Slashdot Mirror

This is the text of the bill passed by both the house and senate. This version of the bill DOES contain that section. I hope for the sake of anyone who reads your post that they also read this reply.

First off, let's link to a reputable site:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR051 22:@@@K

Second:

"This rule will likely never be used except for emergencies."

You must live in a fantasy land of unicorns and rainbows and government officials who don't use every opportunity to abuse the power they have. I want to move there someday.

Actually, only 23 members of the House voted against the conference report, and the conference report passed the Senate by unanimous consent (which includes Patrick Leahy).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR051 22:@@@X

Sure, it's supposed to be transparent, but the rules don't actually enforce it.

Provisions frequently get inserted at the last minute, for the express purpose of preventing anyone from reading it (or debating it) before voting.

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

331'.

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.+51 22: oops, looks like that was a temporary search link... use the bottom john warner link as passed by both house and senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./tem p/~c109e2fGAa:e939907:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Mod parent up. If anyone is angry about this bill, you should be going after the vast majority of the house that passed it. Here is a link to the major congressional actions (i.e. votes) on the issue. For those too lazy to click the link:

05/11/06 - Passed the house 396-31

09/29/06 - Conference report filed and voted on; passed 398-23

The Library of Congress has some American items online, here are the home page and the music collection.

The Library of Congress has some American items online, here are the home page and the music collection.

Feel free to check here and run a search for Habeas Corpus. Look around. Congress has tried repeatedly to suspend it, to get rid of it, to void it, etc. The Supreme Court has ruled SEVERAL times that they can't do this.

It KEEPS happening. Criticism? Maybe. But it's WARRANTED criticism. What's absurd is that there isn't MORE outrage concerning all of this. Because of that, I am forced to ask the question "How Long?".

Would I want to live anywhere else? Well, lately Canada and Australia are looking more attractive, but for the moment, I shall keep my faith in the system (however broken and abused it may be at current) and in the American people to one day wake up, and realize we've lost something very dear.

Every day I watch rights that I stood up to defend, that I sacrificed my blood, sweat, and tears for, that I now draw a VA Disability check because of, disappear, by greedy and abusive politicians.

Wait, there's someone knocking on my door. Hmm that's funny, you look an awful lot like someone from that movie Men In Black. What's that? Yes I post on slashdot. Yes I'm PixieDust. Hmm? Talk you say? Alright.

In other news, neighbors of a disabled Veteran were shocked today to learn that the cute girl down the hall had mysteriously disappeared last night...

Oh, before I forget...
/tinfoilhat off

They're designated as "enemy combatants" because they where:
1) Captured on a battlefield
2) During a war

I don't know what makes you think this. In the Military Commissions Act the term is formally defined in this way:

H.R.6166

Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

`Sec. 948a. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or `(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

You'll notice that "captured on a battlefield" doesn't appear. Obviously the US military have to get their hands on you, but this doesn't necessarily imply a battlefield. In recent years people have been simply kidnapped out of the homes or off the street ("disappeared" by the CIA). This became quite a scandal in Europe, you know, because of American spooks kidnapping people in European countries. There are dozens of CIA agents wanted by the police in Italy for these kidnappings. By no stretch of the imagination is Milan a battlefield, for instance (any more than is O'Hare airport, BTW, my earlier counter-example.)

BTW, the full text of the new Military Commissions law is available at the Library of Congress website.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/ ~c109i6ly2s

Signed on October 17th. Look in Section 212, which has this:

(A) by striking `Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency' and inserting `Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the service acquisition executive for each military department'; and

Emphasis mine. You can see that now they have to add a dude (assuming that Director of Defense of DARPA is now "Director of Defense Research and Engineering", otherwise it's out of DARPA's hands all together). Maybe it's just a matter of signatures, but I can see how they have been forced to put the award on hold until they can, you know, obey the law as Congress has fiddled with it. And I confess that I haven't looked at the legislation that this section amends, which is:

Subsection (a) of section 2374a of title 10, United States Code

especially when one considers that the right of redress held by U.S. citizens is not extended to E.U. citizens.

Oh well, in that case there's no problem, since the Republicans are taking that right away from US Citizens. Now all the DoD has to do is declare you an enemy combatant and there is no proof, no trial, no appeals, and no redress.

Now why is this important? because you obviously are getting something backwards. In 1998 representative Fox from pennsylvania stated that a released murderer was five times more likley to be re-arested for murder then other prisoners in general poulation. That's five times more likley to recommit the crime they already served time for then someone who just robbed a bank or cheated on thier taxes. Sounds a little more significant then 5%.

I know I get all my facts from politicians instead of eggheads! Boy, howdy, that's where the truth is!

Well, point me at a peer reviewed scientific study that shows that most killers aren't wracked with guilt. Come on. You said you had evidence.

"The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 38 percent of all murderers were on probation, parole, pretrial release, or in some other criminal justice status at the time of the murder." It is likely that many of these repeat offenders had also committed murder in the past. Inner city gang violence, often resulting in murders, is almost certainly often committed by the repeat offenders (and there is more strong circumstantial evidence to back this up).

It is much more likely that the amount of guilt suffered by someone who is repeatedly committing the same offense is much less than "wracking guilt." It might be "mild guilt", or even "regret", but "wracked with guilt" just isn't probable.

--- SER

Wow. I'm not sure I could say much more then WOW.

Chances are the person you know of who only served 8 years wasn't a murderer but commited a homicide of some sorts. Now there is a difference between killing, murder and homicide. I can tell you didn't know that because of your reply here.

Murder is the killing or taking the life of a person unjustly/unlawfully and involves the intention of doing so. You can kill someone unlawfully and still be justified and it not be considered murder. Homicide is the killing or taking of a life usualy without intention. There are several degrees of homicide in that how you acted before the actions interpret the amount of liability a person might have. Of course killing is the taking of a life.

Now why is this important? because you obviously are getting something backwards. In 1998 representative Fox from pennsylvania stated that a released murderer was five times more likley to be re-arested for murder then other prisoners in general poulation. That's five times more likley to recommit the crime they already served time for then someone who just robbed a bank or cheated on thier taxes. Sounds a little more significant then 5%.

Now, as for a person who murdered someone (not killed or was involved in a homicide) making thier own punishment. I don't think it is enough. It is like asking a kid what thier punishment should be for chewing gum in class and him saying spitting the gum out after it took an hour to decide and the flavor is gone. A murderer took a life intentionaly and probably for greed, he should have more punishment then living with the knowledge that he succeeded. As a matter of fact, I belive he should have his own life taken (wich isn't murder) from him so he isn't ever "five times more likley to recommit if released".

Okay, now I had to go back and check. The deposit requirement still exists in the law(see 17 USC 407)—indeed, its theoretically broader than it used to be, since the prior limitation that it only applied to works published with notice of copyright has been removed, so theoretically anything subject to copyright must be deposited—but there is a provision which allows classes of works to be exempted by regulation. The copyright office page on Mandatory Deposit provides a general description of the current operation of the requirement, and regulations lay out a dozen exemptions, (catalogs, greeting cards, on-line databases, etc.) but in general the rule remains alive.

This is government work. Nothing's being produced, only consumed.

This is government work. Nothing's being produced, only consumed.

`Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions `Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.

`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien' means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.

That is it. No interpretation needed. US citizens are simply not subject to these commissions. Period.

The rest of the information you provide is about Jose Padilla. This legislation does not and will not apply to Padilla. In fact the Padilla case was transferred to a court with full civilian control and oversight. He now has full rights to challenge his detention. Additionally it was the seemingly unfair treatment of Padilla and others that prompted this bill.

Note that I'm not attempting to support the aims of this bill, just pointing out the facts. The fact is that it does NOT apply to US citizens.

This is not a "Liberal" law. This is a Republican law. It isn't about protecting the people. This law is clearly about protecting the brick gambling establishments from the virtual ones. Perhaps you should review how and why laws are created in America?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff

This law is more about PAC money than it is about morals or people.

How could anyone think otherwise? It isn't like the law effects the mother you describe. What you think she hasn't already pawned everything? Do you really think laws that involve money are passed to protect people from themselves? BS! What about this law?
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/10/bankruptcy.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.256:
What is really telling about this law is that the wealthier you are the more debt you can escape and the poorer you are the less debt you can escape. Laws to protect people from gambling. Please. They don't care about people.

I think this bill/law is a DUPE.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.214 3:
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act - from 2003.

what happened, they had to keep trying to get it passed?

They got rid of Habeas Corpus ONLY for aliens. Lincoln and Grant got rid of habeas corpus for US citizens and yet we survived it.

S.3930 Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./tem p/~c1091oWBrq:e116721:

                            (a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

                        `(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

                        `(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

                        (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861 by Lincoln, and again by Grant under the 1870 Force Act and again in 1871 by way of the Ku Klux Klan Act.

The Lincoln and Grant suspensions of the writ applied specifically to US citizens. The 2006 suspension explicitly does NOT apply to US citizens, but only to aliens:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:s.039 30:

Section 7:

              (a) In General- Section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking both the subsection (e) added by section 1005(e)(1) of Public Law 109-148 (119 Stat. 2742) and the subsection (e) added by added by section 1405(e)(1) of Public Law 109-163 (119 Stat. 3477) and inserting the following new subsection (e):

            `(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

            `(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.'.

            (b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act which relate to any aspect of the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an alien detained by the United States since September 11, 2001.

AC said: "Hmm, are slaves etitled [sic] to own anything? I mean, you sell yourself and your new master collects the money right back!"

That's why you sell yourself in the future. E.g. you get the million dollars now and they get you as a slave after a year.

Also, it's worth noting that in the US, slaves could own things separately. For example, it was possible for slaves to buy themselves by working side jobs. Googling found mention of this at http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/expr ef/slavery/slavery.html

And to vote or decide your policy positions based on that lack of information, how about just reading the bills? You're right, the media does a poor job of covering lawmaking. In fact, I'd say it does almost no job at all. But don't just decide to be uninformed until further notice. Because while everyone is doing that, time's a-passing and so are new laws.

Torture/Habeas law (now passed, ready for signing) here.
House bill on wiretapping (passed house) here.

And to vote or decide your policy positions based on that lack of information, how about just reading the bills? You're right, the media does a poor job of covering lawmaking. In fact, I'd say it does almost no job at all. But don't just decide to be uninformed until further notice. Because while everyone is doing that, time's a-passing and so are new laws.

Torture/Habeas law (now passed, ready for signing) here.
House bill on wiretapping (passed house) here.

Now it's to the point where congress has really lost any control of the executive branch.

I think what bothers me the most about the bill that is in the Senate right now is this line:

`(4) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual engaged in hostilities against the United States who is not a lawful enemy combatant.

found in Senate bill S.3930, Subchapter I, Sec. 948a. Definitions.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.3930:

Nowhere in there do i see the definition of "hostilities". For all that says, speaking out against the US is considered hostile, and boom, you have just become an Unlawful Enemey Combatant.

I shudder to think what would happen if that loose of a definition is allowed to pass muster and goes into regular usage.

Art. 11. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Art. 11. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union: but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

Maybe a nice laquer cigar box is the answer. Imagine this as your desktop. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/interactive/ _html/wc0001_1c.html

Well, if by "specific statutes" you mean "FISA itself", then yes.

A small number of members of Congress are required to be informed of specified information regarding such programs, bother under FISA and under the changes proposed in EMSA; however, Congress does not have veto. There is no approval process, and the required information is very general.

Please point to the provision in the bill that requires the FISA court to approve a "warrantless program".

For the budget just browse through the thousands of bills passed each session

There are more like 13 appropriations bills. They are pretty long, but not intractable. The problem is that they are very high level allocations. For example, you won't see the name "Boeing" anywhere. You can look at individual departments to get a little more detail, but nowhere near the level of detail the database should provide. I'll be happy if it is anywhere near as good as the FEC's campaign finance disclosure database.

I wonder how many riders were attached to the bill authorizing this database

If you really wanted to find out, you could always do something radical like read the bill.

For the budget just browse through the thousands of bills passed each session

There are more like 13 appropriations bills. They are pretty long, but not intractable. The problem is that they are very high level allocations. For example, you won't see the name "Boeing" anywhere. You can look at individual departments to get a little more detail, but nowhere near the level of detail the database should provide. I'll be happy if it is anywhere near as good as the FEC's campaign finance disclosure database.

I wonder how many riders were attached to the bill authorizing this database

If you really wanted to find out, you could always do something radical like read the bill.

Actually, a line item veto bill was passed by the house this year (not heard in the senate) that would require congressional approval of any line item vetos. In addition to that, the line item veto was limited to reducing budgetary items (and they had to be for the sole purpose of reduction, not moving the money to a different project).

No, it doesn't. It requires executive notification of select members of the legislative and judicial branches, it removes most of the substance of judicial review where it remains part of the system, and create vast new areas where judicial review is entirely removed. Notification is not review.

False, the provisions of this bill are not restricted to authorizing surveillance targetting "known" (known to whom, anyway?) or even "suspected" terrorists.

The Bill number is H.R.5825, "Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act"

You can plug that bill identifier into this html page , select search on bill number, then click search.

Many of the provisions of this bill are unconstitutional, (due process, separation of powers, 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th amendments etc), but that process would take a long, long time to wind itself through the court system.

When a citizen's fear of one's own government is more than he fears the Terrorists !
Then the War on Terrorism is already LOST !

1. Prepare yourself by:
   1. Familiarize youselves with the issues at hand. Wikipedia has a good piece on the topic.
   2. Identify the specific legislation at issue, in this case the major bill in question is (I believe) S 2686 brought to you by Senators Ted (Tube boy) Stevens and Daniel Inouye. Ted has been in office for 37 years and Daniel for 43. Daniel is not the longest serving senator. Do not be fooled by the erroneous wikipedia entry stating that the bill was defeated by the Senate Commerce and Science Committee. Stevens and Inouye head that committee.
   3. You should also note the other relevant legislation especially the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (HR 5417) and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S2917)
2. Then:
   1. Contact your Senator and ask them where they stand on Net neutrality as you do explain why neutrality is a good thing and why they should support it (see below). You can identify them online. You can contact them via e-mail, smail mail, fax, or by telephone. I myself favor the phone followed up by a letter. Over the phone you can ask questions and get more info.
   2. Contact your House Representative . Although this is a senate bill there is a house bill (H5417 above) on this issue and they had better support it.
   3. Write a letter to your local paper. It is a truism that most people in the world do not read /. Many of those people get their opinion fodder from the local newspaper, and more people read the letters to the editor than any other part of the paper. This can likely be done via e-mail and can sway a lot of minds if done right. Those minds can then in turn act for net neutrality.
   4. Tell other people. Surely you know at least one other person who hasn't heard about this threat to their ability to do business and/or just do what they want online as they always have. This person may be friends, family, coworkers, etc. It doesn't matter just tell them.
   5. Repeat the above steps as often as possible.

   In all cases be clear, firm, and polite. Net neutrality is important. Make it clear to any elected official that you will vote based upon their stance and donate money accordingly. You get bonus points if they are up for election this year (Senate).
   
   Keep in mind that you will probably not reach them directly. Most likely your call or letter will be directed to an aide. That aide's job is to tell the individual what to think about an issue. The aide will be loyal to their boss but may be more easy to sway (they don't have to appear omnicient). If you make it clear to them why neutrality is important and why a non-neutral internet will cost them then you can get somewhere.
   
   This tone also goes for letters and for the public.

1. Prepare yourself by:
   1. Familiarize youselves with the issues at hand. Wikipedia has a good piece on the topic.
   2. Identify the specific legislation at issue, in this case the major bill in question is (I believe) S 2686 brought to you by Senators Ted (Tube boy) Stevens and Daniel Inouye. Ted has been in office for 37 years and Daniel for 43. Daniel is not the longest serving senator. Do not be fooled by the erroneous wikipedia entry stating that the bill was defeated by the Senate Commerce and Science Committee. Stevens and Inouye head that committee.
   3. You should also note the other relevant legislation especially the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (HR 5417) and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S2917)
2. Then:
   1. Contact your Senator and ask them where they stand on Net neutrality as you do explain why neutrality is a good thing and why they should support it (see below). You can identify them online. You can contact them via e-mail, smail mail, fax, or by telephone. I myself favor the phone followed up by a letter. Over the phone you can ask questions and get more info.
   2. Contact your House Representative . Although this is a senate bill there is a house bill (H5417 above) on this issue and they had better support it.
   3. Write a letter to your local paper. It is a truism that most people in the world do not read /. Many of those people get their opinion fodder from the local newspaper, and more people read the letters to the editor than any other part of the paper. This can likely be done via e-mail and can sway a lot of minds if done right. Those minds can then in turn act for net neutrality.
   4. Tell other people. Surely you know at least one other person who hasn't heard about this threat to their ability to do business and/or just do what they want online as they always have. This person may be friends, family, coworkers, etc. It doesn't matter just tell them.
   5. Repeat the above steps as often as possible.

   In all cases be clear, firm, and polite. Net neutrality is important. Make it clear to any elected official that you will vote based upon their stance and donate money accordingly. You get bonus points if they are up for election this year (Senate).
   
   Keep in mind that you will probably not reach them directly. Most likely your call or letter will be directed to an aide. That aide's job is to tell the individual what to think about an issue. The aide will be loyal to their boss but may be more easy to sway (they don't have to appear omnicient). If you make it clear to them why neutrality is important and why a non-neutral internet will cost them then you can get somewhere.
   
   This tone also goes for letters and for the public.

1. Prepare yourself by:
   1. Familiarize youselves with the issues at hand. Wikipedia has a good piece on the topic.
   2. Identify the specific legislation at issue, in this case the major bill in question is (I believe) S 2686 brought to you by Senators Ted (Tube boy) Stevens and Daniel Inouye. Ted has been in office for 37 years and Daniel for 43. Daniel is not the longest serving senator. Do not be fooled by the erroneous wikipedia entry stating that the bill was defeated by the Senate Commerce and Science Committee. Stevens and Inouye head that committee.
   3. You should also note the other relevant legislation especially the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 (HR 5417) and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S2917)
2. Then:
   1. Contact your Senator and ask them where they stand on Net neutrality as you do explain why neutrality is a good thing and why they should support it (see below). You can identify them online. You can contact them via e-mail, smail mail, fax, or by telephone. I myself favor the phone followed up by a letter. Over the phone you can ask questions and get more info.
   2. Contact your House Representative . Although this is a senate bill there is a house bill (H5417 above) on this issue and they had better support it.
   3. Write a letter to your local paper. It is a truism that most people in the world do not read /. Many of those people get their opinion fodder from the local newspaper, and more people read the letters to the editor than any other part of the paper. This can likely be done via e-mail and can sway a lot of minds if done right. Those minds can then in turn act for net neutrality.
   4. Tell other people. Surely you know at least one other person who hasn't heard about this threat to their ability to do business and/or just do what they want online as they always have. This person may be friends, family, coworkers, etc. It doesn't matter just tell them.
   5. Repeat the above steps as often as possible.

   In all cases be clear, firm, and polite. Net neutrality is important. Make it clear to any elected official that you will vote based upon their stance and donate money accordingly. You get bonus points if they are up for election this year (Senate).
   
   Keep in mind that you will probably not reach them directly. Most likely your call or letter will be directed to an aide. That aide's job is to tell the individual what to think about an issue. The aide will be loyal to their boss but may be more easy to sway (they don't have to appear omnicient). If you make it clear to them why neutrality is important and why a non-neutral internet will cost them then you can get somewhere.
   
   This tone also goes for letters and for the public.

From the article: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill." It sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that "freedom-loving Americans" are spreading their open and accountable flavour of democracy arould the world - not!

You quoted an intentionally inflammatory paragraph that counts on your ignorance of Senate procedure to trick you into thinking senators are ashamed to put their support of the bill on record. Congratulations, you fell for it. Most bills are passed by voice vote, because it is a lot faster on routine bills. However, if a single senator wants to go on record as voting against (or for) the bill, he can demand a roll call vote.

What the author wrote is strictly true, but deliberately omits information that would contradict the false assumption the paragraph implies. The article not only implies that the voice vote would be the only option, but also ignores the fact that high profile bills like these almost always get a roll call vote anyway.

Don't believe everything you read, especially during election season. When you come across a paragraph like that, the loss of "warm fuzzy feeling" clues you in that something is not right. The "something" is either a lack of a senate procedure to officially record an objection on any bill, or the speaker manipulating you into thinking there isn't such a procedure. It is easy enough to independently verify which is right. Once you do, you should ask yourself why the author resorts to tricks instead of allowing the rest of his argument to stand on its merits. You then know to subject the rest of the article to closer scrutiny, read an article with an opposing viewpoint, or maybe even do something radical like read the unabridged text of the bills and make up your own mind.

Now is the time to start helping the ACLU and EFF to bring this unconstitutional fascism before a federal court ASAP!

Maybe someone will create a bill to subject the NSA surveillance program to frequent approval by the federal FISA court, like S. 2453. Maybe if some slashdotters actually read it, they might find out it is something they could actually support. After all, everyone wants the terrorists to be surveilled, they just want the courts to make sure it is done constitutionally.

Another bill I support that was reported at the same time is S. 3001, which adds personnel and takes other measures to streamline the process of requesting FISA warrants, so that needing a high volume of warrant requests is no longer an excuse. This bill is cosponsored by Democrat Senator Feinstein.

The bill that slashdotters should be up in arms about is S. 2455, which essentially authorizes the current program in statute, with a little congressional and attorney general oversight thrown in for fun.

But don't take my word for it. Please read the bills for yourself and make up your own mind.

From the article: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill." It sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that "freedom-loving Americans" are spreading their open and accountable flavour of democracy arould the world - not!

You quoted an intentionally inflammatory paragraph that counts on your ignorance of Senate procedure to trick you into thinking senators are ashamed to put their support of the bill on record. Congratulations, you fell for it. Most bills are passed by voice vote, because it is a lot faster on routine bills. However, if a single senator wants to go on record as voting against (or for) the bill, he can demand a roll call vote.

What the author wrote is strictly true, but deliberately omits information that would contradict the false assumption the paragraph implies. The article not only implies that the voice vote would be the only option, but also ignores the fact that high profile bills like these almost always get a roll call vote anyway.

Don't believe everything you read, especially during election season. When you come across a paragraph like that, the loss of "warm fuzzy feeling" clues you in that something is not right. The "something" is either a lack of a senate procedure to officially record an objection on any bill, or the speaker manipulating you into thinking there isn't such a procedure. It is easy enough to independently verify which is right. Once you do, you should ask yourself why the author resorts to tricks instead of allowing the rest of his argument to stand on its merits. You then know to subject the rest of the article to closer scrutiny, read an article with an opposing viewpoint, or maybe even do something radical like read the unabridged text of the bills and make up your own mind.

Now is the time to start helping the ACLU and EFF to bring this unconstitutional fascism before a federal court ASAP!

Maybe someone will create a bill to subject the NSA surveillance program to frequent approval by the federal FISA court, like S. 2453. Maybe if some slashdotters actually read it, they might find out it is something they could actually support. After all, everyone wants the terrorists to be surveilled, they just want the courts to make sure it is done constitutionally.

Another bill I support that was reported at the same time is S. 3001, which adds personnel and takes other measures to streamline the process of requesting FISA warrants, so that needing a high volume of warrant requests is no longer an excuse. This bill is cosponsored by Democrat Senator Feinstein.

The bill that slashdotters should be up in arms about is S. 2455, which essentially authorizes the current program in statute, with a little congressional and attorney general oversight thrown in for fun.

But don't take my word for it. Please read the bills for yourself and make up your own mind.

From the article: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill." It sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that "freedom-loving Americans" are spreading their open and accountable flavour of democracy arould the world - not!

You quoted an intentionally inflammatory paragraph that counts on your ignorance of Senate procedure to trick you into thinking senators are ashamed to put their support of the bill on record. Congratulations, you fell for it. Most bills are passed by voice vote, because it is a lot faster on routine bills. However, if a single senator wants to go on record as voting against (or for) the bill, he can demand a roll call vote.

What the author wrote is strictly true, but deliberately omits information that would contradict the false assumption the paragraph implies. The article not only implies that the voice vote would be the only option, but also ignores the fact that high profile bills like these almost always get a roll call vote anyway.

Don't believe everything you read, especially during election season. When you come across a paragraph like that, the loss of "warm fuzzy feeling" clues you in that something is not right. The "something" is either a lack of a senate procedure to officially record an objection on any bill, or the speaker manipulating you into thinking there isn't such a procedure. It is easy enough to independently verify which is right. Once you do, you should ask yourself why the author resorts to tricks instead of allowing the rest of his argument to stand on its merits. You then know to subject the rest of the article to closer scrutiny, read an article with an opposing viewpoint, or maybe even do something radical like read the unabridged text of the bills and make up your own mind.

Now is the time to start helping the ACLU and EFF to bring this unconstitutional fascism before a federal court ASAP!

Maybe someone will create a bill to subject the NSA surveillance program to frequent approval by the federal FISA court, like S. 2453. Maybe if some slashdotters actually read it, they might find out it is something they could actually support. After all, everyone wants the terrorists to be surveilled, they just want the courts to make sure it is done constitutionally.

Another bill I support that was reported at the same time is S. 3001, which adds personnel and takes other measures to streamline the process of requesting FISA warrants, so that needing a high volume of warrant requests is no longer an excuse. This bill is cosponsored by Democrat Senator Feinstein.

The bill that slashdotters should be up in arms about is S. 2455, which essentially authorizes the current program in statute, with a little congressional and attorney general oversight thrown in for fun.

But don't take my word for it. Please read the bills for yourself and make up your own mind.

Posting anonymously because I'm a Senate staffer. I do not work on the various NSA bills, but am familiar with the legislation and the manner in which it is expected to move forward over the next few weeks.

The Wired article repeatedly quotes Lisa Graves, the ACLU's senior legislative counsel. While people are free to have their own opinions, they're generally not free to have their own facts. There is no plan to advance this bill by UC as she alleges: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill."

This is apparently a reference to "hotline" passage. Most bills that move through the Senate are passed by unanimous consent at the end of a daily session. This is called the "wrap up." The majority leader, or his designee, will rattle through a list of bills and resolutions, discharging them from committee, calling them from the calendar, passing them, and so on. Last night, the Senate passed two bills in the wrap up, H.R. 1442, to complete the codification of title 46 and the Children and Media Research Advancement Act. Links go to the Congressional Record and show exactly how this process works. It's quick and seemingly painless. Reading the H.R. 1442 consideration, it would be easy for someone unfamiliar with the Senate to think "Sheesh, 2 sentences are all it takes to get a bill passed?" Ms. Graves quote probably even looks credible.

What the article doesn't say is that before any bill gets passed like this it is given to the sponsor's party's cloakroom. The cloackroom staffers attempt to "clear" the bill. The phrase "hotline" is a reference to the days of yore, before the Senate had an intranet, when there were phones that rang in every office and played an automated message announcing the unanimous consent request. Some offices still have these phones, but most staffers rely on internal party web pages to keep track of the current requests.

Unlike an actual vote, clearing doesn't require a simple majority of Senators. It requires the tacit accent of EVERY member of the body. Any Senator can place a "hold" on any item on the calendar, be it a bill or nomination. Until that hold is lifted, that matter will not be considered in the wrap up, and can't be passed by unanimous consent. Holds are essentially anonymous, although some are publicly announced (e.g. - Senator Levin's holds of various Homeland Security and Justice Department nominees). Most remain shrouded. Bills are often held for weeks without anyone in the sponsor's office knowing who is blocking a bill, or why.

The only way to overcome a hold is for the majority leader to actually call a bill up and force a vote on the motion to proceed. Senators will sometimes release their holds if the majority leader threatens to call up immensely popular legislation because they don't want to actually stand up and object to its consideration, but a hold on something like the Specter Terrorism/NSA bill is not going to be released quietly. It's not going to be released at all.

Anyone who thinks that a bill that has received negative public comment from both sides of the aisle is going to pass by unanimous consent isn't familiar with how the Senate works. What's really going to happen, then?

The Senate will have a slew of NSA-related votes. It's likely that the Specter bill will be called up and that there will be a plethora of amendments filed and voted on, including complete substitutes (e.g. - the text of the Feinstein bill that also passed out of the Judiciary Committee). It has been publicly reported that the Republican majority is pushing a pre-election "security agenda" and that wiretapping, detainees, port security, and other terrorism and defense related issues are going to be brought up, one after

Posting anonymously because I'm a Senate staffer. I do not work on the various NSA bills, but am familiar with the legislation and the manner in which it is expected to move forward over the next few weeks.

The Wired article repeatedly quotes Lisa Graves, the ACLU's senior legislative counsel. While people are free to have their own opinions, they're generally not free to have their own facts. There is no plan to advance this bill by UC as she alleges: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill."

This is apparently a reference to "hotline" passage. Most bills that move through the Senate are passed by unanimous consent at the end of a daily session. This is called the "wrap up." The majority leader, or his designee, will rattle through a list of bills and resolutions, discharging them from committee, calling them from the calendar, passing them, and so on. Last night, the Senate passed two bills in the wrap up, H.R. 1442, to complete the codification of title 46 and the Children and Media Research Advancement Act. Links go to the Congressional Record and show exactly how this process works. It's quick and seemingly painless. Reading the H.R. 1442 consideration, it would be easy for someone unfamiliar with the Senate to think "Sheesh, 2 sentences are all it takes to get a bill passed?" Ms. Graves quote probably even looks credible.

What the article doesn't say is that before any bill gets passed like this it is given to the sponsor's party's cloakroom. The cloackroom staffers attempt to "clear" the bill. The phrase "hotline" is a reference to the days of yore, before the Senate had an intranet, when there were phones that rang in every office and played an automated message announcing the unanimous consent request. Some offices still have these phones, but most staffers rely on internal party web pages to keep track of the current requests.

Unlike an actual vote, clearing doesn't require a simple majority of Senators. It requires the tacit accent of EVERY member of the body. Any Senator can place a "hold" on any item on the calendar, be it a bill or nomination. Until that hold is lifted, that matter will not be considered in the wrap up, and can't be passed by unanimous consent. Holds are essentially anonymous, although some are publicly announced (e.g. - Senator Levin's holds of various Homeland Security and Justice Department nominees). Most remain shrouded. Bills are often held for weeks without anyone in the sponsor's office knowing who is blocking a bill, or why.

The only way to overcome a hold is for the majority leader to actually call a bill up and force a vote on the motion to proceed. Senators will sometimes release their holds if the majority leader threatens to call up immensely popular legislation because they don't want to actually stand up and object to its consideration, but a hold on something like the Specter Terrorism/NSA bill is not going to be released quietly. It's not going to be released at all.

Anyone who thinks that a bill that has received negative public comment from both sides of the aisle is going to pass by unanimous consent isn't familiar with how the Senate works. What's really going to happen, then?

The Senate will have a slew of NSA-related votes. It's likely that the Specter bill will be called up and that there will be a plethora of amendments filed and voted on, including complete substitutes (e.g. - the text of the Feinstein bill that also passed out of the Judiciary Committee). It has been publicly reported that the Republican majority is pushing a pre-election "security agenda" and that wiretapping, detainees, port security, and other terrorism and defense related issues are going to be brought up, one after

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN024 53:
oops, for some reason the parser defaultly took the last colon out of the link
Arlen Specter [R, PA] and Chuck Hagel [R, NE] are responsible... is it November yet?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN024 53: