Slashdot Mirror
Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent
955301 writes "As if it was unexpected, the New York Times (free reg...) has an article on attempts by our Congressional Republicans to eliminate the expiration of the Patriot Act. Everyone may thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah for getting this 9/11 snowball rolling, and the general population for our current leadership." There's another story in the SF Chronicle.
that one day, when the patriot act is finally challenged in the supreme court it will be destroyed.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Yeah, a few possible terrorists are caught at the tiny expense of the freedom and rights of 250+ million innocent people.
...
How are they going to stop you? Throw you in jail and not let you see a lawyer?
Oh wait...
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
And how many years before 9/11 did we go without a terrorist act? And how many years before that were we hit by a terrorist act enacted by people who are not American citizens?
So how do you come to the conclusion that the Patriot Act works?
Sweet tap dancing Christ!
I have a rock that keeps tigers away. I haven't seen any tigers lately, so it must be working fairly well.
- A real programmer uses $ cat > a.out
Riiight. So you will only speak on the condition of anonymity but all ordinary citizens are expected to forfeit that right? I'm sure the irony of that situation will go unchecked.
"My fingers Emit sparks of fire in Expectation of my future labours." William Blake
Anyone remember the last Star Wars movie? The part where the Chancelor (I think) was given supreme power to build a clone army and he said afterwards he would step down. Isn't it sad when power is meant to be instituted upon an individual or group for a limited time, but when that individual or group gains that power they suddenly realize "hey I like this, I wanna keep it." The power of corruption with those in power is amazingly strong. Even worse fact is that those in power don't really think that what they are doing is wrong. We can't allow them to just extend an Act because they feel it is right. The people I'm sure don't feel like it is right.
Question everything.
One thing about "rights" is that for normal people to get them usually involves war, death, revolution, and lots of beheadings.
Rights like the access to a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time. To be represented in court with a competent lawyer in the field. To be proven of guilt by a jury of peers.
Rights like anonymous freedom of speech. Anonymous freedom of association. And anonymous dissemination and learning of information.
What rights we lose now we will eventually regain in the mass deaths of some group. But that's just a "terrorist" act in and of itself.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
So by this argument, and the discussion that will follow, upon the next act of terrorism on US soil that succeeds without prior detection will prove this Act misguided?
I doubt it. This thing is here to stay. Until some progressive leadership realizes our immigrant population is dwindling because of harassment. "Thank God" the nationalists cry. But lets not forget, these are the people are outrank us in any tests of the maths and sciences, and they include some of the best entrepreneurs we have.
Why not outsource then? If I can pay for the same skills overseas, I'll take it. Not all skills are outsourcable, I've commented on this already. What a great help to the EU and Asia! We're going to pump more corporate dollars overseas, meanwhile we try to shut down the surreptitious church funds and money transfer shops. Ironic.
We're closing ours doors through fear. The effects are going to be subtle and long-felt. There's a marketing aspect here. Each time, regardless of usage, the Ashcrofts of the administration argue for "war time infrigements", we're fueling a isolationist platform. History has proven these moves to be limiting to only growth, and not much good otherwise.
mug
and do the following:
s/communism/terrorism;
s/USSR/Al Qaeda;
s/Russia/Iraq;
and you will see what the United States is about to become again.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
The PATRIOT is our most anti-constitutional act to date that most people can name. By nature of the erosion of liberties contained within it becomes quite possible to violate several aspects of the 4th amendment (among many others) to the point that they may as well negate it. Our government seems hell-bent on amassing as much power as it possibly can. With Ashcroft et al. in charge of defending our liberties, I can only hope that someone in government will wake up and propose a counter-act to this. That we stand by and have allowed this to occur is miserable, that government continues to exploit it borders on criminal. Laws are not always inherently moral, and this law is among the greatest examples of how ethics and law do not always correlate. How many "terrorists" this law has caught may never be known since the government has not authorized release of information of the people involved. Secret trials, evidence allowed based on word-of-mouth and witness testimony only, and imprisonment without due process are against the Constitution but allowed under the PATRIOT act. This fascist law must be eliminated to protect our nation's freedoms and prevent our overbearing, paternal government from becoming merely a Big Brother.
We cannot allow this to continue. I will be writing my Congressmen and saking others to do the same. Laws like this are how Hitler, Mussolini, and numerous other dictators got started. Law is built on precedence, so if we allow this to continue the envelope will be pushed until new even more intrusive laws are allowed. Seriously, if we are allowed to treat non-citizens like lawbreakers without reprisal, how long will it be before we are allowed to treat citizens like lawbreakers mere for speaking against the government? Oregon is already proposing legislature that would allow peace protestors to be arrested on terrorism charges. How long before this is carried nationwide?
Our rights are under serious threat from a government led by certain people that thirst for power. If we don't act now, it may well be illegal to act later. Call your reps and senators, spread the word, and let's try to kill this thing now before it becomes permanent law.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
The ACLU is too busy making sure no schoolchildren do anything to celebrate Christmas, and persecuting anyone who believes in a Christian god. They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.
You misunderstand the purpose of the ACLU. They defend civil liberties equally for Americans of all races and religions. If you are a member of religion X and the government does something that (likely uses your money) to endorse religion Y, you have a problem. This is where the ACLU steps in.
I assume you're Christian, so I imagine you would be offended if the government insisted that public schools engage in Buddhist meditations every morning. Now imagine how a Buddhist would feel if he had to participate in Christian prayers every morning. You get the picture yet?
The ACLU interprets the Constitution and the rights and liberties protected by it. They work to support it without bias. One of those freedoms is freedom of (and from) religion.
Join Tor today!
Christian Churches were banned because they were breeders of Terrorists.
White Men with short haircuts were interviewed by the CIA to determine their Official Level of Loyalty.
The military was disbanded because it gave Would-be-Terrorists skills and training to do their work.
???
.sig
Oh wait, back in Reality, Totalitarianism and Fear Mongering only works when the boogie-man is OUTSIDE the borders and easily picked-out...
America has always loved to rally in hate against an Enemy, how lucky this new one is so Evil(tm). Read my
"Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent"
Well that's not at all accurate.
It's not been voted on. Hell all the articles about this story state clearly "the move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress." Or that "Congressional Republicans, working with the Bush administration, are maneuvering to make permanent."
Where are we at in this process? Is the President signing it? Hell no it's being discussed. Discussed, not being voted on as we speak, discussed.
The best part is down at the bottom of the SF Gate piece.
"But political jockeying over separate, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., appears to have given Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected. The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, such as a terrorist group."
What about that nut who shot up the Airport in CA last July 4?
What about the DC sniper?? Those dudes ran around a highly populated metro for nearly a month before they got nabbed on a lucky break.
Neither was prevented by this act that was SPECIFICALLY designed to combat this type of "lone wolf" terrorists.
And, BTW, I don't care what the media calls them; these two examples are terrorist acts.
CNN? The Clinton News Network? Yeah... they're not biased at all... *sarcasm* Are you serious? Get a life and forget about world issues entirely? My god. You're actually advocating a dictatorship by saying that. Think about it. If everybody "forgot about world issues", then nobody would care what the government did, and a dictatorship would eventually arise, like it always does when nobody stops them. The only way to change things for the better is to NOT forget about issues.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Another secret warrant law, this one to help speed the capture of "lone wolves," that is, terrorists who work without affiliation to a terrorist group. See the problem here? This is all about targeting individuals and making it even more secretive than it already is.
The decent into madness continues, unabated.
------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
that Gore wouldn't have done the same thing, had he won.
For those who don't have time/inclination to read the article: Congress is not making the PATRIOT act permanent. The article says that Orrin Hatch is attempting to make the act permanent. Many Congressmen agree; many disagree. Let your representatives know what you think. But know that this is not in the works already. This article's title is horribly misleading.
At the risk of my karma:
Liberal bias in Slashdot. Bah. Set up another straw man, I'm tired of hearing about liberal bias. Have you looked out the window recently? This country is so far right, we can't see left from here.
If it's really a burden for you, there are plenty of sources for you. I would recomend FOX and CNN for starters. They are very right-friendly, and you will feel very comfy there. No one will question government motives, no one will ask embarrasing questions about corporations. You can safely dream that this is the same country portrayed in "Leave it To Beaver."
Thanks for stopping by, and sorry for making all this liberal noise about rights & privacy. I mean really, what were we thinking?
As a final note, I'd caution you about the internet, it's a rough neighborhood, and you may bump into some ideas that aren't the same as yours. I wouldn't worry though, It'll all be cleaned up in a couple of years. I hear Disney's buying it.
What were you expecting?
You should learn from europe. We had our own internal "terrorist groups" to deal with, but we never stoped being a somewhat carefree society, oposed to the current state of North-American paranoia. Try visiting europe *preferably with a Canadian passport right now*, and you can feel the lack of fear in the air, other than the concern about the current US administration. We dont give more importance to any "terrorist" than we would give to "organized crime" and "serial killers".
The difference is pretty moot.
when i got home and raised the alarm, people accepted it mutely, almost like sheep. no one seemed to care
you are close. go visit a slaughter house and watch the cows marching in to their doom. they AREN'T forced they happily line up and walk in to their death because they are conditioned to their entire lives.
This is the general american public.
welcome to america.. Mooooooooo.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What did the Supreme Court have to do with the 2002 election?
All of you had the chance to vote out any and every House member that supported the USA PATRIOT Act. Many of you also had the ability to get rid of any Senator. And yet you don't want any of the blame, you want to blame the Supreme Court that "appointed" President Bush, the very same president that has yet to veto anything Congress gave him since his term began. If you quit bitching about the 2000 election for five minutes and realized that this White House has literally allowed Congress to do whatever it damned well pleased, you might have seen this law coming to begin with.
I also find it amusing that you blame the Electoral College, when the people, allowed to vote without thinking thanks to the Seventeenth Amendment, were the ones that overwhelimingly supported the incumbents that composed and passed the USA PATRIOT Act to begin with. Hey, it's not like over 90% of the folks you got to elect directly supported the bill or anything...
No, what we have here is not a "break down" of democracy. The USA PATRIOT Act happened because of democracy! Both chambers of Congress are full of people who got their position not because of merit, but because they looked good on TV and had catchy campaign slogans. Why should they avoid knee-jerk reactions when they're there because of knee-jerk reactions? For the USA PATRIOT Act, you can thank both yourselves and your 1913 compatriots that gave you the ability to shoot yourselves in the foot like this to begin with.
Did you even vote last year?
You're right, there are better reasons why those are bad. More like they're EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN by the constitution. Neat trick they pulled though, you can't challenge the PATRIOT act as unconstitutional because you're effectively tried by secret tribunal.. i.e. no way for it to get to the supreme court to be ruled unconstitutional.
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. ;-)
The question remains, what liberties are you referring to?
Amendment 1: Free speech.
Amendment 4: Privacy
Ever hear of the Total Information Awareness program, for instance?
Or can you name none?
The main problem with it is that it continues (not starts) down the slippery slope of eliminating important Constitutional freedoms.
How will you feel when the government installs a video camera at the bottom of your driveway...just to make sure you're not involved with any terrorist activities? Or when GPS-enabled cell phones become mandatory so your location can be tracked at all times if the phone is used? Or when you must submit a DNA sample to the government so your identity can be verified at any later date? Or the government begins tracking all your purchases and finances to ensure you're not involved with terrorism? Or when the government monitors all domestic phone conversations and email for suspicious phrases? You don't have anything to hide do you?
America was NOT founded with that type of lifestyle in mind...quite the opposite! We'd better nip this kind of thing in the bud if we don't want lose our basic freedoms. Especially when losing those freedoms most likely will do little, if anything, to effectively deal with terrorism.
For my money, one of the most effective ways to deal with terrorism would be to get the highest possible percentage of the population to carry concealed weapons...but perhaps that's just me. ;-)
I'll finish off with two more quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
--Patrick Henry
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
[The Patriot Act] grants the executive branch almost police state powers,
How do you justify the word "almost" in that sentence? In the USA today, the government can make people simply disappear. The USA already imprisons a larger fraction of its population than any other developed country, and the Patriot Act has barely started to have an effect. What more do you want before you are willing to describe the USA as a police state?
Judging by the voter turnout, the general population voted to sit on the couch and watch the results on TV, as usual.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Here's a brief rundown - it's the idea that people are important. That by being a member of society, you have an obligation to all the other members of that society. That people should work together to provide for the common good. You would be dead right now if it weren't for the things you're poo-pooing. You didn't educate yourself - nobody does. You can't.
I DO work 60 hours a week (often) with no overtime. I'm forced into that work model because this country treats people as a resource rather than citizens, and thus I'm expected to compete to keep my job. I'm sure your father is a very worthwhile person, but it's a simple fact of economics that not everyone can be successfull - in fact most people can't. Think about it sometime. And, to a liberal, that fact means that we have an obligation to make sure that our own ambition doesn't take the food from anyone elses mouth or the roof from over thier head.
I don't have any solid figures, but I would be astonished if I were wrong when I said that 90% of the people making over, say, 100k a year (not rich, but upper middle class) came from (at least) lower middle class backgrounds. This is where your taxes go - to provide opportunities for people without rich parents.
Now, it's not done perfectly and I'm as annoyed as you with the amount of taxes taken out of my check, although military spending accounts for more of it than anything else, so if you support that you might want to re-think your ranting. But the principles, the concepts that lead to this sort of thing, are perfectlly sound, and, in fact, are one of the reasons our country even still exists. Take a look at history, with the massive gap (far more than in America today, although it's growing) in the standard of living between the upper class and the poor. The American Dream was the rise of the middle class.
Guessing from the synopsis of your life story, I'd bet that you've never been truly poor - that while you may have worked hard, you've never needed to make choices like whether to feed your children or clothe them. Those are hard choices - the kind that nobody should ever have to make, and they pretty much take the wind right our of arguments like "work harder and everything will be okay".
If you were TRULY a libertarian, you'd want to do away with inheritence. Think you have what it takes to make it on your own? How about, at birth, all children are placed in a big pit (we can use Texas) and only the strongest are able to dig themselves out. That way, your parents won't provide you with anything. Your success won't be measured by the accidents of your birth.
Lastly, let me just address this little tidbit of bullcrap: ""Liberals" believe that the government should take care of the people, and the people should thank and worship the government."
Bunk. Liberals believe that the goverment should take care of the people, period. It's that simple. I certainly don't worship or thank my government, but my social beliefs are liberal by any definition. I believe it's my obligation, as it is yours, that by being a member of society, and a citizen of this nation, to support everyone. To provide for common education. To provide a path for people to better themselves. The "free market" does not and cannot do any of this, because it inherently does not produce a profit.
The "War on Terrorism" is a power play, just like the "War on Drugs" is. Each is used as an excuse to furter erode our rights and freedoms. Each is used to increase the powers of the Executiv Branch at the expense of the others. Each is used to grant even greater powers to law enforcement agencies. Each is used to remove judicial oversight from the actions of law enforcement.
The War on Drugs is a dismal failure. Drug use has not abated. The War or Terror(ism) will also be a failure. It will not make the world a safer place. But neither of these "wars" was meant to do what they told us they were for.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
My brother, 13, recently went to a mock UN conference for middle school students. The question under debate was biased reporting in the media about Islam. The suggested resolution that a committe of several dozen of these young teens came to was that some limited censorship of the media by the UN would be an acceptable price to pay to get rid of bias in the media. These were all intelligent kids, who know far more about the political world (they still remember their American history classes and like learning about international subjects) than most adults. They're all well-meaning, idealistic young people. Yet, the still made a very stupid resolution. My point is that it does not take dumb people with evil intentions to make bad laws. Rather, it takes exeptional people with the noblest of intentions to make good ones. Something important like the Patriot act should not be written under duress. Decisions about how long it should last should not be made in the middle of a patriotic frenzy during a war. The rather low-caliber individuals already in Congress are barely qualified as it is to write something this important. Having them do it, under these conditions is a sure recepie for disaster. If we need any law right now, we need one that prevents the government from making permanent legislation during times of war.
In summary: the Constitution is hard to amend because the founding fathers realized that few of their sucessors would be up to the task of changing such an important document. Only those that can convience not only a majority that voted for them, but most of those that didn't as well, should be able to make such a change. Only those people are qualified enough to do so.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...