeping some troops there doesn't constitute a "war", we have them all over the place. The only legitimate claim is the idea that money is a big part of politics, which it obviously is and it's gotten worse. But to equate that to "single party rule" is absurd. On top of that I don't see how any of that is a result of 9/11.
  - mpweiher 13y ago
    "Eternal War?" I think the previous commenter meant the "War on Terror", which is essentially eternal because there is no opponent that could be defeated, and therefore it cannot be ended, only abandoned. Most of the other measures are justified with the "War on Terror", including the removal of habeas corpus, removal of the 4th amendment, gutting of the 1st amendment, removal of judicial review and oversight etc. 1st amendment is also pretty much in tatters, with protesters now labeled as "low level terrorists", and journalists detained under anti-terrorist legislation (admittedly that was in the UK, but what do you think would happen to Greenwald if he were dumb enough to travel to the US??) Yeah, to me that looks like civil rights pretty much gone. Of course, only if you do something the government doesn't like, but that's pretty much the point of civil rights...
    - rayiner 13y ago
      > Most of the other measures are justified with the "War on Terror", including the removal of habeas corpus, removal of the 4th amendment, gutting of the 1st amendment, removal of judicial review and oversight etc. Your comment is utterly ungrounded in reality. The "war on terror" has had pretty much no specific effect on any of the civil rights you mentioned. 1) Habeas corpus: the most recent change to the law of habeas corpus was AEDPA in 1996. Despite having "antiterrorism" in its name, it's largely addressed at preventing convicted criminals from abusing the habeas process through repeated frivolous habeas petitions and treating habeas essentially as a federal appeal from valid state court judgments. The "terrorism" provisions are distinct and don't concern habeas corpus, but rather financing and immigration issues related to terrorism. The post-9/11 Supreme Court cases on habeas have strengthened habeas corpus, not weakened it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush, and the predecessor cases Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 2) Removal of the 4th amendment: the 4th amendment is probably not at the apex of its vitality, but it's on the upswing since 9/11. To the extent that it's been diminished over the years, that largely happened in the 1970's and the 1980's as a byproduct of that era's "tough on crime" movement. Even in the context of NSA spying, the legal basis for those programs are not rooted in anything post-9/11, but in the quite old third-party doctrine and this case from 1979 that created the data versus metadata distinction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland. 3) Gutting of the 1st amendment: the first amendment has simply never been stronger, and the U.S. continue to have among the strongest protections for free speech of any country in the world. Your comment about "protestors now labeled as 'low level terrorists,' and journalists detained under anti-terrorist legislation" is factually incorrect. What protestors in the U.S. have been charged with a crime based purely on their political speech? Some FBI documents stating that Occupy protestors might be a vector for domestic terrorism isn't a first amendment violation by any imaginable stretch of the imagination; to violate the first amendment, the "label" must have some legal significance, not simply be an expression of the opinion of someone in the government. Also, your question "what do you think would happen to Greenwald" if he traveled to the U.S. totally ignores the fact that the U.K. has historically had much weaker protections for free speech and journalism than the U.S. > Yeah, to me that looks like civil rights pretty much gone You seem to be mostly regurgitating the utterly uninformed conventional wisdom that permeates places like HN and Reddit.
mherdeg 13y ago
In "Debt of Honor" and "Executive Orders", America survives this kind of catastrophe essentially okay, although it helps that they have Jack Ryan in charge.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  That argument is known as "Generalization from Fictional Evidence": http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...
  - wpietri 13y ago
    Comments like these are also known as jokes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
    - m_mueller 13y ago
      Passive aggressive URLs: My favorite kind of URLs.
      - wpietri 13y ago
        In my defense, the actually aggressive page was not as useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh
  - cwal37 13y ago
    I don't think that person was being entirely serious, particularly given the last few words.
monkeynotes 13y ago
The Reichstag fire made way for sweeping authoritarian changes in Germany and to me this is pretty much what has happened in the US, starting with the Patriot Act. Furthermore the Recichstag fire was surrounded in conspiracy theories with many believing the Nazis framed Van der Lubbe to further political ideals. Regardless of the Capitol Building being hit I'd say 9/11 was the US Reichstag.
javert 13y ago
This is utter nonsense. The chain of succession would be in place to establish a new President, and we could do without Congress until a new election were held. In the absolute worst case of a more serious attack, the US armed services would assume control, and it would be unthinkable that they wouldn't restore democracy. 99% of our soldiery are patriots. (Our eduction system hasn't done that much damage to our soldiers... yet. Some day, unless the intellectual trends in our nation change, our soldies will no longer believe that "democracy" is "practical," and will believe that people have to be forced to be good, and then we are not only going to be living under socaialism (as currently), we are going to be living under authoritarianism.)
- D-Coder 13y ago
  If you say that the US is "living under socialism"... you don't know what that word means. Wikipedia says: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these." The US lives under a regulated capitalist economy.
  - javert 13y ago
    I think of "socialism" as "unlimited redistribution of wealth." But the definition you gave checks out as far as I can tell from common sources online. So I may be using the term in an unconventional and confusing way. That said, how would you describe a system with high taxation and redistribution of income, but without state ownership of the means of production? (That is how I characterize the US mainly, plus massive reuglation.) There needs to be a word for it. "Socialism" seems to fit pretty well. The definition you are promulgating seems too narrow and technical. It doesn't really matter if the state owns the means of production, or simply seizes the profits created thereby. In the end, it's the same.
    - ljf 13y ago
      No, that is not what socialism means, just because you want to think of the term meaning something else doesn't mean it is so. That's not how a shared language works.
Theodores 13y ago
We have created this myth that Flight 93 was heading for the Capitol Building based on media reports of what some bloke in Guantanamo Bay said after being tortured. It is single source evidence, 'speculative fictional history'. The media have also speculated that Flight 93 was also heading for Three Mile Island (a nuclear power station designed to survive a plane crash) and Camp David (the President's holiday home where some Middle East peace deal had been agreed on with the participants having gone home decades ago). It is tempting to believe that Flight 93 was heading for the Capitol given that there is some confession and it would have made more sense than Three Mile Island or Camp David. However this is flawed reasoning. Had Flight 93 not been delayed at the airport and made it to its target on time then that target just might have been The Pentagon. Here it would have made a far greater impact. We know one 757 had hit The Pentagon to cause significant damage. Had another plane - Flight 93 - crashed into another 'wedge' opposite to the fire that did happen then there would have been a high likelihood that the entire Pentagon would have burned to the ground. The first fire would have served as an attack on the fire prevention systems allowing the fire from the second attack to burn unimpeded. If we look at what happened at the World Trade Center two planes were used against one target. The Twin Towers might have appeared as two buildings, however, there was only one set of pumps for the sprinklers. The towers had been designed to survive impact by a plane but not the scenario of 9/11 when both towers were attacked. Also note that the second tower to be hit was the first to fall - in paart due to the lack of water pressure for the sprinklers. Given that two planes were used for the one target in New York it is not unreasonable to consider that two planes were also intended for the Pentagon, with one fire able to knock out the sprinklers and another fire to burn the building down. This would have removed The Pentagon from the map rather than create damage that could be (and was) repaired. Although there is a certain amount of logic to support The Pentagon being the target for Flight 93, this idea does not support the agenda of 'The War Against Terror'. Let's stick with the nursery stories and believe what the media say the interrogators water-boarded out of the guy in Guantanamo - Flight 93 was heading for The Capitol.
- GnwbZHiU 13y ago
  I don't see why Capitol or Pentagon make any difference in the context of the support of 'The War Against Terror' agenda.

by pvnick 13y ago

VLM 13y ago

Wasn't our democracy destroyed anyway? No more civil rights, eternal war, single party rule (the rich guys) etc?

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
At least 'the rich guys' give themselves super high tax rates. Edit: For those who won't read the whole comment thread, the US has one of the highest top income tax rates in the OECD, one of the highest (or the highest?) corp tax rates in OECD, and arguably the lowest tax burden on poor/middle class in OECD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates
- nkoren 13y ago
  That was sarcasm, yes? Just checking! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_high-income.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Effective_tax_rates,_US_hi... [edit] Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax_Rate_1947-2011_v2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Effective_Corporate_Tax... [/edit]
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    First chart cuts off in '09, before Obamas tax hikes. Also probably doesn't include state/local income tax burden (!!). US has one of harshest tax regimes for top earners, and amongst most progressive regimes in OECD (arguably THE most progressive). Second chart is straight nonsense: counts unrepatriated money - capital stuck abroad whilst awaiting change in broken US corp tax policy - as taxed at zero percent! Both are cute gimmicks and nothing more.
    - FireBeyond 13y ago
      Please, before you start calling things 'cute gimmicks', provide a citation, especially for this claim: "US has one of the harshest tax regimes for top earners". Because per multiple sources, including this one: http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/01/news/economy/millionaire-tax... - it's demonstrably wrong, and not even close: "France has the highest tax rate with a 75% rate on millionaires. In the U.S., the fight is over whether to extend the top rate to little more than half that amount." "In Washington, of course, the fight is over whether to raise the top rate to a level just over half the amount they are arguing about in France -- to 39.6% from 35%. By contrast, numerous countries have top rates in the low to mid-50s, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Japan and Sweden. The world's highest rate is levied in sunny Aruba, where people making more than $171,000 face a top rate of 58.95%, according to figures compiled by KPMG." As does this link: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-high-the-5-countries-with-the/ http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/04/14/think-your-taxes-are-... - which also casts significant aspersions on your claim: "For comparison: The United States 2012 top rate of income taxes: 35% (rising to 39.6% in 2013) Effective tax rate on $100,000: 26% (7.3% Social Security, 18.7% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of $100,000: 55 Effective tax rate on $300,000: 30.5% (3.7% Social Security, 26.8% income tax) World rank on effective tax rate of $300,000: 53"
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Top US tax rate is over 55%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates Going over 58% in 2014, thanks to Obamacare levy. Like I said, one of the highest in OECD. And arguably most progressive in all of OECD: US lacks severe excise taxes and VATs which target the poor and middle class, coupled with generously progressive income tax brackets. And of course those infamously high US corporate tax rates: often double the rates of other OECD nations (same link).
- avn2109 13y ago
  This is something I often wonder about on HN: Is this guy being downvoted simply because we disagree with him/he's making absurd claims? His comments are correctly punctuated, grammatical, at least tolerably respectful, etc. Though his map does not seem to correspond to the territory, in my eyes that alone doesn't merit downvotes.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    My claims are obviously factually correct (citation provided, even). Sole reason for downvotes is because I'm going against anti-fatcat anti-inequality hysteria of the day.
    - avn2109 13y ago
      I guess my claim here is that the content of your comment ought to be in general decoupled from the number of downvotes you receive.
- mpweiher 13y ago
  The rich gave themselves low capital gains taxes and shifted their income to be capital gains, so the income tax rate is less and less relevant. Just as an example, Mit Romney's publicized tax rate was around 14.1% in 2011 on income that very comfortably puts him in the top income tax bracket. He just doesn't pay income tax on it.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Another misconception. Well two in one post, actually. 1) Capital gains income is often first passed through a corporation, thus getting taxed at the insanely high US corp tax rate before getting taxed a second time at the moderately normal US cap gains rate. So US citizens are still paying more on average, even if it all doesn't show up as such on a tax return. 2) And Mitt's specifically! Let's count the misconceptions (note that I don't blame you - the media never described them and let the infamous "14.1%" figure stand because it's a good story): a) Doesn't include state tax rate. That right there could easily tack on another 9%. Though it could also be zero if in Texas. Mitt of course lived in Mass, so it's just 4% or so. b) No one deducted charitable contributions. As a Mormon, that was 10% of his income. So add another 1.4% to his tax rate there. c) People counted his off-shore income, which is counted as income but not taxed until repatriated, as taxed at 0%. In fact it would be taxed at normal capital gains, which today is ~20% Federal + 4% Mass. Depending on the blend of foreign to domestic income, this could amount to a lot or just a little. Let's say his offshore income constituted 10% of overall income, for a ~1-2% higher average tax rate overall? d) Most impactfully, no one's counting the Corp Tax rate which was paid before he took the Cap Gains. That's 39% Federal and another 8% Mass (~46% total), assuming that it's coming from Mass based corps. I'd say a solid chunk of his income is coming from this sort of income, probably in the ballpark of 70%, but let's just say it's 30% (of his income subject to this sort of double tax) to be super conservative. Starting with base 14.1% + 4%(a) + 1.4%(b) + 1-2%(c) + (.3)(46%) = 21.5% just with very simple adjustments, and as high as 31.4% with a corp tax rate blended in a bit.
    - mpweiher 13y ago
      Once again, you are confusing nominal rates with effective rates, and simply assuming that corp. tax was paid at that nominal rate, which has a statistical likelihood so low as to be indistinguishable from zero. Effectively, a quarter of corporations pay zero corporation tax. Considering that the whole purpose of these constructs is to reduce the tax burden, I'd wager a guess that the rates paid tend towards the low end of the scale. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-companies-pay-no-taxes/2480281/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/10/23/big-...) Of course tax should be paid on income that was shifted off-shore for tax reasons, but of course the monied interests are lobbying for a "tax holiday", which they have "successfully" done in the past. "Success" in quotes because the policy failed to achieve the things that were used to peddle the ludicrous idea: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203633104576623771022129888 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020363310... It was highly successful in avoiding taxes, which is why they are lobbying for it again. What do voluntary charitable contributions have to do with taxes (apart from him not deducting some of them in order to not have his tax rate look even more ridiculously low than it already is)?
efuquen 13y ago
No more civil rights? Just because there are major issues with transparency and some aspects on the civil rights front is a far cray from "no more civil rights". http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world Eternal War? Long and fruitless war, maybe? The Iraqi war is over and the Afghani war is all but over. Keeping some troops there doesn't constitute a "war", we have them all over the place. The only legitimate claim is the idea that money is a big part of politics, which it obviously is and it's gotten worse. But to equate that to "single party rule" is absurd. On top of that I don't see how any of that is a result of 9/11.
- mpweiher 13y ago
  "Eternal War?" I think the previous commenter meant the "War on Terror", which is essentially eternal because there is no opponent that could be defeated, and therefore it cannot be ended, only abandoned. Most of the other measures are justified with the "War on Terror", including the removal of habeas corpus, removal of the 4th amendment, gutting of the 1st amendment, removal of judicial review and oversight etc. 1st amendment is also pretty much in tatters, with protesters now labeled as "low level terrorists", and journalists detained under anti-terrorist legislation (admittedly that was in the UK, but what do you think would happen to Greenwald if he were dumb enough to travel to the US??) Yeah, to me that looks like civil rights pretty much gone. Of course, only if you do something the government doesn't like, but that's pretty much the point of civil rights...
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > Most of the other measures are justified with the "War on Terror", including the removal of habeas corpus, removal of the 4th amendment, gutting of the 1st amendment, removal of judicial review and oversight etc. Your comment is utterly ungrounded in reality. The "war on terror" has had pretty much no specific effect on any of the civil rights you mentioned. 1) Habeas corpus: the most recent change to the law of habeas corpus was AEDPA in 1996. Despite having "antiterrorism" in its name, it's largely addressed at preventing convicted criminals from abusing the habeas process through repeated frivolous habeas petitions and treating habeas essentially as a federal appeal from valid state court judgments. The "terrorism" provisions are distinct and don't concern habeas corpus, but rather financing and immigration issues related to terrorism. The post-9/11 Supreme Court cases on habeas have strengthened habeas corpus, not weakened it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush, and the predecessor cases Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 2) Removal of the 4th amendment: the 4th amendment is probably not at the apex of its vitality, but it's on the upswing since 9/11. To the extent that it's been diminished over the years, that largely happened in the 1970's and the 1980's as a byproduct of that era's "tough on crime" movement. Even in the context of NSA spying, the legal basis for those programs are not rooted in anything post-9/11, but in the quite old third-party doctrine and this case from 1979 that created the data versus metadata distinction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland. 3) Gutting of the 1st amendment: the first amendment has simply never been stronger, and the U.S. continue to have among the strongest protections for free speech of any country in the world. Your comment about "protestors now labeled as 'low level terrorists,' and journalists detained under anti-terrorist legislation" is factually incorrect. What protestors in the U.S. have been charged with a crime based purely on their political speech? Some FBI documents stating that Occupy protestors might be a vector for domestic terrorism isn't a first amendment violation by any imaginable stretch of the imagination; to violate the first amendment, the "label" must have some legal significance, not simply be an expression of the opinion of someone in the government. Also, your question "what do you think would happen to Greenwald" if he traveled to the U.S. totally ignores the fact that the U.K. has historically had much weaker protections for free speech and journalism than the U.S. > Yeah, to me that looks like civil rights pretty much gone You seem to be mostly regurgitating the utterly uninformed conventional wisdom that permeates places like HN and Reddit.

mherdeg 13y ago

In "Debt of Honor" and "Executive Orders", America survives this kind of catastrophe essentially okay, although it helps that they have Jack Ryan in charge.

jmillikin 13y ago
That argument is known as "Generalization from Fictional Evidence": http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generalization_from/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...
- wpietri 13y ago
  Comments like these are also known as jokes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
  - m_mueller 13y ago
    Passive aggressive URLs: My favorite kind of URLs.
    - wpietri 13y ago
      In my defense, the actually aggressive page was not as useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh
- cwal37 13y ago
  I don't think that person was being entirely serious, particularly given the last few words.

monkeynotes 13y ago

The Reichstag fire made way for sweeping authoritarian changes in Germany and to me this is pretty much what has happened in the US, starting with the Patriot Act. Furthermore the Recichstag fire was surrounded in conspiracy theories with many believing the Nazis framed Van der Lubbe to further political ideals. Regardless of the Capitol Building being hit I'd say 9/11 was the US Reichstag.

javert 13y ago

This is utter nonsense. The chain of succession would be in place to establish a new President, and we could do without Congress until a new election were held. In the absolute worst case of a more serious attack, the US armed services would assume control, and it would be unthinkable that they wouldn't restore democracy. 99% of our soldiery are patriots. (Our eduction system hasn't done that much damage to our soldiers... yet. Some day, unless the intellectual trends in our nation change, our soldies will no longer believe that "democracy" is "practical," and will believe that people have to be forced to be good, and then we are not only going to be living under socaialism (as currently), we are going to be living under authoritarianism.)

D-Coder 13y ago
If you say that the US is "living under socialism"... you don't know what that word means. Wikipedia says: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these." The US lives under a regulated capitalist economy.
- javert 13y ago
  I think of "socialism" as "unlimited redistribution of wealth." But the definition you gave checks out as far as I can tell from common sources online. So I may be using the term in an unconventional and confusing way. That said, how would you describe a system with high taxation and redistribution of income, but without state ownership of the means of production? (That is how I characterize the US mainly, plus massive reuglation.) There needs to be a word for it. "Socialism" seems to fit pretty well. The definition you are promulgating seems too narrow and technical. It doesn't really matter if the state owns the means of production, or simply seizes the profits created thereby. In the end, it's the same.
  - ljf 13y ago
    No, that is not what socialism means, just because you want to think of the term meaning something else doesn't mean it is so. That's not how a shared language works.

Theodores 13y ago

We have created this myth that Flight 93 was heading for the Capitol Building based on media reports of what some bloke in Guantanamo Bay said after being tortured. It is single source evidence, 'speculative fictional history'. The media have also speculated that Flight 93 was also heading for Three Mile Island (a nuclear power station designed to survive a plane crash) and Camp David (the President's holiday home where some Middle East peace deal had been agreed on with the participants having gone home decades ago). It is tempting to believe that Flight 93 was heading for the Capitol given that there is some confession and it would have made more sense than Three Mile Island or Camp David. However this is flawed reasoning. Had Flight 93 not been delayed at the airport and made it to its target on time then that target just might have been The Pentagon. Here it would have made a far greater impact. We know one 757 had hit The Pentagon to cause significant damage. Had another plane - Flight 93 - crashed into another 'wedge' opposite to the fire that did happen then there would have been a high likelihood that the entire Pentagon would have burned to the ground. The first fire would have served as an attack on the fire prevention systems allowing the fire from the second attack to burn unimpeded. If we look at what happened at the World Trade Center two planes were used against one target. The Twin Towers might have appeared as two buildings, however, there was only one set of pumps for the sprinklers. The towers had been designed to survive impact by a plane but not the scenario of 9/11 when both towers were attacked. Also note that the second tower to be hit was the first to fall - in paart due to the lack of water pressure for the sprinklers. Given that two planes were used for the one target in New York it is not unreasonable to consider that two planes were also intended for the Pentagon, with one fire able to knock out the sprinklers and another fire to burn the building down. This would have removed The Pentagon from the map rather than create damage that could be (and was) repaired. Although there is a certain amount of logic to support The Pentagon being the target for Flight 93, this idea does not support the agenda of 'The War Against Terror'. Let's stick with the nursery stories and believe what the media say the interrogators water-boarded out of the guy in Guantanamo - Flight 93 was heading for The Capitol.

GnwbZHiU 13y ago
I don't see why Capitol or Pentagon make any difference in the context of the support of 'The War Against Terror' agenda.