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.
How are they going to stop you? Throw you in jail and not let you see a lawyer?
Oh wait...
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
You can be detained, without being charged, indefinitely, having been investigated under a sealed warrant, an unsigned warrant, or no warrant at all, and then be denied access to a lawyer.
And that is un-American. Period.
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
...join in the ACLU.
--Bruce F.
Take a look at some of the analysis from the Cato institute:a llcato&pw=100%25&rf=0&qt=patriot+act&x=0&y =0
http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=
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
A fair question, so here it goes.
1. Redefines terrorism too broadly: the new definition includes previously protected free speech. If any person feels threatened (rightfully or not) by a lawful protest, then under the patroit act that protest is considered a terrorist act.
2. New surveillance powers circumvent judicial review: Previously federal agencies had to get permission from the courts for wiretapping and other forms of covert surveillance. Under the Patriot Act the agency can arbitrarily label someone a 'suspected terrorist' and conduct surveillance without the court's permission. Moreover, that label doesn't have to be approved by any external agency... and the person gets no chance to defend himself.
3. Abbrogates right to a speedy trial. Previously Constitutional protections guarenteed that a person could be held for only a very limited time without a trial... and they must be charged with a crime. Again, its a question of judicial oversight. Under the Patriot Act the executive branch can, at their own discretion, detain a person for an indefinate period of time. The only legal requirement is that the President considers them a national security risk, but again, he can keep detainees a secret, and there is no judicial review of the process. In fact, he doesn't even have to accuse them of any crimes or place them legally under arrest, just "disappear" them.
Whether or not it successfully stops criminal acts, something which we can debate more or less ad infinitum since the government no longer has to report its actions publically, the primary effect of the Patriot Act is the greatly increase the powers of the Executive branch, and effectively neuter the Judicial branch.
Its been publically admitted by many of the acts proponents that it drastically reduces the Judicial branches powers, greatly restricts personal freedoms, and grants the executive branch almost police state powers, but that was always prefaced with the promise that it was a temporary measure for a particularly volatile period. Now, the 'temporary' measure appears to be a permanent fixture, which is probably only fair since the "war on terrorism" itself will likely last longer than any of us will live.
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'm a Canadian living in Texas for the time being. Every time a local asks me what I think of it I never miss a chance to say I like their "cute little state."
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.
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
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.
I'm a Texan living in Texas. Whenever a Canadian asks me what I think of Canada, I say "I don't."
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.