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.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm glad I'm Canadian.
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!
This is not a joke, just a question. What is wrong with the patriot act. Not crazy leftwing ideas but real examples of how this is so bad that any reward in stopping criminal acts is NOT worth the costs.
I have no opinion on it yet but look forward to reading yours.
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...
That chilling effect you feel is not your lack of trousers...
I wear pants.
Can you back this up? Can you document how many terrorists have now been caught that wouldn't have been caught without it? Kindly provide links.
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
His support for this is neither a surprise or unexpected. Look for him to sponsor if not introduce Partiot II in the next year.
He has been named several times as a possible replacement for any of the retiring Justices. He now has to prove himself conservative enough to ensure his legacy and a possible shot at the Chief Justice's seat.
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
Oh, wait. I said WAI......
You could've hired me.
...join in the ACLU.
--Bruce F.
There are no giant squids within a thousand miles of here. Either my anti-squid paperweight works or the squids have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
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.
So we've had the patriot act for about a year and a half now. The best justification I read in the article was that it MIGHT have "allowed the F.B.I. to get a warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui." There's a big difference between MIGHT have and definately would have.
Somehow I don't feel any safer.
----
Squirrel
But didn't the general population vote for Gore?
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
The parent asks for a specific example, and you respond with a quote. The question remains, what liberties are you referring to? Or can you name none?
Um, no. Everyone may thank five citizens and an obsolete and outmoded Consitutional body for the current leadership. See what you get when you let democracy break down, people?
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
I'll second Keeper.
And make a few observations of my own.
We (meaning the U.S., Britain and allies) are in the process of defeating a country that tightly controlled its people. We did the same to the late Soviet Union -- another nation that practiced tight control of its citizens.
Many historians argue that the Roman empire fell because it moved from a laissez faire model -- we don't care what you do as long as you don't try to sack Rome -- to trying to run peoples' lives.
Tyranny works -- briefly. Then it destroys.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
I just became a card carrying member. What about you guys? I am sure most of us can spare $35 dollars.
Join Tor today!
recently i got the chance to visit japan for two months. while i was there (august 30th - november 4th) i got a different look at the US. i heard the hubbub around the snipers from a completely different angle, and watched as the patriot act was passed.
when i entered japan, the things important enough to be mentioned in english were: no firearms, drugs, intoxicants or pornographic articles. going back into america i had to take my compass out of my math bookbag, empty my tolietries kit and get rid of my scissors. it's completely ridiculous to do things like this to 13-14 year olds that only want to get back home. i decided then and there that something wasn't right. when i got home and raised the alarm, people accepted it mutely, almost like sheep. no one seemed to care that they could be taken away without any trial if the government wanted to, or that their isp could be forced to reveal weblogs or ip traffic from their account.
i figure, since im already going to school where there are mostly 13 year old sheep, new zealand won't be much of a change..
At least the war on the environment is going well
Maybe they're just assuming all geeks are intelligent?
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
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.
It's much easier for our government to protect our freedoms if you're willing to give up all but a few, so that they need only concentrate on protecting those few.
The Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Period!
... and things like this will only lead to the same end ...
... and if laws like this are not repealed, then other laws with similar or worse implications will slowly be approved. The people simply won't tollorate it!
... Patriot Act III: The gov't has the right to put cameras on every street corner, business, and suspected terrorist's home???
.... so if you don't report your USE tax (state taxes for purchasing items on the internet w/o paying taxes at the time of purchase), then you're going to jail for atleast 5 years since the purchase was made encrypted and, if you fils your taxes online, that was encrypted as well! Also (I don't want to protect hax0rs, but ...) if you break into a server using SSH, there is 5 years as well!!
... yet another reason the US "system" is in need of serious reform ... to prevent businesses from "funding" politicians to get these kind of crazy laws passed!
Seriously, it was another "Act" that was passed by King George all those years ago that severely limited our freedoms that caused a revolution in this country
As soon as this terrorist thing cools off a bit, this "Act" will be revisitied and decalred unconstitutional.
Any "law" that gives the government the right to spy on people will not last
I understand the need for security, but this has gone too far! What is next
Now I know this is a bit off topic, but this "Patriot Act" series has to come to a screeching halt! PA II, not yet passed, allows the US government the right to add 5 years onto a jail sentence just for using encryption when commiting a "crime"
These "patriot" acts are just another example of big business paying off politicians to get rediculous laws into place that will protect their interests (even though it may LOOK like they are protecting the people).
To the US gov't: Stop wasting time on this kind of stuff and go find bin Laden!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
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.
Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."
Homer: "Thank you, dear."
Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn't work."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
</obSimpsonsReference>
Too late to be known as Bush the First, he's sure to be known as Bush the Worst.
The Patriot Act is a tax on civil liberties. Perhaps it is necessary. But we must demand at least as much proof of its necessity and review of its impact as we would a new tax. To require cost benefit analyses is *not* saying that it should be abolished, unless it cannot withstand scrutiny. And if it can't, why have it? If you're going take civil liberties out of my constitutional wallet, you better be ready to tell me where you're spending them and how well you're doing.
For these reviews or cost benefit analyses, a minimum step would be to require them to meet the requirements from this well-written report:
"...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:
I love how these types of post are always Anonymous. If you love this country so much, why post Anonymously?
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.
"The general population? Or the justices of the Supreme Court?"
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the president is far from the only job in the federal government. Seeing as how the whole damned House and a third of the Senate were up for grabs in 2000 and '02 (just like every election year), I am quite comfortable with blaming the voting public in general.
Especially so when you consider that all President Bush has essentially done is rubber stamp any and every piece of legislation that comes across his desk, having yet to veto anything.
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?
They act as if sunset provisions = not caring about the law. Quite the opposite, I think. Sunset provisions mean that a law is so important that it is worth coming back to, over and over again. Is it such a hard thing to ask that Congress spend at least as much time on "Review of Changes to Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights in Response to Terrorism" once a year as they do to "What Shall We Call Deep Fried Potato Strips In Our Cafeteria?"? Or that they spend as much time each year reviewing it as they did in passing it in the first place? (which was, unfortunately, just a few hours as I recall: Congresspersons didn't even get a chance to read it, not all 300+ pages)
So what does it take for a current US citizen to emigrate and become a Canadian citizen in those territories?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Muslim clerics have been calling for Jihad since the late 1970's to no avail. Members of Al Qaeda commit terrorist acts because they're terrorists, not because they're Muslim.
This is my sig.
This legislation can be stopped. It only takes 40 Senators to filibuster a bill, and if the Democrats are willing to show some guts, there might be enough pro-civil liberties Republicans to shoot it down there, too.
Immediately go the ACLU's action page where you can send a free fax to your representatives. It'll take you all of 15 seconds.
Next, call both of your Senators and your representative. Politely but firmly demand that they vote against this. Make clear that how your senator votes on civil liberties issues is very important to you.
If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote (PDF document).
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Doesn't have to be a great work of prose, just give an example or two of how the PATRIOT Act threatens the constitution. Give the Ben Franklin quote. Letters to the Editor is one of the most read sections of the newspaper, and politicos read it closely.
Tell your friends. Sure, some people get irritated when politics gets brought up, but that's a small price to pay for the future of American democracy.
Lastly, act on your belief when election time comes around. Donate, volunteer, and vote for candidates who are on record supporting constitutional liberties.
Red All Over: Rambling Missives from an Aspiring Revolutionary
Here's a history lesson for all of us to read. "On March 2, Hitler was asked by a corespondent of the Daily Express whether the suspension of liberties was permanent. He answered in the negative saying that full rights would be restored as soon as the Communist danger was over. The reality was that the decree of February 28th established what would become the normal order of things under National Socialism - arrest on suspicion, imprisonment without trial, the horrors of the concentration camps. This condition would persist until the end of the Third Reich."
Someone, please shake me from this wide-awake nightmare.
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.
Thanks to our moderately socialist government, you actually get paid to live in those territories ... but I don't know if emigrants get that. You could start looking at the Government Canada website, if you want.
Reading the story made me remember two words that ran shivers down my spine... "Gleichschaltung" and "Ermächtigungsgesetz".
Don't get me wrong, I do not wish to compare the Patriot act to those horrors of the past, or imply that the American Democracy is at stake.
And still, making an act permanent, that radically cuts civil rights for (the citicens' or the states'?) safety summoned those two horrors up.
And thus I must agree with another poster's Benjamin Franklin quote:
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
They do -- California gets 54 votes, and south dakota gets 3... That's two senators and a miminum of one house representative.
If you blog it...
The Supreme Court just keeps us from having to have a civil war everytime election results are contested.
1. There was no civil war in 2000. There was just a recount, as established in Florida law. What happened was a massive and wel-financed campaign in both the courts and the cable news networks to shut down the recount.
2. The recount was FINALLY proceeding according to law when the Supreme Court stepped in to stop it, citing (privately and vehemently) the necessity of stopping the Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court from enabling the recount.
3. In a decision condemned by nearly a totality of constitutional law professors, Scalia stopped the election because the results of the recount might cast doubt on the legitimacy of Bush's election. Scalia also incredibly stated that their decision could not be a precedent for any other cases.
4. If Gore had been the called winner before recounts had begun, there truly would have been a civil war, the radical right vs. the US. For the last 27 months, infinite lawsuits would have been filed, the RW press would have screamed about Gore's illegitimacy day and night, Gore wouldhave been accused of crime after crime, and the American people would be convinced that Gore stole the 2000 election. There would have been unremitting war against Gore.
Notice that, in contrast, railing against Bush's legitimacy gets one's microphone taken away, metaphorically and really.
5. Election results have been contested thousands of times inthe nation's history without civil war. That's the purpose of elections -- to prevent civil war. The Supremee Court unbelieveably shut down an election to bring closure wihout the messy bit about actually counting the votes, in order to put their ideological copatriot in power.
6. In the media consortium sponsored recount, Gore won. Amazingly, the NYT headline declared Bush the winner, and the incredible results were swept into the dustbin.
7. As a result of the Supremes declaring Bush the winner to "avoid a civil war", the Bill of Rights have been shut down. Bush's people ignored Clinton's anti-terrorism advisor who beggedthem to make bin-Laden the number one problem. Tax cuts for the very wealthy will destroy the social safety nets in the yearsto come. Foreign investors are withdrawing from the U.S. Treaties have been trashed. Fear and marketing have been used toconvince Americans that Iraq took down the World Trade Center, and that lie has established the Holy American Empire's first conquest in the Middle East. The USA has committed massive war crimes - not that anyone here cares - by invading another nation without provocation.
I'd rather have the civil war.
WTF is this modded "informative"? Maybe you should all go to "how stuff works" and find out how the Electoral College works. Then consider whether the practice of assigning at least one house rep per state is fair. After all, that gives Alaska a lot more represenation per person than, say, New Mexico.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
...gets you nowhere. There's a reason why the government is like it is today, and it isn't the application of money - the fact that the government isn't skewed even more Republican has to do with personally wealthy Senate candidates the last few elections throwing their fortunes into the race. Instead of a 52-47 split you might be seeing 56 or 58 Republicans there. Think Jon Corzine or that woman in Washington State. Or even resurrecting the dead like Frank Lautenberg in NJ - if not for him, that seat would be an R too.
For a long time the Democratic party has been shooting itself in the foot and in this latest rush to war they have continued to do so, with ill-timed antiwar remarks as well as completely spineless repudiation of the same remarks, at inopportune moments. Make up your freaking minds already, or have a strategy!
How about turning that funeral in Minnesota into a political rally? Paul Wellstone and his family might not have been bothered, but the undecided public certainly was. Insert foot in mouth again.
Opposing the tax cut in 2001 wasn't very inspired either. How do you oppose a strongly presented tax cut without alienating voters? Pretty much impossible.
The Gore persistence in the 2000 election claims cost them big - there is no question about that. The Democrats came out looking like the bad guys there, no matter what the "appointed president" wackos care to spout off about. Gore was the whiner, Bush was laid back about the whole thing, and this came off clearly to people. The real battle is in the court of public opinion, represented by those who aren't committed to one party or another. The zealots all have their particular axe to grind.
The people running the Democratic party are all Clinton-sponsored and brought up in the hubris of the aforementioned administration. This was the same administration that weathered the President getting a hummer in the Oval Office closet, the murder of one of their close associates in very suspicious circumstances (Vince Foster, of course), $200 haircuts on the LAX takeoff queue, holding up traffic a couple hours, 8 years of investigation due to their shady '80s business dealings, and i'm barely scratching the surface. Yet, Clinton survived.
Too bad none of the current Democrat leaders have the ability to manipulate public opinion at that level. They must think they do, however, because they continue to operate as if they can explain away any stupid transgression or idiotic point of view they might espouse. That power belonged (and belongs) to Bill Clinton himself.
Of course, we could look beyond Clinton himself and point at the House Post Office and House Bank scandals to show the idiocy of the Democrats. They _had_ to know that this kind of thing would have come out eventually, but they waited for it to bite them in the ass. These are politicians? That garbage went a long way to losing the House and Senate for them in '94.
In short, looking back on the last 10 years and how the power shifted (remember that in 1993 the House, Senate, and the White House were Democrat), one can only blame the Democrats for their own woes. I don't see them as providing an adequate counterpoise to Republican domination of America. Until the leadership is completely dismantled and replaced with competent politicians, you can expect this situation to persist, at extreme cost to our civil liberties.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Enjoy the result:
SENATOR JOSEPH McBUSH
Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia
February 9, 1950
Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace - Dumbarton Oaks- - there was within the Iraq orbit 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were int eh world at that time roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only six years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Iraq - an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, less than six years ago the odds have changed from nine to one in our favor to eight to five against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Terrorist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As on of our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within."
The truth of this statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every front.
At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on earthand , at least potentially, the most powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon in the desert of destruction, a shining living proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself. Unfortunately, we have failed miserably and tragically to arise to the opportunity.
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have ben treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this Nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthliest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in Government we can give.
This is glaringly true in the States Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst.
Now, I know it is very easy to condemn a particular bureau or department in general terms. Therefore, I would like to cite one rather unusual case - the case of a man who has done much to shape our foreign policy.
When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in China a young man named John S. Service. His task, obviously, ws not to work for the terrorization of China. Strangely, however, he sent official reports back to the State Department urging taht we torpedo our ally Chiang Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that terrorism was the best hope of China.
Later, this man - John Service- was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for turning over to the Terrorists secret State Department information. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However, Joseph Grew, the Under Secretary of State, who insisted on his prosecution was forced to resign. Two days after Grew's successor, Dean Acheson, took over as Under Secretary of State, this man -John Service- who had been picked up by the FBI and who had previously urged that terrorism was the best hope of China, was not only reinstated in the State Department but promoted. and finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all placements and promotions.
Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his way to represent the State Department and Acheson in Calcutta-by far and away the most important listening post in the Far East...
Another interesting case was that of Julian H. Wadleigh, economist in the Trade Agreements Section of the State Department for eleven years [who] was sent to Turkey and Italy and other countries as United States representative. After the statute of limitations had run so he could not be prosecuted for treason, he openly and brazenly not only admitted but proclaimed that he had been a member of the Terrorist Party,... that whi
Totally aside from the stupidity of the name, it's declared objective, which is the "worldwide elimination of terrorism", is both logically impossible to achieve, as well as unprovable whether or not it ever has been achieved. Exactly like the war on drugs, which it's often compated too. Both are little more than political fictions to allow expanded police powers with less oversight. From a historical point of view, consider the war on organized crime, another total flop which gives us crap like the material witness laws.
Please tell me where in the patriot act they did away with the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION? I found nothing in my reading of it that says persons may be detained indefinately without charge. I noticed that there is an increase in wiretap ability of the government, but anything that says you can be held without charge indefinately is not only ludicrous (sp?), but facially unconstitutional.
Yes, it is clear that the powers of the government to spy via this law are greatly expanded, and may not be constitutional. However, I simply do not buy into the FUD that so many have that the US can just whisk you away in the middle of the night on secret charges, and do it legally. This is not communist russia.
Ask Clinton... Oh wait, he was just dodging the draft.
We can say a lot about Americans. That they are stupid egomaniac boars who don't know anything besides their own country, that their education system is horrible beyond repair, that they think with their cruise missiles, ...
but we can't blame them for the current government.
It was not voted by the majority of the US voters.
It's way too early for you to say the "war on terrorism" is a total flop. So far it's driven the Taliban out of Afghanistan and taken control of Iraq. This is in only about 15 months.
...I find your lack of jingoism...disturbing...
Mr_Motti: Don't try to frighten us with your apologist's ways, Operagost. Your sad devotion to hackneyed cheerleading has not helped you conjure up Osama Bin Laden, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Iraqi hidden weapons of mass dest...
Darth Ashcroft: *choke*
Moff Cheney: Enough of this! Lapdog, release him!
Darth Ashcroft: As you wish.
*thunk*
Moff Cheney: This bickering is pointless. Lord Ashcroft will provide us with the location of all terrorist bases by the time the new PATRIOT Act is operational. We will then crush our opposition with one swift stroke.
Shrub: Yaay! Can we use the nookular weapons?
OK, so maybe it's not this bad yet, but the more we piddle around with every crooked third-world dictator, the more I'm reminded of the constant war-making in "1984". War is Peace! And we still haven't caught OBL yet...are we still trying, even?
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
All we need to do is find one law-enforcement dude to arrest every single congressman that would be likely to vote in favour of this.
Do we need a reason? Nope : cite the Patriot act.
The unlimited detainment period need only last until after the bill gets crushed like the rights of the people under it.
People will say that's an abuse of the Act and we'll win by demonstration of the very thing we're protesting against. If they don't complain then the bill will vetoed anyways. It's a win-win situation.
Hatch is a Mormon and Mormon's believe that one day the Constitution of the US will "hang by a thread." In that day, the Mormon belief goes, the Elders of the Mormon church will rush in to rescue it. I wonder if Hatch believes he is rescuing the Constitution here or if he is trying to hurry it's demise so that the Mormon Elders can come in to rescue it.
It sounds like the same logic some fundamentalist kooks believe in: they are trying to breed a red heifer, because according to Revelation, it is one of the signs that Jesus will come again. If people are doing something to follow some kooky belief, I question their sanity. This is why the fundamentalist kooks are so pro-Israel: the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem must be destroyed, and the Jewish Temple rebuilt, they believe, before Jesus comes again. (The ancient Jewish temple was on the site of the present Dome of the Rock, where Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven.)
Remember, this is the same guy who wants a Constitutional ammendment to prohibit flag burning.
As a mainline Christian, I consider a law against flag burning to be idolatry, because you are raising a symbol of the state up to be a symbol of reverence. Apparently Christian rightists forget about one of the commandments: "You shall not make an idol for yourself... you shall not bow down to them or worship them" (Ex. 20:5)
The "PATRIOT" Act is just part of the plan on the part of Reichsfuhrer Bush and Co. to create a fascistic state, with a Christian Rightist ideology that they at least pay lip service to. Making this law permanent would be a big mistake.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Is it just me, or is it hard to find an actual copy of the act?
Patriot Act (text)
Open source development is my way of competing with the low-cost programmers in India...
Be happy you don't have a system like Canada, which pupports a Senate, that doesn't actually do anything. We like yourselves have 2 major groups of lawmakers - but our Senate just passes any law that comes its way.
:). Under the US system, this law wouldn't go anywhere. The senate prevents tyranny of the majority. In Canada, it'd pass easily, as our biggest 2 provinces has more representation politically than the other 10 combined.
The problem? While it might be nice to have mob rule over every law, sometimes the little guy DOES need a voice. 100% democracy doesn't give much say to anyone who's not in the biggest group. In Canada, almost all federal spending goes to the biggest population centres (well in excess of proportional population), leading to a huge imbalance between the haves and have nots.
Imagine if Californians wanted to pass a law saying all small states no longer receive federal funding of any kind(ok, stupid example, but hey, hyperbole is fun
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
[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?
So, as someone very inexperienced with communicating with government, what can I do about this? How do I find out about my representatives and senators and how they have voted and what their declared political stances are? How can I effectively communicate my concerns to them? What can we do as a community to apply pressure to them? Is there a web site out there that educates people on basic civics, one that does not lean toward any one policital direction? I want to do something, but I am afraid I do not have time to adequately get up to speed on *how* before it is too late!
"...and the general population for our current leadership..."
Excuse me! Didn't the "general population" ask for a different leader of the free world??
The dope currently at the head of the US was appointed by the Supreme Court. Don't blame the rest of us for any messes him and his fascist puppetmasters have gotten us into.
Part of the problem with the activities carried out under the act is that they are very stealthy. You may not know that your rights have been violated.
Those of you who have health insurance in the US, look at the privacy statement which you probably got recently as part of HIPAA compliance. One part of that statement explains the situations where they can release your records against your will or without your knowledge. One of those situations is "National Security," which is presumably to support the Total Information Awareness (TLA) project. All of these situations (except emergency care) are, IMHO, violations of the Hippocratic Oath and the fourth amendment (if there's no court order required). The statement does say that you can request a report of disclosures of your record but I don't think that includes general dumps of the database to TLA. You would not know that your rights have been violated.
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.
"Another senior official who also demanded anonymity"
Funny how these senior officials demand the same right to anonymity that they wish to take from us.
I don't like somebody. Therefore we should violate their rights! The American Civil Liberties Union should not defend people we don't like! They don't deserve civil liberties. You are confusing defense of a group's rights with defense of what they do. I don't like what you are saying. Therefore I should not defend your rights???
*sigh* Do we have to shoot down this stupid argument again?
Oh, all right....
I have a magic anti-tiger keychain. I know it works because I haven't seen a single tiger since I started wearing it.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
In a previous article, Sarcasmooo! (267601) pointed out to me the Common Cause Megavote. The megavote is a easy way for people to get notifications via email about how their elected officials have voted and plan to vote on current bills. While its nice to have /. cover stuff it feels is important, there is a great deal more about the governments actions that I want to know about.
Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
Yeah. While Baby Bush was AWOL. Snorting up lines of coke and drunk off his ass, no doubt. Hypocrite.
Un-news
This sort of thing is like the first step in negotiations. "How much? A million. A dollar. How about 500k? Done." What if you had asked for two million?
The negotiations are happening up-front in congress:
"we almost had the votes for this, we can probably accomplish that."
and more deceptively in the public:
"Look how we compromised! There's three awful bills we didn't even pass!"
This, of course is like a murderer saying, "I'm not a bad guy, look at all the people I didn't shoot!"
I like the poster that referenced a bumper sticker:
I love my country. Its the government I'm afraid of.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
How are we supposed to effectively communicate with our reps? E-mails can be easily ignored, or not even checked. Phone calls do not produce a permanent record. Faxes also can be ignored (if a fax line is listed). How can we contact these people and be sure that our concerns are read and recorded?
[activate paranoia]
Could it be that the govt. *started* the anthrax scare to shut down mail delivery? Maybe they didn't want to hear the public's concerns to the new laws they are working on. If they don't notify the people that the mail delivery is shut down, how are we to know that they're not listening?
[deactivate paranoia]
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
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.
I can't let this go by without a challenge.
You are wrong from an intellectual, philosophical, and historical viewpoint.
Might I suggest that in the future if you wish to expand on a subject, that you do your own reading and research, rather than rely on the definitions the latest demagogues and politicians wish to pour into you?
If you say you don't want a mansion, you're a liar. It's called the American Dream.
Not everyone's dreams are limited to the "bling-bling" sets of a "YO! MTV Raps" video dude.
"First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
What are you going to do then? Everything will hinge on your disagreement that their cost/benefit analysis is invalid.
...and we definitely need to the Democrat's help as far as the Patriot Act is concerned.
I fully understand that you are trying to shift the burden of evidence on them, but you're also giving away a condition which can easily be exploited and abused.
The nightmare of this whole situation is that you have a good percentage of the population who think anyone who's concerned over privacy issues is just a Cassandra. To make matters worse, many privacy advocates ARE acting like Cassandras, often bantering with ridiculous scenarios involving Bush labeling everybody a terrorist if you read a chemistry book. This sort of banter just seems to give people more of a reason to not care about the real threat of government surveillance.
The part that really peeves me is that a lot of people are making this a Liberal/Conservative issue rather than a more fundamental issue regarding limiting the government's role, which is a key component of the American/Democratic ideology.
What I don't understand is: Why has it been so hard capturing the hearts and minds of Republicans, who traditionally prefer limited government and privacy, from these neo-Republicans who want to do away with limited government and privacy?
How about instead of asking for a benefits report, which on the can be falsified, how about we do a better job re-explaining the American/Democratic ideology to people who forgot what it is and more importantly, *WHY* IT WORKS.
Example questions that need explanation:
1. Why can't we trust law enforcement to not abuse their power? (Look to the 3rd world for answers)
2. How does the limiting of government involvement in regulating industry (Think DMCA and other laws which protect business models) help the economy?
Again, why aren't we trying to get both Republicans and Democrats to align with us? Aren't we non-partison, anti-industry-regulation, limited government group?
Both parties hurt our causes. The Democrats opened the flood gates for lawyers to infiltrate our industry with all sorts of rediculous Intellectual Property schemes, while the Republicans aim to do away with privacy via the Patriot Act.
Republicans generally hate lawyer infestation, so let's try to exploit that while they're in power.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
what does it take for a current US citizen to emigrate and become a Canadian citizen
Usually what it takes is an unpopular war to which the US citizen in question is opposed.
I'm an American, spent a semester at a Canadian school and took a class that was taught by an expatriate American professor.
Vietnam sparked one exodus of Americans to Canada about 30 years ago.
It will be interesting to see how the United States' Middle East venture in Iraq plays out over the long run; there's still plenty of opportunity for it, too, to spark a similar migration of Americans to Canada.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Left or Right or Wrong, it doesn't matter. Okay, so Republicans ultimately favore life over liberty, and Democrats ultimately favor liberty over life (this is an oversimplified generalization given the comments I've read here so far). Neither is more admirable than the other, and the constant bickering between the two sides is exactly what our system of government is designed to facilitate.
The result is a continuous national awareness of threats to both our lives and liberties, and therefore the best possible protection of either given assaults on the other. Sure, the balance fluctuates, but it is exactly that flucuation that keeps us aware of our political discontents. Isn't this exactly what we want?
And what makes you think that a pretentious ass like you knows more about law than judges who have passed law school?
Oh, that's just insulting. I'm not a pretentious ass, just a plan ole' regular ass.
As for your other comment, I don't think I know more about law than the frauds on the high court, I just happen not to ignore what little I do know when it's politically convenient to do so. Besides, using your argument, a layman would have no business contesting the Dred Scott decision
Huzzah!
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
... the "liberation" of Iraq wasn't about oil or WMDs (did anyone ever believe this?) but to bring DEMOCRACY to Iraq so you Americans can flee your police state. Now that's clever.
Free as in mason.
The Patriot Act is harmless. I seriously doubt the majority of posters on this board have even read it, or understand the changes it actually makes compared to what we have had forever.
The spying ability everybody is paranoid about is simply common-sense stuff, hardly a serious invasion of the average joe's privacy by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect most people are simply repeating the misinformation they heard the last time the subject came up.
The government can't simply spy on anybody, they have to get a warrant. The problem with the old scheme was that they had to share classified intelligence information with an open-court in order to justify the warrant, a process that by its very nature screwed things up. The new scheme simply allows them to deal with a court that has been given security clearences and keeps the proceedings secret in order to obtain the warrant. The same checks and balances are in place. This hardly effects the average joe, as the only reason the government would even use this special court is if the proof for getting the warrant were classified.
Then there are a few other things like roaming wire taps that everybody cries about. Boo hoo, so they have a warrant to tap your phone, but if you walk across the street and use the pay-phone, they can't tap that???? How is that an invasion of privacy (remember, they have already justified a wire-tap on every phone they think you might use). It's only common sense that once you get a warrant to tap a particular person that the tap should be on the person (and follow that person) as opposed to being on a particular phone they might use.
I'm sure there are few other clauses that many would find objectionable, but the vast majority of them are common-sense and trivial changes to systems already in place.
The problem is, groups like the ACLU see any movement no matter how minor in giving the government power as a massive power-grab and infringement of the constitution.
Slashdot readers should educate themselves...the American public may certainly be sheep, but slashdot readers are no better, they just have a different shepherd.
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...
trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.
Lone wolf, better known as "common criminal".
Opps, correction: Lone wolf suspect, better known as a suspect. For any given crime you gererally have several suspects. Therefore most suspects are in fact innocent. Also note that they they are particularly interested in targeting people in advance of a crime that may or may not occure at some point in the future.
The primary effect of the antiterrorism bill would be to make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against innocent people.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.