Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Civil Liberties Legislation Progresses
hillct writes: "The ACLU has a very good comparison chart of anti-terrorism provisions in legislation currently being considered by congress. It covers the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, the House Bill (PATRIOT Act) and the Senate Bill (USA Act), comparing it all to current law. We've all seen pieces of this information but the ACLU staffers did a great job consolidating it all." CDT also has a very good pdf guide to these about-to-be-passed laws. But the Onion has the best commentary.
"The Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation has stalled because of one senator's concern that it will erode civil liberties. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., tried to hurry the bill through Tuesday, but Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., refused Daschle's request to let the bill go through without debate or amendment."
I'm glad to see that one of our representatives feels a responsibility to have this discussed before it's passed. The article's available through Yahoo's home page - it would seem that Feingold wants to change several key provisions of the bill.
This is a petition to keep people from taking your freedom. Stand up for your rights, please! Do it before it's too late. It's much more difficult to take back laws once they are in place.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
The is a petition to retain your Civil Rights at Defend Your Freedom dot org. I have seen stuff on this sort of thing from everyone including the KKK to the ACLU, Pat Buchanon, and Common Cause. Something strange is going on when people across the spectrum are bitching, not just the wierdos.
Heck, even the Department of Homeland Security sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. This is unfortunate given the allegations that the Bush grandfather made his fortune in trade with that country.
There is a whole lot of political dirty laundry out there that needs to be washed.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Although America brags about its cival liberities. But when there is a threat Americans are so ready to give them up. It seems to be that real Americans are the ones who stand up in times of threat and disaster and say to the law makers that what they are doing is wrong. And like many times in the past history will look down on your desisions. Like gathering asian americans in WWII. Blacklisting "Comunists" during the Cold War. What ever happened to the addage Although I dont agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
is any sort of justification. For instance, increased wiretap auhtority. Just how would it have prevented the attack of Sept. 11? What sorts of nasty things are terrorists doing that we can't combat with the current system? How would required back doors make us safer?
I'm beginning to see a purely visceral response: terrorism => we are in danger => police need more powers.
On another note, where is the debate? I keep hearing that there will be one, but has anyone seen a member of the administration make a reasoned defense of these bills? Outlined why they are needed? Responded to criticism? Has there even been any criticism in the major media? (links would be appreciated)
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
...post a link to the Onion today? It always gets beaten on on Wednesdays (when they update). Now it's going to take forever for me to get the infographic... *sigh*
Although I think they ran the best series of reaction pieces to 9/11 I've seen, particularly "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule" and "Terrorists Surprised to find Selves in Hell".
Of course, with new info pointing to the fact that only ~6 of the 'jackers actually knew it was a suicide mission might lend credence to that last story...
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
"The definition of "terrorism" is too broad, permitting the special surveillance powers granted in this legislation to be applied far beyond what is commonly thought of by the term. Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations."
n tr ibutors/kurtz071701.shtml
Well, I might get flamed for this, but...
While I do not support laws that infringe on any of the Amendments to the Constitution...
Some of the things that groups like the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) do...is terrorism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/co
"Eco-terrorism, sponsored by loosely knit groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, began in earnest in 1998, with the burning down of a mountaintop ski resort in Vail Colorado, the release of 10,000 minks from an Oregon mink farm, and the burning of a slaughterhouse. Eco-terrorism has proliferated since then, although, until recently, fear of provoking further retaliation has prevented targeted businesses from publicizing the problem. Biotechnology projects are the latest targets, with a fire set to the offices of a global biotech project at Michigan State University in Lansing and various experimental crop sites destroyed."
Events like that, terrorizing people that wear fur or leather, it's not right. In a society based on Common Law, like the US, those things that are not illegal are legal, wearing leather or fur, or raising minks for fur, isn't illegal and it's not right for a private citizen to attack that property. Many of the *LF groups are starting down the same path as Hezbollah and Hamas did in the 60s and 70s. If those domestic groups practice the same kind of distributed terror as Aryan Nation or Hezbollah, the Police and FBI should go after them with the same tools as they go after other "hate" groups.
PETA branding people for a choice of calories is no more right than Aryan Nation branding people for a choice of mate or church.
The right to trial by jury would be abolished in all instances where the sentence was likely to be less than two years. This would include most prosecutions under sec. 296 of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act (the UK's DMCA), as well as serious reputation-destroying charges such as theft, assault and drug offences, where defendants can at the moment insist on jury trials. To prevent "perverse" decisions, Auld also recommends that judges should be allowed to ask juries specific menus of questions about the facts of the case instead of innocent-or-guilty verdicts, reserving the final decision for the judge themself.
In a democratic system, the last ditch defence against a really bad law is that a jury can refuse to convict, in spite of the evidence, if they think that the prosecution is unfair or unreasonable. Cases thrown out by UK juries against the evidence in recent years include vandalism charges against GM crop protesters, official secrets charges against civil service whistleblowers and shoplifting charges against confused elderly people. Juries have also tended to be more critical of police evidence than judges and court officials; and to have had more relaxed views in obscenity and pornography cases.
Specific comment: Independent, Guardian /. yro yesterday; rejected).
General reports: BBC, Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent
(submitted to
And remember, as this week's NTK points out, bad UK law is often just version 0.1 for bad law in the US.
But, given that ACLU has a mission, stating the obvious, to promote liberties, why has the ACLU long been absent on issues related to technology?
What are you talking about? The ACLU has a long history of defending tech rights, and were the first organization to challenge an Internet-related federal law and have it heard by the Supreme Court. Check out Reno v. ACLU if you haven't done so before. This case was heard way, way back in 1997. The ACLU has also worked in conjunction with the EFF and/or EPIC on numerous occasions.
More recently they have filed amicus briefs in cases regarding anonymous speech on the net, as well as in the DeCSS case.
To state that the ACLU has "no argument" with laws such as the DMCA or the SSSCA is to argue from simple ignorance. Both of those laws directly conflict with the values that the ACLU tries to advance and preserve.
Obviously the best restriction on traditional liberties is no restriction. However, given the terrorist threat, the ACLU would be more helpful by saying what restrictions it thinks are acceptable or useful or even necessary rather than dismissing them all as if nothing changed on Sept. 11.
For instance, it says: "Few of the provisions being discussed are needed for the current terrorism investigations, so Congress should take the time to do it right." But it does not say which of the "few" it feels are necessary and that Congress should therefore act on expeditiously.
In addition, all of these acts are subject to judicial review under the Constitution. No Constitutional right can be removed by an act of Congress. If there is a problem, it is that some of the so-called rights we take for granted are not protected by the Constitution.
The ACLU only says a few provisions explicitely violate the U.S. Constitution: (1) Nationwide pen register/trap and trace orders and roving wiretaps, and (2) Criminal evidence uncovered using an intelligence (FISA) wiretap. It doesn't mention a Constitutional test for the others, which should be the first objection raised.
One question is whether the terrorists pose a greater real and immediate threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the provisions mentioned by the ACLU. If so, the laws that are providing shelter for the terrorists are going to have to be changed.
1. There is supposed to be a state of constant war. Orwell states that this constant war is used to keep the people nationallistcally proud of their country, while suffering privations for the "war effort" Remember the theory that the bombs were dropped by Oceana itself (not suggesting in any way that the terroists were not responsible just emphasiszing that in order for docility there needs to be a constant anxiety about war)? The constant state of war also lends people to worry about the nessecities of war and not the niceties of freedom and comfort.
2. Every citizen a criminal. The only way to keep people in check was to criminalize everything, down to thought. The understanding is that if you can be caught at anything, you will watch everything that you do or say. If posting negative comments about the party (Bill Maher) got you tortured or killed, you'd be likely not to speak out. If thinking ill about the party could get you busted by the goon squad, then you would even fear yourself.
3. The most frightening thing about taking away liberties is that it is a slippery slope. Remember that once the Party had a modicum of power, it's only goal was power. Soon after a few generation, there would be no thoughtcrime or punishment, because man would cease to be man in any recognisable sense. In other words, there would be no thought as we know it and so no thought crime. Today it's internet, tv and newspapers, tomorrow it's your desktop, the day after, your home and in a few years, your children have no concept of home. Scary. All too real.
What we need to do is make a conscious decision to effectively protest this crime against America and technology by having a "Tech out" like if this gets passed that we just do our jobs like normal, but when we get home, don't sit in front of the screen. I know that's a lot to ask of people who live and breath by the I/O but there has to be an effective voice to speak out against our liberties getting trampled on in the name of freedom. As too often is the case, we are conscientious objectors with no active participation until there is no protection in place to allow participation. It happened to a very civilized Germany, It happened in Afghanistan, it happened in the former Soviet Union, it most certainly could happen here.
Speak up, speak loud and speak out.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
(the speech)
This has been moderated up as funny, but that kind of comment is EXACTLY why the ACLU will receieve no support from me, despite my general agreement with their principles, their goals, and their methods. They have NO CLUE how to communiate. I heard a local rep of the ACLU on the radio discussing a local issue, involving a racist-motivated closure of streets. On one side was a business person who sounded completely reasonable and reassuring and saying that there was NO bad intent behind what they were doing. On the other side was a fumbling idiot who asked loaded questions that were easily sidestepped by the businessman.
Now here we have an anti-terrorism bill that may have the effect of - gasp! - shutting down PETA, which is viewed be MANY Americans as an extremist group whose members throw blood on people and support blowing up labs where animal testing takes place. In other words, this anti-terrorist bill may extend the definition of terrorism to include groups that many view as borderline terrorists anyway. They are strictly preaching to the choir on this one, and it does NO ONE any good when you preach to the converted.
They all need a good course in corporate law and communications. They need to learn the same rhetorical weapons that the corporatists who are dismantling are freedoms are using. They need to learn to persuade the mass of sheep who are Americans that there really ARE dangers to civil liberties or they will start to be ignored as the extremists they seem to be. And that would be a crying shame.
God help us
The suspension of civil rights during war is ok ? what is happening here for christs sake.
Suspension of civil rights is NEVER acceptable. Full stop. What happened a month ago can happen again today or next week or next year, all the talk of rhetoric and sabre rattling and bombing will never ever change the simple fact that one or 2 determined people who believe in their actions can get around almost any security.
After vietnam one would think that the US would have learned this fact of life.
Terrible things happen in this world and innocent people die - horrific acts of pain and suffering, murder, torture, rape etc.
Allowing the government to take away ANY of your rights because in the heat of anger you think it its a goos idea is not only insane its EXACTLY how Hitler gained power in Germany with minimal real support, how Lenin took Russia etc.
We need to be vigilant today and toomorrow and forever to ensure that the democratic process is never circumvented for any reason - we choose the government and the government should always be answerable to the public - NO EXCEPTIONS
What do we do in years to come if we give up civil rights now and the government decides that in a state of emergency to suspend elections and habeas corpus, to declare martial law or other actions ?
All the planes in the sky and the troops on the ground cannot prevent this sort of action happening again and throwing away civil liberties and democratic processes show those in the world who claim the US is a bully that they have a point.
We should always ensure that the power this nation and its allies wield is applied fairly and honestly with restraint and compassion - there is no need for innocent people of ANY race to suffer in the pursuit of any group of people - and this includes the millions of innocent Afghanis who have suffered through nothing but war for almost 30 years.
Lets not give away our freedoms, not now not ever.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/10/ret.bush.media/in dex.html
It may seem like a good point. But what seems scary to me is that the Whitehouse has been trying to control slant and news since this thing has happened. The Bill Maher thing is one example, as is the fact that it was disproven that the Whitehouse and Airforce were targets that day, even though both Cheney and Rice insisted that it was true.
Something is up, and parnoid conspiracy theory aside, its getting pretty scary. Last night on Bill Maher, the republican strategist said that CNN was on the verge of being sued by the Gov for creating the Anthrax scare, cos they have been "right on the line of what the first amendment protects" (paraphrase, it was late). Its all too convienient if you ask me.
The War on Drugs has been responsible for massive amounts of federal asset seizures. I can't remember if it was Bush or Reagan, but one of 'em enacted a law that gave the federal law enforcement agencies the abillity to seize your goods if they even SUSPECTED you were involved in some form of drug trade or possession, and they don't have to disclose the "evidence" that led them to believe you were guilty. This resulted in a lot of innocent people taking it in the bung.
I see a parallel here in recent events. The government has just come up with another way to criminalize otherwise innocent people. We already have a greater percent of the population incarcerated than any nation (but, hey, it's good for the economy!).
The scariest thing, to me, is that if the government spent as much time and money trying to educate us about drugs, rather then spend it on propaganda, we might not have so many lives destroyed. Similarly, if we spent as much time and money on finding a peaceful solution to the terrorist problem, instead of bombing the hell out of people and whittling away at US Citizens' civil liberties, maybe we could get somewhere.
Meanwhile, I'm a bit scared that my political beliefs will get me thrown in a jail. Please, you may not agree that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanastan, and you may not agree with my politics, but every single American is in danger of losing our freedoms. And that's what we are supposed to be fighting for in the first place, isn't it?
Speak out!