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.

Comments

I am confident

[Apreche]

that one day, when the patriot act is finally challenged in the supreme court it will be destroyed.

Re:I am confident

[annewinston]

I might point out the the current administration is also appointing judges to the federal, and soon supreme courts. Unless people write their senators and complain the US courts will be filled with Bush-ites and legal challenges to the Patriot Act will be rejected. It's important not only to vote, but to persistantly inform those in power of your objections to all the new threats to our civil liberties.

Re:I am confident

[GlassHeart]

when the patriot act is finally challenged in the supreme court it will be destroyed.

Looks like the Supreme Court is becoming the first resort of the opponents of a law, be it the DMCA or the PATRIOT act. This is wrong.

The way things are supposed to work is to voice and consider these concerns before it is signed into law. Before it affects the life, liberty, and happiness of actual people. This is done by constituents voicing their concerns, and representatives acting on behalf of those concerns. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be in the business of correcting legislative stupidities (and in fact refrained from doing so in the Eldred case). The proper role of the Supreme Court is to clarify a law where lower courts have each reasonably come to different interpretations. They are, if you will, legal scholars with a final say.

You've basically replaced the rightful and designed role of hundreds of elected representatives with the peripheral role of a dozen justices appointed by Presidents. While I understand your frustration and lack of faith in your representatives, the risks here should be obvious.

Re:I am confident

[arkanes]

If our "representatives" would do thier goddamn jobs and live up to thier oath of office and stop passing obviously untenable legislation as a way of making political hay, then maybe we wouldn't need to go to the courts so often. This happens even more at the state level than the federal. Anyone who voted in favor of a bill that's declared unconstitutional should be removed from office because they've violated the oath of office. It's ridiculous.

Re:I am confident

[fishbowl]

Yes, the way it's supposed to work is the constituents are actively involved in the process of government. This is supposed to extend FAR beyond voting. We can't even be bothered to do the FIRST thing: the apathy vote carries every election from the smallest municipal bond to the federal lawmakers to the president. Why should we expect the people to actually participate (develop true relationships with politicians and/or parties... starting from when they are local politicians, and continuing these relationships into the national arena.).

Wait! A bunch of people ARE doing that... and guess what? They are creating a government that is an expression of their will!

If you have not been a part of that process, it is your fault. If you don't vote, your vote is for "whoever wins" which is distinct from a vote for "nobody". If you don't participate in a party organization, the party assumes the candidates they select are just hunky dory with you, and that you support whatever policies and platforms they decide to run with.

Too many people seem to have this idea that the political process begins and ends with a presidential ballot whenever the race comes around, and they don't even bother with it. The idea that the government is the net result of MANY, MANY smaller elections that they also did not participate in, is lost on them.

So, when the government that they didn't participate in goes in a direction they disagree with, the only thing they can think to do is protest. The understanding that the current government is the result of decades of work by people who have actively pursued it is lost in the noise of the notion that the entire US government is the result of a single botched presidential election. So people delude themselves with the fallacious notion that removing the president will fix everything. They choose not to recognize just how limited the president's powers actually are -- because then they would be forced to acknolwedge just how many OTHER people are in government that disagree with their views.

And then they don't show up for their mayor, state legislature, or bond elections... And they wonder why the government doesn't express the will of the people..

I say "it DOES."

Re:I am confident

[GlassHeart]

If our "representatives" would do thier goddamn jobs and live up to thier oath of office and stop passing obviously untenable legislation as a way of making political hay, then maybe we wouldn't need to go to the courts so often.

I agree. I'm just saying that voting them away is the designed solution to the problem. Relying on a side effect of an undesigned solution such as the Supreme Court means that things like the Eldred case get punted back to the Legislature.

Anyone who voted in favor of a bill that's declared unconstitutional should be removed from office because they've violated the oath of office.

Well, some laws live right on the border, so this is not a good solution, either. You need to consider that things like Affirmative Action, for example, may have been passed with the best intentions even though they are arguably unconstitutional.

Point is, people who look to the Supreme Court to correct bad laws are looking for short term solutions. This is bad because by the time a law does get struck down, it's already affected many people. Worse, many bad laws won't get struck down. What you really need to do is to either fix your representation system, or fix your citizenry so that they are less apathetic or ignorant.

The political system, like any system, needs maintenance. Your post hints at setting up an ideal automatic system (remove legislators who propose unconstitutional laws), and can only work as well as our foresight allows - which is to say, never as well as we'd like. Vigilance really is the price here.

Re:God willing.

[slimsam1]

Yeah, a few possible terrorists are caught at the tiny expense of the freedom and rights of 250+ million innocent people.

Re:That's if you'll retain the right to challenge

[joe52]

How are they going to stop you? Throw you in jail and not let you see a lawyer?

Oh wait...

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked.

[Keeper]

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?

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked.

[reelbk]

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.

Best Quote

[talleyrand]

"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

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.

How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars

[rzbx]

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.

Re:Not A Joke

[lavalyn]

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.

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked.

[mugnyte]

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

God willing it will Disappear!

[Dukeofshadows]

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.

Here in Parallel Logic Land

[SubtleNuance]

Here in Parallel Logic Land, after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Buildings...

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.

???

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 .sig

Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias

[Matrix272]

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.

If that wasn't enough--

[lysium]

Did anyone see the context in which the Patriot extension was raised?

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.

------

Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent

[Faramir]

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.

If you're tired, try FOX

[NickFusion]

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.

Re:i know how we look

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:Not general population's fault

[Guppy06]

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?

Re:Not A Joke

[Ryan Amos]

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.

Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin?

[Glock27]

The parent asks for a specific example, and you respond with a quote.

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