Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Campaign Challenges Patriot Act
Nept sent in a pointer to this story about the ACLU starting a media campaign challenging the PATRIOT Act. Good to hear.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Has anyone seen the "freedom... cherish ads" that have been going around lately? I delight in the irnoy of the one where the kid is led away by men in black suites for trying to check out a book in a library that is "inapropriate." I wonder how many people out there realize that the same administration who is beind these ads is trying to go down that particular path?
Yes, the FBI is just able to get the list of the books you've been reading, and I don't honestly forsee any books being banned in this country any time in the near future, but I still don't buy Ashcroft saying he welcomes debate on this issue. More likely, he welcomes a token debate that really won't go anywhere.
And as much as this keeps getting bantered about, I don't think that the American people actually care about forking over their civil liberties in the name of national security. Maybe when they realize that their private information can be used/abused for other purposes, we'll be able to have a real national debate on this issue, but until then, as long as Bush takes a cue from Mousallini and keeps the trains running on time, the number of people who would like to see USA PATRIOT re-examined is definitely in the minority.
I scanned the EFF piece, and nothing lept out that really bothers me. Take roving wiretaps for example. That had to be done because crooks were getting cell phones, using them for a while, then ditching them. Under the old system, they could only tap the phone, not the crook. If I have unwittingly invited the next Mohommad Atta into my kitchen to use the phone, go ahead, tap it.
I've got an open mind, but they are going to have to make a more compelling case against this. I seriously doubt the whole thing is bad. Perhaps there are a few line items that should go, but I haven't seen anything that leaps out as unconstitutional on its face. Campaign Finance Reform disturbs me far more than this, and as far as I know /. hasn't said a word about that.
I'll give ya' one thing though: USA Patriot Act is a stupid name for a law. Pulllleeeze! They should have called it the cute cuddly kitten, Mom and apple pie law. Just try to vote against that, why dontcha?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Hmm. I didn't see them getting pissed when Federal troops wiped out women and children in Waco.
I can see how most people would think that the military getting involved is a bad thing and the ACLU is an overactive bunch of liberals. However, you have to understand that it's a slippery slope to tread on. US law enforcement agencies have vast resources available to them to deal with situations such as this. The military is a sledge hammer by comparison. Or to quote the movie, The Seige: "The United States military is a sword when what you need a scapel". The only thing these orginizations have in common are guns.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
Say it violates civil liberties, but don't say it doesn't increase our security. I'd like to see that claim hold up. That's just a rationalization they make to make themselves feel 100% okay with their work.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said he welcomes the debate.
Just as long as they don't make me dance! Damn those liberals!
"The FBI isn't interested in spying on America,"
Just some of the people in it.
"It was a terrible mistake to extend these [powers] to the Internet," ... URLs can often reveal credit card numbers or specific information that a person is looking for on a search engine like Google,
A person's internet usage should be a "safe" place where a person can do whatever they want.
So, in conclusion, debate == good, stupid-talk == bad
I seem to see this frustration in a lot of people. They have a problem reconciling a war without an actual nationality we are to be at war with. All I can say is you might need to expand your horizons because non-national militant groups may be the most common foe we face in this new millenium. I think it was forward looking of congress to deal with this and they may not have gotten it perfect in the first draft but they rarely do with anything.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
The problem we face is defending our life and liberty in the face of new threats. It would seem that we have been wholly unprepared for the current terrorist threat and as expected our government has had to resort to reactionary measures. If this bothers you well then it should. Yes, some things have to change and something had to be done but not any cost. I would think that the next great champion of liberty will be the person who devises a system to deal with current threats without infringing on existing rights
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
I've never been prouder (more proud?) to live in Madison than I am now. Last night the city council voted to passed the "Resolution to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties," which removes the city and its services and subordinates from participating in the PATRIOT Act. Seventeen of the twenty alders voted in favor of the resolution, two voted against it, and one (the hard-right conservative who's been lightening up lately) abstained.
This is what an effective local democracy gives you: people who implement what you think and feel in the local legislative body. Considering that our city council has a near-majority of Greens/ Progressives, I can't wait until we get a true majority on board. Really good stuff (and a hell of a lot of work!) may start to happen.
Speaking of local democracy, there's a conference on that very subject coming up next month. Community Power 2002 will be bringing in people from England, Brazil, Santa Barbara CA, Pennsylvania, and Hartford CT to talk about their experiences with l.d. We'll be planning for it here in our county, and possibly other communities if we get enough people from another place to do it. Should be good!
-- haaz.
quote:
"I'm glad I live in a country where the ACLU can criticize me and vigorously debate the issues," Ashcroft says. "I consider it my job as attorney general to make sure that this and all our freedoms endure."
Well, he never says that HE is going to debate with the ACLU or even listen to them; only that they can debate and criticise him. It's a politician's truth.
And what 'freedoms' endure? For him and the system he represents, it's the freedom to take our freedoms away and entrench us in a beaurocratic madness that will probably take decades to unravel- if we even do. For us, it's the freedom to work hard our entire lives to support a government full of people like him.
yay.
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
A Rush Job
The bill is 342 pages long and makes changes, some large and some small, to over 15 different statutes.
No self-respecting programmer would write 342 pages of new code and put it into production after only a cursory review. Why is it that laws aren't beta tested? Why does it take such a huge momentum to get things fixed?
There is an interesting story about a man who has been a Canadian citizen for 15 years after moving from Syria when he was in high school. He was last month on his way back to Montreal he was routed through New York's Kennedy airport, two weeks later he was deported to Syria! Only after he was deported was the Canadian consolate contacted and no one has since been able to contact him. The US isn't just trampling over its own citizens rights but it is also violating the rights of citizens of other countries as well. And it will be interesting to see how the US plans to maintain its international support while trampling over other countries soverignty.
I stole this Sig
Viai d=141&page=3 ]
i d=141&page=3 ]
[ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?
Everyone has been deputized, and everyone is under scrutiny: Even the
librarians are watching. Last fall, the United States Government
Printing Office ordered the Boston Public Library to destroy a CD-ROM
deemed to contain sensitive data. When I visited the BPL to see the
shelf where Source Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water
Supplies in the Conterminous United States: An Information Resource
for Source-Water Assessment, 1999 once resided, the woman at the
government documents desk referred me to the library's press officer
-- who, after providing the information, apparently alerted the
authorities
[ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?
Why should the US declare war when the attackers don't? For the same reason that two wrongs don't make a right. Otherwise we're adding credibility to the arguments that the US is a "rogue state", lashing out at anyone we see fit, and that the rest of the world should fear and despise us.
How can we declare war against an enemy that resides inside no specifically defined borders? That's easy. Declare war against all members of Al Quaeda. Then work diplomatically with countries where we have some friends, and declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda.
Instead, we haven't even declared war against a group; we've declared it against a concept. "Terrorism". And the war looks to be permanent.
"and detaining citizenz, it'd be another matter."
You mean like this?
Hate to tell ya, but we're already there. Thank God some people (and some judges/Congresscritters) are starting to come to their senses about all this. People somehow seem to like rash overreactions in times of crisis, rather than clear, rational thought. It's absolutely amazing that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution ever came into being in such a time.
From the mentioned article, "Federal prosecutors disagree, saying Padilla, 31, is a DANGEROUS AGENT of AL QAEDA, the ISLAMIC TERRORIST group believed to be behind the SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS." (Emph mine)
Wow, in one sentence, we have 8 keywords: dangerous, agent, Al Qaeda, islamic, terrorist, september 11, terrorist, attacks. That's quite a feat, and pretty much the only justification for holding him in the first place. Hang on to your hats, folks... looks like "Dubyah" hired some M$ PR folks to spread his little FUD campaign to keep him riding high on his little power trip. A little side note to boot: Ashcroft made 17 television appearances in the 3 months before Padilla's "arrest", (he's a media-hound) and has made 1 in the three months after Padilla's arrest and his grand announcement on national TV about the "unfolding terrorist plot". Gee, sound like maybe he fscked up?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The point is, John Ashcroft is getting ye olde' fascist/nazi/hamburglar/etc/etc meme slapped at him because he is the easiest target. If you take a look at his actual record you find a different story (as long as you arent wearing ACLU beer goggles). As many times as I see Ashcroft's name mentioned on slashdot, it is almost always contained in some cheap swipe instead of a real criticism based on the facts of his record.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
Hey soldier, I served too. So what. You seem to miss the point of military service. You GIVE UP your rights (for a contracted period of time) to protect the rights of others. It's sad that you seem to have so much contempt for the Americans that you are protecting (by reading /.). So you have an understanding and appreciate the freedom? Good. How, then, can you in any way, support the loss of the freedom that you are paying for and so many have died for. You are right, "freedom aint free." Part of the payment is the courage to stand by our national ideals in the face of our aggressors.
-ignorant trolls piss me off
Although I support local Democracy, if you read our Constitution you see that most local rights are overriden by Federal laws. This is one of them. Your local resolution means nothing in force, merely that you are morally disagreeing with the Feds.
Most local items with the classification "resolution" are of this sort.
I just saw one of the new ACLU ads (real player required) on this page, and I almost went nuts. It absolutely slams Ashcroft, and I'm about ready to send in another donation on that note. Keep ads like those coming, ACLU, and I'll keep my money flowing. That's a promise.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I find this quote from the article disheartning
National security information is exempt from FOIA, Corallo notes, but the Justice Department will consider the ACLU's request to see if it can release some information.
this is in regards to a report being released to congress about the effectiveness of "the patriot act". Not only are we the people having are civil rights diminished for the sake of security but are also denied information on how effective these rules are in protecting us. My god, maybe the Federal government should just take away voting...they can't trust us with tools and information needed to make educated decisions so why not do the easy thing and just take away the right to make those desissions in first place.
Democracies die behind closed doors.
hook
For a detailed, non-hysterical analysis of the Patriot Act, look here.
"Me mule wouldn't work in the mud. So I had to put seventeen bullets in 'er!" - Willy
I don't have any problem with the idea that people should be able to own guns. What boggles my mind is that, in the face of pushing the limits of other constitutional protections, he refuses to impinge on the _privacy_ of gun ownership. For someone who doesn't even think there is a right to privacy, this is certainly a very new and creative reading of the constitution. We can track car ownership, but not ballistic fingerprints of weapons or gun sales? What the heck does that even have to do with the second amendment? Where does it say "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed... nor any data collected on the use of these arms?" There are reasonable efforts to protect people from eroding away the second amendment, and then there's flat-out nutty paranoia.
Wishing a terrorist attack on Madison because they do not hold the same narrow minded views as you is something I find despicable and ignorant but to flame is not constructive, so I offer you food for thought.
The patriots who setup the American constitution understood tyrants and the human failings of greed and power lust hence the checks and balances therein. If these checks and balances are removed for whatever excuse, I would certainly smell a rat. Members of the Congress & Senate pledge an oath to uphold the constitution when taking office however; they have just granted Bush the ability to declare war which the constitution clearly forbids and I think this spells trouble.
Everything isn't a cut and dried as you or Bush like to make out, this simplistic view of the world where there are good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats is childish and ignorant yet you tell others to grow up.
Some Americans who have retained some critical thinking abilities are realising the people in the white house hijacked a nations grief to throw the nation in to a perpetual war. People like you label these anti-American but let me ask you this: When has it ever been American to blindly follow a leader?
Real people will die in the upcoming war against Iraq, real families will grieve for the loss of loved ones and for what? OIL.
Here are a couple of links If terrorists did attack Madison, after going against the Ashcroft patriot act, who would it really help? Certainly Would remind me of the Lavon Affair or maybe closer to Operation Northwoods.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
Also, they are absurdly easy to alter. Simply firing a couple hundred rounds will change the markings such that they will no longer match the first bullet fired.
I'm not a scientist either, but I did take an intro to forensics course once.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
read the Bill of Rights he made it all the way up to . . . One. Either that or his mother simply told him, " Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you," and he listened to his mother for once.
His appreciation of, indeed his very awareness of, the remaining nine seems to be shakey at best.
He certainly stopped reading before he got up to Four. The courts are finally starting to bitch slap him around a bit over this. His response? Ignore court orders.
Yeah, there'a a guy who believes firmly in the rule of law. Right.
KFG
We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.
Testimony of Attorney General John Ashcroft
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
(NOTE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEN DEVIATES FROM PREPARED REMARKS)
December 6, 2001
Senator Russell D. Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has been the Senate's most resolute critic of the administration's antiterror proposals, quickly took on Mr. Ashcroft over his testimony that criticism of the administration "gives ammunition to America's ene
mies, and pause to America's friends." He asked the attorney general if the series of Senate hearings culminating in today's session was somehow aiding the enemy. Mr. Ashcroft blandly replied that he welcomed the Senate hearings as proper oversight. "We need reasoned discourse as opposed to fear-mongering," he said. "This is the place where reasoning and discourse take place."
Ashcroft Defends Antiterror Plan and Says Criticism May Aid Foes
Goot point. Note that the Congress Posse Comitatus already has the rules in place too. It is not a situation where a special bill will be required whenever a plane needs to be launched.
BTW, the restrictions are not fuzzy either. When I was actually in uniform, we could drive/fly civilian law enforcement wherever they needed to go, but we could not even so much as direct traffic (on civilian streets) when we got there. Same with other missions.
The National Guard could fly BATF/DEA/local cops all over, but firing a weapon other than in self defense, even to destroy contraban, was prohibited.
In this case, the military is flying an airplane around and cops are in the plane getting information on suspected vehicles gathered by the military. Can't get into much more of a support role than that.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Don't forget that cars don't have to be licensed unless they're intended to be driven on public roads.
Simple purchase: No legal requirements for a car; to purchase a gun typically requires a background check, a waiting period, etc.
To operate on your own private property: Car use is unrestricted, and requires no licence or registration; guns involve numerous restrictions.
Use on public roads: This is the case where licence and registration (and sometimes insurance) is required for a car; use of a gun in the same situation is a criminal offense.
In what situation, exactly, are licencing restrictions easier for guns than cars?
Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress to approve declarations of war against... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia, and about a dozen or so other countries I can't think of offhand.
You're being sarcastic, but I absolutely agree with your statement.
We don't have to declare war on all of them simultaneously; wars fought on multiple fronts are rarely successful. But maybe after a couple of governments get overthrown for supporting the killing of innocents, the rest of the world might wise up and stop condoning terrorism.
No civilized society can condone terrorism, and those that do must change their ways. If countries do not take care of it themselves with policy change, they must be taken care of by force.
Even if this leads to another world war, it is justified if terrorism is eradicated from the Earth.
So simply accusing someone of a crime is enough to deny due process.
I hope you get accused of a serious crime and get severely fucked over.
I personally think that we could be much harsher on criminals, I don't really care that much for those that commit certain crimes.
However before we throw away the key, lets make sure they're guilty.