Slashdot Mirror
HomeSec In the News
The U.S. Homeland Security bill is steamrolling through Congress, on target to be passed within a couple of days. Since its passage is guaranteed, in whatever form it finally ends up, lawmakers are attempting to tack on their own pet projects to the bill so they can ride its coattails. A CNet article mentions that a version of the Cyberspace Security Enhancement Act has been appended to the HomeSec bill. William Safire blasts the addition in the New York Times. The Times has another story on the bill that notes some of the corporate pork that is also being added to the bill.
The president needs a line-item veto. Bush Sr. wanted it. Didn't get it. Clinton wanted it. Didn't get it. Until the president has the ability to veto the individual components of a piece of legislation, we'll always have this type of pork.
I'm sorry for saying this. It's not constructive and rather anti-US, I suppose.
But from all the things that look stupid about US politics from this side of the ocean, this phenomenon of tacking on loads of totally unrelated stuff to some bill must be the worst.
Has any politician who did this ever defended this process in public? Is there one politician left who takes this whole democracy thing seriously?
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Don't even try to put all of the blame for this on Republicans. Democrats and Republicans are equal opportunity pigs when it comes to piggyback legislation.
Bush Jr. (or any other president) would only use the veto to kill of the other side's pork and goodies, not his own. I'd also expect it to be widely abused by whoever's in power to promote their own political agenda, rather than for the good of the people to eliminate non-germane pork.
Corporate freebies tacked onto bills in the current environment will be allowed to stay, since they paid the current President and party for them.
Wow... The same site that screams FUD when it comes to an OS will allow this kinda post every day. IT's sad.
Keep in mind that the newly elected congress hasn't started yet. Yes, this is still a democratic majority that is letting this happen.
--nw
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
It seems George Orwell was off by about twenty years....
Reminds me of the law for luddites at the turn of the century .. it was called the "life for a loom" law. Basically, destroy a loom, and you die.
Typically, when people use technology in ways unforseen or unwanted by lawmakers (I'm not arguing that cracking systems is moral, but there are cases where it isn't immoral.), the punishment isn't really meant to suit the magnitude of the crime. Its mean to scare the shit out of would-be hackers.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Well, it's very important to have the punishment fit the crime. After all, killing people deserves like 5 years in prison, whereas r00ting a box deserves what, life?
Clearly, the punishment fits the crime.
</Sarcasm>Beware he who would deny you access to information,
for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
But then after complaining about Liberal being equated with a host of slurs, you insinuate a few of your own about the Conservative label.
Conservatism
Please, if you're going to gripe about labels, at least don't engage in the behaviour yourself.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
WADR,
The thread is about un-checked power. I find it more than ironic that the same Conservative idealoges, like Safire, who a few days ago were gloating over the so-called Democrat debacle and basking in the sunshine of pending tax cuts, now see that the Right Wing of the Republican Party and his Conservative/Libertarian instincts, are not the same thing.
If the Federal Government gets these new functions to collect information, it will be just the first step in a series of new powers that could lead to a social, political and cultural disaster in this country. Every year in the US tens of thousands of people die driving cars. It is tragic, and it has never had a direct effect on our personal freedoms and rights. Over a year ago 3,000 people parish, just a tragicly as the car deaths, from an act of terroism that has effected many other places in the world, but came here for the first time with a bang, and almost overnight our personal freedoms and rights under the Constitution are under seige. Is the Right Wing of the Republican party that opportunistic, or is this a co-ordinated attempt to re-order society to fit a venal and dangereous ideal of how humans should live their lives? It is time for men and women of good will to start asking these questions and demand answers. If we don't, forums such as this one could become a thing of a past we will be damned for not protecting.
I'm no great Safire fan -- he is occasionally credibility impaired (he makes things up), his defense of Israel verges on blindness, he continually tries to rehabilitate his former employer Nixon, and so on. But on occasion he leaps out with the ferocity contained in the NYT column to defend civil liberties -- in the libertarian get-the-hell-out-of-my-backyard-you-government-spi es tradition -- and gets it right, in the morally correct sense. Because he has credibility with the right, his words here carry much greater political influence that a stack of Mother Jones and The Nation reaching to the Moon. And I am grateful for his courage; he could just as easily sit it out, or mouth the sonorous rah-rah rant of the police state crowd.
Ensure to us citizens a country of security -- but without devastating our own. I have seriously begun to contemplate using cash more than traceable credit, and I'm not particularly paranoid, and yes I "don't have anything to hide." I just don't like buying a bag of Fritos wondering whether it will eventually raise my health insurance premiums because I don't eat right. Don't laugh, it could happen, in a thousand ways less fritoless (er, frivolous) than my example.
Thanks.
Is there any legitimate reason for the US's current process to ammend a bill.
Of course there are - legislators need some ability to edit the legislation that is submitted to them from the committees. BUT, there are also many illegitimate uses of the ammendment process as well. Since the threshold is lower to pass an ammendment than a stand-alone bill you can abuse it in ways that have nothing to do with editting a bill to make it better. If you want something that wouldn't pass on it's own you can tack it on to a completely unrelated bill that will pass (usually something absolutely essential like the spending authority - no one is going to shut down the entire US government just to kill your little pet issue). If you don't like an otherwise popular bill you can tack on unpopular ammendments to ensure it's defeat.
This is why Presidents like the idea of a line-tem veto they can strip out all the special interest clutter without killing the entire bill. Of course that adds a lot of Legislative power to the Executive branch in a way that can also be abused. It would be better if ammendments had to at least show some degree of relatedness to the bill in question. But who would decide which ammendments were legitimate or not? You know that power would be abused. And the ammendment we are talking about here would obviously pass such a test - as wrongheaded as it is it is certainly pertinant to a homeland security bill.
It's called compromise. ["]I'm on the edge on this bill, but...if you give this to my state/pet issue you have my vote[."]
That's not called compromise, that's called bribery.
The way it should work: "I'm on the edge on your bill, but... if you agree to vote on my (different) bill, you have my vote on yours."
Unrelated bills and laws should not be tied together for any reason. If you can't get enough votes for your bill, then maybe there's something wrong with the bill, and then it should be discussed so a better solution can be found - and the better solution should not involve an unrelated issue.
There really oughtta be a constitutional amendment to outlaw or discourage bills that address more than one issue... Or something...
Umm which party was it that has had senators step down and presidents questioned over illegal campaign contributions? Yes that would be the Democrats I believe.
... sure.
/soapbox
I don't think it matters what side of the aisle you are on there are illegal corporate goings ons within the parties.
I'm tired of that same huge wide brush that gets painted over and over again, Republicans are for the rich, the corporations and right wing that want to remove abortion! (nevermind the conservative justices on the supreme court have upheld it) and the Dems are for the little guy, the average joe and the environment, think of the children! vote for the Dems! Funny how top ranking Dems *cough*Al Gore*cough* and interestingly enough the Entertainment industry use that brush the most. Hmmm they don't have an agenda at all do they? Just out for the little guy
Then when the citizens of this country (however dumb you may think they are) voted the Republicans into power, all the Dems got their panties in a tizy and Al Gore came on TV and cried how unfair it was. (Not that I'm saying the Republican's wouldn't have done the same).
The problem with politics in this country is that somewhere along the way the politians started putting Party before Country and People. Washington wonders why there is such division in the country. I say its because all the people who vote have a vested interest in one party or the other and no one else cares. If they want to see the apathy go away then both parties need to put the people back in power. Senators and Representatives need to stop listening to the special interest groups and educate themselves on the issues
Finally the Party system should go away. I don't believe the original framers wanted political parties. They wanted individuals chosen by the people. We need to get rid of this Dem/Republican crap once and for all.
The Anti-Blog
As a concerned 11th-generation American, I'm completely aghast at this latest bit of totalitarian legislation. Evidently, the CSEA (and the USA PATRIOT Act, for that matter) won't require *any* government agency to have "probable cause" to read/acquire anyone's personal information anymore. The Executive Branch will not even have to report to the Judiciary or Legislature on its frequent-as-you-like cyber-dragnets. Just in case you Americans out there on /. weren't aware of it, the United States Constitution is supposed to protect you from this sort of unfettered tyrannical power. Here's the text of the Fourth Ammendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
("and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" - well, I guess if we don't bother with the warrants anymore, it's not really violating the Constitution, now is it?)
Granted, the Founding Fathers didn't include "emails" in the text. However, any reasonable interpretation of the intent of this Ammendment must include emails and other personal communications (as these protections had been extended to telephone conversations).
Our government now has unlimited powers. My tax collector and the Dept. of Education may get to snoop into my private life at will. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we no longer have a Rule of LAW in this nation. We now have a Rule of POLITICS. The politicos, the senators and congressmen who may pass this anti-American rubbish into law, should they do so, will be in direct violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
We are now ruled by the lawless (viz Adm. Poindexter, convicted felon). And by the time We The People give a damn, Soviet Russia will look libertine in comparrison!
I just hope I don't get arrested for saying that one day.
"Sic transeunt omnia."