Slashdot Mirror

Krugman and others were usually on truthout (bottom right). Thank god NYTimes stopped that silly shit.

IANALB, here are some quotes from various websites which catalog SOME of the ills of the Patriot Act. The first one I ran across, three years ago, laid out the sins of the Patriot Act pretty well:
http://truthout.com/docs_02/04.02A.JVB.Patriot.htm
This web site is the first of six articles that analyze and explain why the Patriot Act is the worse legislation Congress has ever passed. "If you think this law applies only to the bad guys who attacked our nation, think again. Many provisions in this law apply to and will affect Americans, in many, bad ways."

Most people don't know that less that 10 percent of the Patriot Act expires; most of the law is permanent and those portions that do sunset will so so on December 31, 2005.

Here's just the first of many, many examples:
"There is no way that the USA Patriot Act came into existence solely in response to September 11th. In fact, it is clear from prior legislative and case history that law enforcement and intelligence have been trying for many years to obtain these powers. It is only the unreasoning "bunker mentality" that followed September 11th that allowed its planners to pass it.

Indeed, one might question whether Congress could sincerely have intended this Act, given that portions of it are re-enactments of the 1996 anti-terrorism laws which had been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. One must wonder whether congress- persons were in their right minds. If they were not, this law cannot be valid.

Most troubling is that most of these powers do little to increase the ability of law enforcement or intelligence to bring terrorists to justice but, they do much to undermine the Constitution and violate the rights of both immigrants and American citizens alike.

Another reason why Americans do not yet know what a terrifying weapon has been put in their governments hand is that the Act is extremely nuanced and amends numerous other laws.

One provision, for example, merely amends the words of an earlier act, which had read "the purpose," to read "a significant purpose." What difference could that tiny change make? It opens the door for the FBI to evade the probable cause warrant requirement in criminal investigations whenever the FBI decides the information might have "a significant purpose" in an intelligence investigation. No court can intervene.

In other words, the legal protection that a court must determine that there is probable cause of criminal activity before a search or seizure can be made is totally discarded here. If the FBI thinks the information might contribute to an investigation, whatever the targets activity might be, legal or not, the FBI can simply go search and seize. (And under the new "sneak and peek" provisions, they can do so without you ever knowing it.)"

What scares me the most is that after December 31, 2005 ABOUT 90% of the Patriot Act is still law. As long as it is still law the Constitution no longer applies. Since most politicians, police and military took oaths to UPHOLD the Constitution, they are in violation of their oaths as long as the Patriot Act is being used by them. This reminds me of the RICO ACT, designed to restrict the rights of the Mafia, it is now used about 10,000 times a year to fund police departments and secret accounts of crooks holding office.

I don't know if it counts as a blog but
http://www.truthout.com//
is my choice for American political coverage (I'm Canadian).
This years election in the U.S. is proving to be SOOOOOO entertaining. Kind of like wrestling crossed with a soap opera, crossed with a reality show. It makes our little election (back in June) look like amateur hour.
Michael

I won't pretend that they are unbiased, but the news-related sites I read are the AP wire on Salon, Google news, Metafilter, and especially WRT recent events: Truthout, Common Dreams, and also Disinformation.

reed

Where does it all end? Do I get accused of being a terrorist because I believe that George W. Bush and his administration are a bunch of fascist criminals who are wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights -- and dare to publish said information? Am I "encouraging terrorism" and thus a "person of interest" for saying such?!

Read about it at Welcome To My Prison Camp

Overview of Changes to Legal Rights
By The Associated Press

September 5, 2002

Some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks:
http://truthout.com/docs_02/09.09C.ap.rights.htm

Meanwhile, the Congress has just passed Campaign Finance Reform that the president has promised to sign. It'll take effect right after the 2002 November elections, before the CBDTPA/SSSCA will come up again.

CFR will make it illegal to run issue ads 60 days before election day. Somehow, we're all worked up about the CBDTPA, but when Congress attempts to rewrite the Constitution and curtail free speech right, it gets ignored here. In the post CFR world, grassroots movements are going to have to organize differently than sending your 5$ in the the EFF or other organization that you'll hope will run issue ads to get the word out.

I applaud Leahy for opposing the CBDTPA, but he's a supporter of CFR in it's present form. I give him a failing grade for protecting our basic rights, but he's in good company with practically the whole Democratic Party, John "Keating 5, stop me before I sell out again" McCain and George W. Bush.