Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Terrorism Law Passed

Posted by timothy on from the a-little-temporary-safety dept.

Saratoga C++ writes: "Today (Oct 25) was the day that the US Senate voted on if to pass H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism law. I have the roll call for today from the Senate. The only person with a "Nay" vote was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Thanks Russ. The final turn out was Yes: 98, No: 1, No Vote: 1."

3 of 777 comments (clear)

  1. Did the time limit make it in? by melquiades · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I got lost in all the parlimentary process. The Senate voted for it with no expiration date; the house passed it, but with a presidential and subsequent congressional renewal clause in case of "unforseen abuses" (or forseen abuses, for that matter).

    I believe this final version passed with a (four-year?) expiration date, but I'm not sure I got that right.

    Does anybody have a definitive answer on this? (And no, "I heard X and Y" does not count. I'm talking about a link to and quote from a factually reputable news source.) If there is a time limit, what are the parameters?

  2. Commentary by dragons_flight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I tried submitting this story myself, but guess they didn't like my version, or he got it in first.

    Anyway, here's some commentary that I included with version I wrote:

    American Civil Liberties Union
    Center for Democracy and Technology
    Yahoo! News

  3. Re:Question... by firewort · · Score: 3, Interesting


    I'm taking my best shot at answering in the same spirit the question was asked- for inspiring debate.

    Civil rights are as much about what you can do, as what you cannot.

    Thanks to this legislation, you cannot be certain that your home, and any object in it has not been disturbed by law enforcement officials in your absence. Law Enforcement doesn't have to notify you before invading your home and going fishing through your personal property. (This is another chip off of the 4th amendment- before this legislation there'd have been a warrant that would have to be served to me.)

    Thanks to this legislation, if you have a guest over to your house, and he uses your telephone, you will never know if your phone has been tapped.
    (Please don't tell me about what kind of company I keep- I let people who've had auto accidents outside my house use my telephone.)

    Thanks to this legislation, I have no security in my person, house, papers, and effects against search and seizures conducted without a warrant issued under probable cause. I don't believe that law enforcement can determine probable cause, that's for a judge, and this legislation removes the need for a judge to make this determination.

    Traditionally, the bar for what's an unreasonable search was easy to understand- with few exceptions, almost any search conducted without a warrant was unreasonable. This bar has now been removed. Warrants had to specify exactly what was to be searched, and law enforcement could not just go fishing and hope to find evidence of a crime, as they now can.

    While I don't engage in any behavior I know to be illegal, ignorance of the law is no excuse in court, and without my knowing from notice of a warrant that I'm under suspicion, I cannot live freely with the knowledge that, at any time, I may be under investigation, or hauled in for a crime I did not commit, or an action I did not know was a crime.

    --