From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Dec 27 2001 - 15:45:59 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > Mike Lorrey wrote:
> > > The ACLU is far more than neutral. They have filed numerous amicus curae
> > > briefs with the courts against the individual rights interpretation, and
> > > they are also involved in the Trauma Project, an alliance of the AMA,
> > > APA, the ABA, and the ACLU along with Handgun Control Inc (now styling
> > > itself as "The Brady Project") and Andrew McKelvey's (of monster.com
> > > fame) Americans for Gun Safety in a Orwellian project to assemble a
> > > private nationwide database of gun ownership by violating the medical
> > > privacy rights of private citizens. If your doctor is aware of, or has
> > > asked you, your spouse, or your children if there are firearms in your
> > > household, in the past three years, then you are now on this database.
> >
> > Why would they need to ask? In California they took address and
> > checked it against driver's license and gave it to the FBI at
> > gun purchase time. It would be pointless for the docs to also
> > go snooping.
>
> You do not seem to be aware of what the law actually is. The Insta-check
> system mandated by the Brady Act prohibits the use of such data to
> assemble a national gun registration system. When you purchase a gun,
> your name is checked against a database of those prohibited from purchse
> (felons, domestic abusers, insane, etc). If you are not on the database
> of those who are prohibited, then the record of you being checked is to
> be deleted, with no permanent record that your name was ever queried.
A paper prohibition is no real limitation. I don't believe the
record is deleted as quite a bit of information was laboriously
recorded. They could have simply checked my name in about 10
seconds. The information of who bought which guns is most
certainly kept permanently so police can track weapons afaik.
But I could be wrong.
>
> > Well, as a matter of fact, he does have that right to say
> > whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants. Just like I
> > have the right to tell him to mind his own business which is
> > what I am paying him for and what he is presumably trained for.
> > Really, I have never had a doctor ask me any such questions.
>
> Uh, no, he doesn't. You may say it's okay with you, but under the
> standard principles of medical ethics, it isn't. If a medical provider
> advises you of anything, they must have the training and certification
> to show that they a) know what they are talking about, and b) are
> insured for malpractice regarding that. This is why a podiatrist can't
> advise you about AB/GYN issues, and vice versa etc.: They are not
> qualified to have an opinion. They can refer you to someone who is
> qualified, but they cannot give you a medical opinion about it.
>
I didn't know that. If so it makes doctors inhuman. I
automatically assume when any professional is talking about
something other than their profession that it is opinion and not
something to be given extra weight. Seems sufficient to me. I
don't see how a doctor could be held legally liable for advising
you on what type of motorcycle to get unless he claimed that one
would be better for your health.
> >
> > >
> > > The ACLU is as much a terrorist organization as the al Barakhat money
> > > wiring organization in Somalia is. They may not get their own hands
> > > bloody, but they enable the deaths of thousands.
> >
> > That organization is also not terrorist. Whatever happened to
> > anarcho-capitalism and especially the cyber version of same?
>
> Al Barakhat has been documented to have funnelled millions of dollars to
> al Qaeda from it's own profits, and is owned by an associate of bin
> Laden.
>
Freedom includes the freedom of bad people to move money
around. If you want to absolutely stop the second you cannot
fully claim to support the first.
> > Did everyone decide these great ideas aren't so great if maybe
> > some bad people also use them? BAH! Some committment to
> > freedom. Damn hypocritical if you ask me. And no, wiring
> > money around does not necessarily make you culpable for anything
> > unless you explicitly know what the money is for and endorse
> > it. If you say otherwise then you are only a step from saying
> > that ISPs are utterly responsible for every byte of information
> > and intent that goes through their servers.
>
> If you give a part of your profits to, say, fund Timothy McVeigh's
> activities, when you know he is a right wing extremist who advocates the
> killing of people, does that no make you party to the conspiracy?
>
That is a huge if and not what I am talking about. Being a
"common carrier" for wired money and other things does not make
you responsible for who wired they money or to whom or for what
purpose. I did not argue that those who are directly supporting
something of this kind are not culpable. Different discussion.
> Al Barakhat does more than just wire money for others who may or may not
> be legitimate. The fees it charges for such service are used in part to
> fund al Qaeda operations. If they just wired money for anybody,
> terrorist or no, I'd agree with you. But they do not. They fund it from
> their own profits.
OK. But a lot of organizations have been shut down and had
their assets seized without any legal proceedings I am aware
of. What you say here may be exactly true but I worry if we are
seizing assets without reasonable legal safeguards. What the
government claims as justification and what was actually found
and found in a way the organization or persons got to respond to
are often quite different things.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:52 MST