Anti-Patriot Act Movement Expands

MFS! writes "Mount Shasta, California has become the latest city where the USA PATRIOT act is creating a controversy. This story at the Record-Searchlight describes petitioning by a local citizens' rights committee to order police to defy the PATRIOT act. To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage."

Comments

federal vs. state.

[garcia]

Ok, so three states have passed anti-PA legislation?

What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations? Do the federal drug agents care when they storm into these people's "gardens" and prosecute them to the full extent of FEDERAL law?

Hell, do the Federal agents care when they destroy the Native American's HEMP fields (which were allowed under a law in the late 1800s?)

NO.

State's rights (which should be more important) aren't shit. Remember that.

Re:federal vs. state.

[garcia]

the Native Americans have a treaty to grow hemp. It wasn't a law (although it should have been considered so)...

Sorry.

Re:federal vs. state.

[chimpo13]

A treaty eh? Well, duh. Of course treaties with Native Americans doesn't count.

Re:federal vs. state.

[pla]

State's rights (which should be more important) aren't shit. Remember that.

You make a good point, but need to also consider what it takes on a local level for the feds to enforce the patriot act.

By forcing noncompliance, local areas can remove most of the teeth of the Patriot act. Businesses and libraries deliberately getting rid of client information after 24 hours removes most of the privacy-stripping portions of the act. Local police refusing to cooperate with the feds on Patriot-act related investigations leaves the feds with no more power than they had before. Entire states deliberately hindering federal investigations can, in many situations, leave the FBI et al in a worse position than before the Patriot act (when local police would often help as much as possible, even if they didn't need to).

So yes, this seemingly "only symbolic" protesting by states, cities, and private businesses does have the potential to make the Patriot act all but meaningless.


What about California's (and others) medical pot legislations?

If you followed it, you'll notice that Ed Rosenthal received a whopping one-day sentence, of time served. Even the Federal courts have started realizing that they can't sustain a war against their own member states.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Dok Fenderson]

The 10th Amendment has been ignored by the Feds for at least the last 140 years. Hell, it goes back to the Whiskey Rebellion if you want to go that far back. Even with all of the other erosions of the Bill of Rights, the 10th has been the most decimated by all three branches of the Federal Government. The state is supposed to be stronger than the federal so that we could have a diversity in laws with which to experiment. This is not the case any more. With the way that the 4th Amendment has been positively raped over the years by no knock warrents, confiscation laws in which a person can have their house seized by the police in a drug investigation even if no drugs are found and all charges are dropped I find it as no suprise that someone finally got around to nullifying it in it's entirety. Dok

Re:federal vs. state.

[Hatta]

Even with all of the other erosions of the Bill of Rights, the 10th has been the most decimated by all three branches of the Federal Government.

What about the 9th? Has this amendment ever been used for anything? To me it seems obvious that the War on Drug Users is a clear violation of the 9th amendment. But IANACL

Re:federal vs. state.

[Phroggy]

Oregon has an assisted suicide law that was approved by voters twice. Ashcroft decided it should be illegal, and declared that the lethal drugs Oregon doctors can prescribe (under very limited circumstances, of course) serve no legitimate medical purpose and therefore were controlled substances, and instructed the DEA to arrest doctors who prescribed the drugs. It went to the Supreme Court and Ashcroft lost.

One of Oregon's senators - Gordon Smith I think - said he opposes this state law, but he fought for Oregon's right to have it.

Re:federal vs. state.

[sebmol]

1: If the constitution doesn't say anything, it's up to congress.

That's not quite what the constitution says. The founders put rather strict limitations on the power of congress and enumerated its specific ressponsibiliies. It also stated that all powers not enumerated in it would belong to the states.

In reality, Congress has assumed more power out of the interstate-commerce clause which led to minimum wage and other labor standards, social security, etc.

Re:federal vs. state.

[slithytove]

Indeed, the feds don't care about state marijuana laws and people and groups have been busted despite thinking they were safe. The Oakland Cannibas Club is one such victim. However, it's not entirely useless to pass these laws: most small-time breakers of such laws are busted by local cops. In fact, though I know many, many people who've paid fines and even gone to jail for pot possesion/ distribution- I don't know a single one who was busted by feds.

Check out the Free State Project if you feel that states/cities should be able to exclusively govern their own wherever the "crime" doesn't cross jurisdictions. Definately check the project out if you think your government should do little more than protecting citizens from assault.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Dok Fenderson]

Yeah, the 9th has been hit pretty damned hard, but when you look at the fact that almost every single federal law on the books undermines the 10th by overriding state sovereignty, the 10th looks a little like goatse man. Dok

Re:federal vs. state.

[Slack3r78]

Yeah, how dare that bastard not allow a few states to commoditize human beings. Remember, the FIRST law the newly established CSA passed was a piece of legislature barring any member state from banning slavery. States' rights indeed.

Re:federal vs. state.

[deadsaijinx*]

actually, the 10th goes back further than the whiskey rebellion, all the way back to the original conception of the Constitution.

And you are forgetting that the 10th ammendment [which gives states the rights not expressely given to the feds] has a counterpart called the elastic clause. This clause gives the feds the power to do things that are prudent and right for them to do. Throughout the history of the US, there has been a constant struggle between loose and strict constructionists [loose const supporting the elastic clause and strict const supporting the 10th ammendment - obviously, as the parties vied for power, whichever one came into power at the federal level quickly became a loose const and the people at power at the state level quickly adopted strict const philosophy.] However, time and time again, the fed gov't has been able to flex far more muscle, and so, invariable, the elastic clause wins over the 10th ammendment. Which is why state nullification has itself become null and void.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Amiga Trombone]

States can augment federal law, but they can't contradict it (unless, I suppose, the law says they're allowed to).

In a way, they can. If the required number of states (2/3) ratified a constitutional amendment disolving the federal government, that would be the end of the federal government. The fed has no such reciprical power to disolve state governments.

While things haven't come to that point yet, ultimately, the states wear the pants in the family.

Re:federal vs. state.

[paganizer]

Slavery was not what the war was fought over. It was only a tactical issue; Lincoln freed the slaves ONLY in confederate states; he specifically did NOT free them in Union states that allowed slavery. he did this, by his own admission, in the hopes that the slaves would revolt in the south.
The winner gets to write the history books.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually Lincoln did alot of bad things during the Civil War.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Ordered the arrest, jailing and deportation of Congressmen and reporters.

The Army was sent into New York City during the 1863 draft riots to put them down.

There were more than 13,000 arrests of Northern civilians during the war after Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeas corpus, including dozens, if not hundreds, of newspaper editors and owners who were critical of the Lincoln administration.

In 1862 there was fighting between federal soldiers and settlers and the Santee Indians of Minnesota. At the end of the hostilities 303 Indians who were present at the conclusion of the fighting were arrested, imprisoned, and scheduled to be executed after military tribunals that lasted about ten minutes each. Lincoln was fearful that the European powers might be encouraged to be more supportive of the Confederacy if they learned of a mass execution of 303 men whose guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, so he pared the number down to just 39.

Re:federal vs. state.

[josh crawley]

Well if everybody believed that, it would almost be true, no? In matter of fact, you're 100% wrong. Congress basically has the right to tax us, regulate interstate commerce, regulate immigration, coin money, deliver mail, grant copyrights, raise an army, and a few other less interesting things. Outside of that, everything else belongs to the states. I'll just quote the relevant parts of the Constitution:

Article 1, Section 8: (powers delegated to Congress)

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Eyston]

Slavery was not what the war was fought over.

The war was fought over securing and maintaining the Union. The war started due to slavery. Thats an oversimplification, but any reason you want to site to why the South succeeded from the North (economic, representation, etc) has a root in slavery. The 50+ years up until the war were a string of compromises (Clay inparticular) trying to keep the Union together over the divide slavery created.

So sure, the North wasn't on the battlefield to free the slaves, but slavery played an integral role in getting them there.

-Eyston

Re:federal vs. state.

[bryanp]

The 10th Amendment has been all but emasculated by a rather liberal interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The phrase "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" give the Federal government huge powers over anything that can be said to affect interstate commerce. You'd be surprised how the most innocuous things can be tied to interstate commerce.

Re:federal vs. state.

[rking]

the Native Americans have a treaty to grow hemp. It wasn't a law (although it should have been considered so)...

I thought that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Saying that treaties aren't laws seems hard to reconcile with them being part of the supreme law of the land.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Fjandr]

Horrible, absolutely horrible! How could you taint this issue with petty things like facts?
</sarcasm>

Re:federal vs. state.

[cellocgw]

I am SOOO glad I was born in Canada.
Why don't you folks hurry up and conquer us? I for one could use a new gov't, not to mention a little more respect for hockey.

It's either that or my kids'll have to emigrate just to 1) avoid the draft, 2) get access to reproductive health care, 3) escape Ashcroft, 4) marry whomever they want.

Re:federal vs. state.

[SenorMooCow]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That's it I'm going out and making myself some laws!

Re:federal vs. state.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Ashcroft is such a huge hypocrite (does that make him a hippocrit?) - "States Rights" is his catch-all excuse for supporting states that do what he wants (biggest example is his pro-gun agenda, which I happen to agree with) - but when it comes to laws he doesn't like such as sex, drugs and death (aka gay rights, medical marijuana and assisted suicide), "States Rights" are quickly ushered out of the room.

Another example of his hypocrisy is his former strong opposition to the Clipper chip and statements made supporting the individual's right to privacy. But as soon as he was appointed to office as attorney general all that rhetoric went out the window and he quickly set to dismantling as many privacy rights as he could, and 9/11 only made that crusade easier when he was able to personally draft the USA-PATRIOT act.

Re:federal vs. state.

[dhogaza]

Then why did leaders in the south itself argue that the war was over slavery? Slashdot's servers aren't large enough to hold all the speeches, quotes, and letters made by southern politicians to that effect. The south did not argue only that they should be allowed to own slaves in the south, but that laws against owning slaves in northern states were unconstitutional and that they should be allowed to expand the institution into new states.

Lincoln's political moves regarding slavery were a reflection in part on his need to keep the north unified at a time when, for instance, Irish immigrants in NYC were holding race riots. Freeing slaves was not a universally popular idea in the north by any means, while preservation of the Union was a unifying theme.

Lincoln picked his fights and moved cautiously.

Re:federal vs. state.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Judge Goes Way Below Minimum
"On Wednesday, June 4th, Ed Rosenthal walked out of federal court in San Francisco a free man, thanks to the generous support of the community."

So what they "went for" and what they got are two very different outcomes. Also note: "As a direct result of Ed's case, the Truth in Trials Act has been introduced in Congress to allow a medical defense in certain federal marijuana trials.

Re:federal vs. state.

[commodoresloat]

If you followed it, you'll notice that Ed Rosenthal received a whopping one-day sentence, of time served. Even the Federal courts have started realizing that they can't sustain a war against their own member states.

Unfortunately all they seem to have learned from the Rosenthal case is to beware of media coverage. Which is, as it stands, a good thing, but don't think federal judges aren't going to help the feds dismantle prop 215. The one day sentence was a huge turnaround for the judge and only occurred after most of the jurors came forward and said they had changed their decisions. The rule permitting gag orders such as the one employed in the Rosenthal case has not been challenged, which means that not only aren't you permitted a medical necessity defense under prop 215, you are not allowed to mention the proposition at all or anything related to it (i.e. your lawyer can't say, "my client was growing pot under the order of the city of Oakland as an appointed deputy put in charge of enforcing proposition 215." So Rosenthal was portrayed as a common drug dealer rather than an officer of the city.) Until judges stop invoking that rule, it's likely that the federal government's open attack on California law will continue to succeed.

Re:federal vs. state.

[fermion]

The civil war, like most wars, has high idealistic goals used to mobilize the populous and basic economic goals used to justify the expense. In the civil war there were many in the North and South that opposed slavery and would support the abolition, even if war was required. The North, OTOH, thought the South had an unfair competitive advantage. This was the required economic reason needed to mobilize the leaders in the North. The schism threatened the Union, and the Union had to be saved.

Of course, this is all explained in the famous quote from Lincoln:
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

Re:federal vs. state.

[shadowbearer]

"Ordered the arrest, jailing and deportation of Congressmen"

This is bad? :-)

SB

Re:federal vs. state.

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Laws (or constitutions, or treaties, or whatever) mean only what the relevant powers interpret them to mean. I didn't quite understand the implications of this when I was younger; I used to think "yeah, the bill of rights, the constitution, these are good things to have, put it all down in writing and make it concrete. No room for ambiguity."

The opposing situation is countries with no [explicit] bill of rights, rather some form of unwritten convention (even 'ideal'? Is that word too embarrasing to use in the 21st century?). This I think covers most other countries, where the constitution has less prominance (I am Australian, and I can confidently say that *no one* has any more than a vague notion of what it says - for good reason actually, it is a very boring document mostly talking about how Queen Victoria of England agrees to delegate Her power to the Australian Parliament), and there is no explicit "bill of rights" as such, rather the notions are embodied across a much wider scope, and it can't really be pinned down to one place. It is not uncommon to see stories of USA school students complaining to someone (headmaster, school board, whatever) that something that is imposed upon them violates their rights under the constitution[footnote]. The notion of involving the constitution in such a matter is actually quite ludicrous to an Australian (any Aussies out there, please argue the case if you think I am wrong). Not because those rights don't exist, but because they exist at more levels of society. Call it a sense of "fair play" or whatever you will, but it is far more important than the Constitution.

The point is this (and maybe this is even irony - until the last week I thought I had a fair idea what that meant, but I don't think so anymore): Having an explicit, legally intepretable document only allows the lawyers the excuse "we were only following the law" when they come up with some narrow interpretation that flies against the popular notion of what the spirit meant.

On the other hand, if there is no such written document, there is no room for argument over the interpretation, the only guide is the *spirit*.

The real question is, which system is more open to long-term abuse? Unfortunately I cannot predict the answer to that. The answer to the question of which system suffers more short/medium term abuse is, I think, obvious.

[footnote] (and I think this is *real* irony) Undoubtably, Australian minors have more actual rights than US minors.

Re:federal vs. state.

[istartedi]

That's it I'm going out and making myself some laws

You were modded funny, but there's actually a truth in there that defines the American character, and explains why a dictatorship here is pretty unlikely.

For example, where I live it's illegal to have any fireworks that explode. Last night, it sounded like Beirut.

Most people get that stuff from NC, where they are legal. It occured to me that there's nothing more American than driving up I-95 15 miles an hour over the speed limit with a trunkload of illegal firecrackers, MP3s blasting through the stereo.

Americans have a low tolerance for stupid laws, in large part because the country was founded by people who violated such laws.

Picture the fathers of our country dressed up like Indians, trespassing on somebody's boat, and dumping all the cargo just because they didn't wanna pay taxes.

Now, it's hard to say how well this attitude will work to defeat the more stupid provisions of the Patriot Act, which is an interesting name if you think about it; after all, those people weren't patriots, they were just acting, which is a lot like pretending as in "pretenders to the throne". The real kings are the people--the people who break stupid laws.

Now, if the state is really, really determined, they can enforce stupid laws. The war on drugs is a prime example; but they can't do it forever. There has been a huge impact on the incarceration rate, all due to the American tendancy to break laws they don't agree with.

I keep wondering if we're going to have some kind of Bastille Day type episode over that.

At any rate, I think this ingrained attitude in the US, perhaps more than anything, will prevent us from falling into dictatorship. Call me an cockeyed optimist if you must.

Re:federal vs. state.

[sailor420]

The difference between acts such as Lincoln's and those that have occurred recently is that our current state has no defined "end". When Lincoln did these things, it was wartime, a war with a definite end--when the war was over, the understanding was that these rights would be returned. Our current state does not have a specific end date, no enemy to defeat, no war to win. Thats what makes this time so scary.

Re:federal vs. state.

[Fjandr]

Or, if you actually read it in common English, it means that Federal laws that don't fall within the guidlines as set forth in the Constitution apply only to areas where there is no state government, ie the District, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.

Federal and state law are almost entirely mutually exclusive. Not necessarily in practice, but in Constitutional matters, that's the spirit. They have legitimate regulatory powers over things closely related to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, but not over anything else. (with the exception of treason and two other crimes that I can't immediately recall) States have no legitimate regulatory power over any of the functions outlined in Article I, Section 8, with a couple possible exceptions.

And no, the 10th amendment isn't explicit on sovereignty, but you have to be able to connect the dots. The states derive their power from the people. The Federal government derives its power from the states and the people. That makes the states slightly higher on the food chain, but not much.

The Constitution is a barrier, a limiting device that constrains governmental power (in theory). It delegates power to the Federal government. It then states that any power not delegated is reserved to those higher on the food chain. That means that Party 1 (the government) can do A, B, and C. Party 2 (states) can do everything Party 3 tells them they can, except A, B, C, and anything the Constitution expressly forbids them from doing. Party 3 can do anything they damned well feel like except A, B, C, and what they allow Party 2 to do.

Rebellion

[dimmu]

I hope this rebellion that these states and cities shake up the US administration. From an outsiders point of view (I'm from the Netherlands) I find the actions taking by the US Administration very shocking. These movements taken by internal states and cities hopefully do them some good.

Re:Rebellion

[jas79]

From an outsiders point of view (I'm from the Netherlands) I find the actions taking by the US Administration very shocking

I am also from the Netherlands. But I am more concerned about the dutch goverment follow the example of the US goverment. They are already considering limiting the rights of suspected terrorist.

Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the

[Gunnery Sgt. Hartman]

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court can't shoot it down unless there is a case presented to it that came to it through the appeals process. I don't believe they can dismiss any law as unconstitutional until it is challenged; I may be wrong though.

In case you're curious...

[ragingmime]

The text of the Act is here, and there are explanations in regular English here and here.

Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the

[sebmol]

One word: standing. The Supreme Court only hear cases where the parties have standing. That means, some damage has to be done to you as a result of the Patriot Act. The Supreme Court does not test laws for constitutionality without a plaintiff who has standing.

Here's the trick though: if you fall victim to the Patriot Act, you may not have access to the judicial system. That means, you will never get a chance to challenge it in court.

This is considerably different from many other republican systems where the highest court can often test laws for constitutionality based on a single complaint of a citizen or a branch/agency of the government.

How about the librarians?

[SuperBanana]

To date, 3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests, not to mention the numerous businesses who are taking pains to hamper the Act's coverage

How about mentioning some of the loudest critics- librarians. Most are madder than hell about the Patriot Act, and politicians are finding that going up against librarians(which are seen as by the public as incredibly smart, among other things) isn't very popular. From some of our youngest years, librarians have earned a place of respect as wise, intelligent, helpful, kind people.

Most libraries now display signs at checkout desks and computer workstations warning you they can be forced to turn over information about what you check out etc....and most also now destroy those records on a daily basis, paper or electronic.

And, as Peter Jennings pointed out with a smile on his face, your local library is a great place to sit down and read a copy of the Patriot Act. The librarians will be more than happy to assist.

Folks- libraries across the country are suffering from budget cutbacks just like everyone else. If you think it's awesome that librarians are on your side against the Patriot Act, might I suggest helping them back by volunteering? Think outside the (computer) box too- help reshelf books, read to kids in the children's library, etc...

Re:How about the librarians?

[Mercuria]

It's not just that they can find out what you checked out -- it's that you won't ever be told. When that federal agent hands that librarian the order (which isn't signed by any judge, by the way, it's the agency's discretion whether the order should be executed) to hand over the library's records because there's a suspected terrorist cell or whatever excuse they come up with, she or he is placed under a gag order. They can't even tell their bosses, let alone you. the only recourse that librarian has is a lawyer, which she had damn well better avail herself of, because if the FBI does in turn use that information the patron can still sue her for releasing that information. But if they don't then the libary board, the head librarian, and the patrons who had their reading lists snooped through will never know.

Re:How about the librarians?

[WindBourne]

I don't care if they know that I like to read WWII history books and old computer magazines.The only people that would be upset over this are people checking out bomb making books and I don't think libraries stock those anyhow. So how's about everyone just calm down?
While it is nice to assume that the government will do no damage with this information, history has shown otherwise. The patriot act allows them to find out anything about you and me. Tommorrow, the feds may decide that ppl who have ever read byte magazine may be terrorists so they will investigate all who fit that criteria. Or perhaps they will check who has read the quran and start investigations. Look at how hatfill's life is destroyed by being Ashcroft's "person of interest". No proof of any kind, yet destroyed. Look at the musleums still being held in prison for being "ppl of interest". No proof of any type (according to a recently released study) yet still being held.
Now, go back to the time of Reagan, Nixon, or J.E. Hoover. All have used information (or made up stuff) to destroy ppl the same way that Ashcroft now does. the more info that they have, the worse things will get.

Re:How about the librarians?

[InfoVore]

The fact that librarians are so upset should be the great warning flag that this legislation was a VERY BAD IDEA.

Every time I hear how upset they are getting, I think about a great quote Spider Robinson had about librarians in The Callahan Touch:

"Mary Kay is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian. They control information. Don't ever piss one off."

There are some other great quotes for/about librarians at Lib.Sigs

I.V.

Re:How about the librarians?

[e_pluribus_funk]

"Now, go back to the time of Reagan, Nixon, or J.E. Hoover"

Hmmm...wouldn't be a bit of bias there, would there? Unsubstantiated bias at that.

And note, you don't have to go back that far: what exactly were those FBI files on Republicans doing in Hilary Clinton's safe in the White House?

By far the biggest abusers of this type during the 20th Century were Democrats:

Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon B. Johnson
William J. Clinton

Anything that Reagan, Nixon, or Ashcroft did or is doing pales in comparison collectively to what just one of the Democratic presidents listed above did in the realm of 'destroying ppl [sic]'.

Re:How about the librarians?

[Politburo]

Interestingly enough, Laura Bush, the First Lady, is a former Librarian. I wonder how she feels about PATRIOT...

What we REALLY need

[jazman_777]

Is a 10th Amendment movement. Too bad most states have sold out like whores for "federal" money.

Re:What we REALLY need

[Dok Fenderson]

The state does not even print money anymore. It's all printed by the Federal Reserve, a privately owned corporation run by 12 banks that the government can't even legally buy stocks in. It has never been audited, and does not even provide a means for paying off the principle on the National Debt. As far as the money thing is concerned we've been screwed since 1918 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. Dok

Re:What we REALLY need

[Anonymous Coward]

No what is really, truly needed is a second American revolution. We need to kick the federal government out of our affairs permanently.

Re:What we REALLY need

[Fjandr]

The State then borrows the money the Federal Reserve prints.

What I'd like to see is people demand gold or silver as payment from states, since that is specifically required of them in the Constitution...

Wake up

[CausticWindow]

Doesn't the words Anti-Patriot scare the shit out of you?

Re:Wake up

[Phroggy]

How do you think the USA PATRIOT act got passed in the first place? Would YOU vote against something with a name like that? What would people think?

Re:Wake up

[Esion Modnar]

Doesn't the words Anti-Patriot scare the shit out of you?

No. Greenland is not green, civil unrest is not civil, and spraying perfume on dogshit does not make it smell better.

Patriot Act is not and has never been for patriots of this country. It goes against what it means to be American.

Besides, it reads: Anti (Patriot Act), not (Anti-Patriot) Act.

Re:Wake up

[mrkurt]

A great man once said, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels". To put it mildly.

Re:Wake up

[Jardine]

I'm waiting for the Fuzzy Little Kittens Act. Who would even think about voting against Fuzzy Little Kittens?

Theme of American history?

[Hobobo]

Americans have constantly disobeyed laws they viewed as unjust. Starting in revolutionary times with the Boston Tea Party, then moving forward to Henry David Thoreau, prohibition, Eugene Debs running for president from jail in defiance of the Espionage Act, and more recently the civil rights movement (M. L. King,). In this view, disobedience of the Patriot Act is not unique but continuation of this theme in American history

Re:Theme of American history?

[deadsaijinx*]

Americans have constantly disobeyed laws they viewed as unjust

No, you're thinking of the Matrix. "We are all here because we have a certain affinity for disobedience."

Re:terrorists?

[trompete]

Protecting us from terrorists is the mask on the face of the legislation, but many of us see that as too much of an invasion of privacy.
I hope that this anti-patriot stuff comes to Minneapolis too, if it hasn't already.

Patriot Act is upsurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Right down to the doublespeak name.

The Patriot Act is a symptom of a sick government

Re:Nice Legislation system you have there!

[emotionus]

"We" don't make the laws. "They" do with the assumption we actually want them to. Do they ask us? no.

Re:Wake up - not just funny; true

[slithytove]

We need to play the knee-jerk public reaction game at least as well as the administration to have hope of fighting them. Calling their unconstitutional act the "Patriot Act" is simply brilliant. Calling efforts to protect the Bill of Rights "Anti-Patriot Act efforts" is so dumb that only a /. editor would do so ;)

Nullification Crisis II ?

[croddy]

sigh.... this idea is >150 years old. it didnt work last time.

read here: google search: nullification crisis

Re:Nullification Crisis II ?

[commodoresloat]

This is different. There is no way Bush is sending troops to destroy the LA City Council, for example. And Patriot has provisions that require state and local cooperation. The feds can't bust down every door or make every arrest or interrogation. And uncooperative state and local cops will be worse than the feds doing it alone. I think this will weaken the Patriot act but I don't see this causing a similar crisis as 1832; I imagine the feds will be content to enforce the act weakly and the states and cities will not stand in the way of federal actions under the act that seem reasonable.

In short, it's a good idea, it's a kind of check and balance that a system like democracy is known for. When legislation is passed at a time of extreme fear and anger, cooler heads prevail later on and do something to cripple the legislation. I don't know how much effect these kinds of actions will have but I do find them encouraging.

This thread is being monitored...

[PoisonousPhat]

...by the same people that were responsible for the PATRIOT act. Or is it? It's certainly possible that, by posting sentiments of dissent here, one could attract an extra bit of attention from the people that monitor internet communications. Hope you aren't in the habit of downloading "questionable content"...

Re:This thread is being monitored...

[shadowbearer]

I hope they are reading it, I have a few things to say:

/flame mode on

Jefferson, Adams and Franklin are spinning in their graves fast enough right now to grant them a patent on perpetual motion.

You greedy fascist idiots have managed to fuck this country up to the point where it will take generations to repair the damage. Thanks a lot. I hope there is a hell, because you are going to rot in it. Satan would welcome such as you, you're his kind. Just remember, being a politician in hell, while being an elevated position, is not cupcakes and sweetcream.

If enough people in this country get a whiff of what you're really doing, there will not be a hole deep enough for you to hide in. Remember the members of the Armed Forces who have put their lives on the line, and sacrificed them, for the ideals which made this country great. Remember that there are enough people in this country who own firearms to make this resemble another Vietnam. Remember that, and repent your sins, morons.

You know where to find me, if you want me that badly. Just bring plenty of weapons, because I'm armed and considered seriously patriotic towards the PEOPLE of this country. Fuck you and your goddamn corporate cronies. If you want to play Who Will We Fuck Next, then we'll find a nice little island for you (Bikini Atoll perhaps) and put you all there so you can play your little dominance games with each other until you all die of Terminal Hemorrhoids.

/flame mode off

Damn, I've wanted to vent for a while. Time to go outside now and be with the Three Dimensional People.

SB

Can't we all just get along?

[gpinzone]

Come on. This is not a time for partisan politics. It is a time for unity.

Re:WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?

[AgTiger]

I'll answer this troll.

The answer is: The future. Why open the door for abuse so that a future government can come along, and abuse its citizenry at will?

Only those who want to abuse others like this would even suggest such a thing.

Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only does this act deny many people of their rights to privacy and assumption of innocence, but what really angers me is the fact that there is so much propaganda involved.

The US government is trying to spread fear about terroism in order to gain support for such coercive acts, and then tries to pass them under a very sugarcoated and propaganda-ish name - "patriot", when there is nothing patriotic about it.

Civil Disobedience as Communication Medium

[kremvax]

Even if the local laws are easily overruled by federal mandates, a city-wide and state-wide act of civil disobedience sends a powerful message to the elected federal officials.

Keep in mind, most national senate/house members are profoundly out of touch with the communities they are supposed to represent. If, all of a sudden, the majority of your constituents demonstrate that they do not want the oppressive law you enacted to remain on the books, you might consider proposing a revocation, if you wish to be re-elected.

This is important. Even though the ill-concieved act was passed by a fear/power mad congress, it's critical to continue to publicly voice opposition to it, for as long as it takes to return the American fed to a sane level of checks and balance of power. If you are a freedom-loving American, it is your patriotic duty to publicly protest this foolish act before it does significant harm to our country and our culture.

Kremvax - Citizen, Patriot.

Sober second thought - Librarians, PATRIOT Act II

[securitas]

Understandably people are taking a closer look at the provisions under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act now that the initial shock of 9/11 has worn off. The reaction to "do something" is not being governed by the climate of fear and the urgent feeling for a rapid response that followed the attacks, which also meant that many legislators didn't read or understand the entire bill. The fear of political opponents using a vote against a bill with the name "PATRIOT" didn't help.

Obviously many of those who are taking a sober second thought about the provisions don't like what they see, and this may be the start of a movement to let the sunset clause on the act take effect. It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.

Librarians are at the forefront of the movement and the American Library Association's USA PATRIOT Act campaign is one of many legislative and privacy issues that they address.

The July 4th weekend may be a good time to think about the USA PATRIOT act, argues the SJMC. Declan McCullagh offers his thoughts on the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 AKA PATRIOT Act II. You can also read EPIC's view of the DSEA 2003 and the original USA PATRIOT Act. They also have links to the text of the legislation and other info.

Communities Saying No to Repression (Oneworld.net)

[Allen Varney]

An invigorating article on the same topic from Jim Lobe at Oneworld.net United States:

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 4 (OneWorld) - More than 130 communities with a combined population of more than 16 million people in 26 states have passed resolutions directing local police to refrain from using racial profiling, enforcing immigration laws, or participating in federal investigations that violate civil liberties, according to a new report released on the eve of this year's Fourth of July celebrations by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The 23-page report credits Ann Arbor, Michigan, with adopting the first resolution opposing key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, thus setting off a trend that shows no sign of abating.

"In my conversations with people from across the political spectrum, I hear one refrain over and over," says Laura Murphy, who heads the ACLU's Washington, D.C. legislative office. "If we give up our freedoms in the name of national security, we will have lost the war on terrorism."

"As this year's Fourth of July rolls around, we hope that this report will demonstrate to the White House, the Justice Department and Congress that we must be both safe and free."

The ACLU, whose local offices played a major role in support of dozens of resolutions around the country, stressed that among the jurisdications that have taken action are a number of traditionally conservative areas of the country, such as Oklahoma City, Missoula, Montana; and Falgstaff, Arizona.

Some of the larger cities include Denver, Colorado; Oakland and San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Detroit, Michigan; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Baltimore, Maryland. Three states have also adopted measures that call for strict respect for constitutional rights: Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont.

The report, 'Independence Day 2003: Main Street Fights the Federal Government's Insatiable Appetite for New Powers in the Post 9/11 Era,' says the burgeoning grassroots movement was launched after demands by Attorney General John Aschroft were agreed to by Congress, which, it charges, "encouraged an atmosphere of hysteria," by approving the USA PATRIOT Act in late October 2001 with little debate and few dissenting votes.

The Act included a number of controversial provisions that, in the ACLU's view, upset the balance between the citizen's privacy and political rights and the state's responsibility to ensure the security of the country.

Some of those provisions included expanding the power of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; approval of "sneak and peek" warrants which allow federal agents to enter private homes without notifying the owner until much later; weakening the standards for intelligence wiretaps by permitting them to be used for criminal invstigations under some circumstances; and making it easier for federal agents to obtain highly personal "business records," such as library loan records, of possible terrorist suspects.

The Act itself was followed up with a flurry of executive orders, regulations, policies and practices, such as denying the right to a fair trial for citizens and non-citizens labeled "enemy combatants" and establishing military commissions that fall short of minimum due process standards, which further eroded civil liberties protection, according to the ACLU.

On January 7, 2002, Ann Arbor became the first city in the country to pass a resolution in direct response to the PATRIOT Act and new federal policies. "We're very concerned about civil rights and the about the potential discrimination," City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell told ABC News at the time. "We spent a lot of time since September 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."

Denver became the second city to approve a resolution after the ACLU there discovered the existence of 3,400 secret files on social activists that had been collected by the Denver Police over severa

We need a new moderation category

[rocketfairy]

How about "I wish this post wasn't funny, but it is."

A fitting quote

[dethl]

When the government fears the people, its democracy.
When the people fear the government, its tyrrany.

Re:A fitting quote

[heli0]

The real quotation is:

When the people fear the government you have tyranny
When the government fears the people you have liberty.
--Thomas Jefferson

Re:Nice Legislation system you have there!

[Blastus]

Two hundred years ago, revolutions were started over these things. Now the sad thing is, even by typing that sentence, I could be looked at by the authorities as subversive.

Re:I was beginning to wonder

[The Snowman]

if taxation without representation was cheaper.
(As a minor, that's essentially what I have.)

No, you have representation. You do not, however, have a vote. You may be represented, but you have no say in what that representation does.

I think how our government treats minors is terrible. I understand we need to have an age limit for voting, but 18? That is far too high. I think 14 is about right. Oh, and we need to abolish age limits for tobacco, alcohol, porn, and anything else that is restricted by age.

The successor of the PATRIOT ACT

[CausticWindow]

Is not PATRIOT II, as many here seem to think.

It's actually the JINGOISM ACT, proposed as a secret law by Ashcroft. Since secret laws are a provision of the PATRIOT act, you will never hear of the JINGOSIM ACT until after you're arrested.

My Patriot Act experience..

[mumblestheclown]

Today (saturday!) i got a phone call from [Megabank]. [Megabank] runs a service through which it is possible to send money to overseas accounts using a credit card.

I used [Megabank]'s services to pay my tuition bills at [esteemed UK university]. Today, I was called by [megabank] and was told that if I didn't tell them where the funds were coming from that I used to pay my tuition came from, that my accounts would be closed and my case referred to the federal government. While "my personal savings" was a good enough answer for them, good god, what shite.

In defense of [Megabank], they didn't seem to happy to have to make these phone calls, but told me that they were required to by the patriot act. in fact, the woman even spoke frankly that the company saw this as a waste of time and money too.

Re:My Patriot Act experience..

[cornjones]

assuming this example is true for a second, this points out just how stupid this whole thing is. They inquire about where the money is coming from. ostensibly to ascertain if the money is from/for an "evil terrorist organisation" (tm). He replies "my personal savings". they say, "ok, have a nice day".

Am I to believe that if they called alqueda op #342 and asked "where is the money from", op #342 would say "saudi gov't terrorism fund". If op #342 is really willing to plot to destroy multiple lives, wouldn't he be willing to lie about where it came from?

they can't/shouldn't/won't verify the claims for all of these so why bother asking?

Don't Forget

[Blastus]

The states can still leave the Union when they want. I wonder if any legislators remember this part of the Constitution?

Re:Don't Forget

[metachimp]

Yeah, but remember what happened last time they tried that?

Relevant Ammendment and Supreme Court Case

[p_trekkie]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

-------------

However, in 1819, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollough vs. Maryland that federal laws supercede state laws. More information can be found here.

The ruling states
The States have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burthen, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into effect the powers vested in the national Government.

Re:Relevant Ammendment and Supreme Court Case

[mrkurt]

Slightly off-topic: How ironic (or fitting) that the source for the archive you quote from is Ashland University, a bastion of conservative Christian ideology right here in the heartland, and that the Ashbrook Center there is named after Rep. John Ashbrook, a conservative Republican who ran against Richard Nixon for the 1972 presidential nomination because he thought him to be too liberal! This is very interesting to me, because I wonder if conservatives like Ashbrook would support the Patriot Act like the Christian right do-- they seem to be allied to Bushie like they are joined to him at the hip. The Patriot Act seems awfully Nixonian to me.

As for the topic at hand, don't forget that the end of the 10th Amendment says "to the people". This last of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights, you could say, forms a bookend with the preamble of the Constitution, which begins with WE THE PEOPLE. What if the towns or states who passed their anti-Patriot Act resolutions said, "we are doing this on behalf of the people"?

This might not pass muster, but the lodging of a court case by an individual, if the government is forced to allow someone detained under the Patriot Act to get legal counsel, just might have a chance.

Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the

[mrkurt]

Remember that the Supreme Court essentially put Bushie in office, led by the three black-shirted, er, robed justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Clarence Tom). They ended the Florida recount and effectively appointed him "winner" of the 2000 election. There is a distinctly political tinge to some of the court's decisions, and I would not be surprised to see them uphold the Patriot Act, to please Der Fuhrer. He wants the right to run the "guvmint" as he sees fit, and civil liberties be damned. This is why it is so important for the Senate to keep Bushie's judicial appointments bottled up-- he wants to pack the courts with like-minded people.

What can be done?

[probbka]

Anyone know of any organizations that are actively fighting to get rid of the Patriot Act that one could donate time/money to? Other than the obvious ACLU...

Re:Sober second thought - Librarians, PATRIOT Act

[3liz3]

It is set to expire at midnight (0h00) January 1, 2006.

I have long had--perhaps undeservedly--a deep and abiding faith in the genius of the American people.

But you can expect a PR campaign unlike any seen since The Matrix Reloaded's when this date comes nigh. There will be strenuous efforts to illustrate to the American people "all the lives that have been saved" because of the Patriot Act's existence.

The only interesting question is who will be in power at that point? As it seems clear to me that _this_ (that is, who is *behind* the act) is the determining factor as to whether or not Republicans will support it.

There is NO way on God's good earth that if Gore had won '00 and the PATRIOT Act had been born under his tutelage that conservatives wouldn't have been shouting from sea to shining sea about the encroachment to privacy this act represents.

That was one of the first moments I understood the difference between conservative and Republican.

By a wide margin, I identify more readily with the former than the latter (and in fact it's sad to me to see folks [including conservative commentators], even folks such as Ashcroft, who *so* abhorred the encroachment on liberty such measures represented now turning heel and supporting the same--merely b/c they are the ones holding the purse strings & the power).

Will the American public be reluctant to be snow-jobbed by this inevitable PR campaign? Or will there be a linger of distrust--especially if WMDs are never found in Iraq? Will common sense prevail?
Stay tuned.

Re:America

[mcp33p4n75]

The phrase is "Love it or leave it," and it's one of the stupidest things a person can possibly say.

PATRIOT Act and HUAC

[joehill48]

At a moment when elements of the US government are once again spying on and terrorizing vulnerable members of US society, it's worth remembering the speech of William Mandel in front of the House Unamerican Activities Committee. His words spelled the beginning of the end for that dark moment in American history:

Honorable beaters of children, sadists, uniformed and in plain clothes, distinguished Dixiecrat wearing the clothing of a gentleman, eminent Republican who opposes an accommodation with the one country with which we must live at peace in order for us and all our children to survive.

My boy of fifteen left this room a few minutes ago in sound health and not jailed, solely because I asked him to be in here to learn something about the procedures of the United States government and one of its committees. Had he been outside where a son of a friend of mine had his head split by these goons operating under your orders, my boy today might have paid the penalty of permanent injury or a police record for desiring to come here and hear how this committee operates.

If you think that I am going to cooperate with this collection of Judases, of men who sit there in violation of the United States Constitution, if you think I will cooperate with you in any way, you are insane! This body is improperly constituted. It is a kangaroo court. It does not have my respect, it has my utmost contempt.

Re:America

[xepherys]

Yeah... There's a difference, though. In many countries, the laws are oppressive and can't really be changed without serious socio-political upheaval. In the United States (which is what our country is called, BTW... America is a set of two continents), laws CAN be changed for the good of the public with a little bit of effort. That might be another good point... we're not afraid to put in the effort because we don't fear getting "put down", a.k.a. killed, by our own governing officials for disagreeing with them. The fact that the mods gave you an "Insightful" rating, and will probably give me a "Troll" rating says a lot about the objectivity of many people here on /. these days. -Xepherys a.k.a PV2 Williams, Jesse S. HHD, Engr Bde, 38th ID See, even withstanding the laws of the UCMJ, I'm not afraid of my government... if they are out there looking, they can look at me all they want.

Re:Might as well stay here

[24-bit Voxel]

??? I pray to god you are joking.

He is. There is a trend right now where many senior citizens (and others) are ordering the very same drugs they get in the USA from Canada at 20-50% of the price. Some US agency (i forget which) is getting ready to start airing ad campaingns stating how "dangerous" this practice can be. (In order to protect the bottom line, which is hurting from the faster, more efficient, and far cheaper Canadian alternatives. Maybe they are already, I don't watch TV.) So I think he may have been joking... albeit hard to tell.

Re:Except that there are no rights to privacy

[psykocrime]

There are no constitutional rights to privacy.

The word "privacy" might not be explicity used in the Constitution, but one could make a strong case that the 4th and 10th amendments to the Constitution establish the principle that privacy (at least from the Government itself) is guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even if the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, that doesn't mean there isn't one. There are rights that are even more fundamental than those enumerated by the Constitution... those are the "self-evident truths" and "inalienable" rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. It would be easy to argue that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that doesn't need to be spelled out in the Constitution.

Re:Patriot act...

[24-bit Voxel]

is that at all like what this guy meant?

Hitler's Reich Marshall Goering at Nuremberg Trials

Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the

[UberOogie]

France, for one.

I don't necessarily agree with that judicial set-up however. It allows for a crusading judiciary or petty suits tying up the system. (Can you imagine if corproations were able to challenge any law they wanted to? It would make the post-colonial Indian judicial system look like a model of efficiency.)

However, I think there should be a special provision in cases like this where the law itself takes any possible plantif to remove the law out of the regular judicial system by its very function.

PATRIOT is a scary, scary law.

Re:Except that there are no rights to privacy

[commodoresloat]

According to the US Supreme Court interpretation of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments, there are constitutional rights to privacy. The Court found I think in Griswold v Connecticut that the right to privacy was constitutionally protected, and cited approvingly a definition of privacy from an 1890 law review article that called it "the right most valued by civilized man."

Re:Why hasn't this been shot down in the

[sebmol]

Germany is the only other system I'm familiar with in that regard. When a law passes parliament (Bundest and Bundesrat), there's usually two ways to get the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) to rule on the law.

One way is to basically sue parliament for passing an unconstitutional law. Theoretically anybody can do this but it's usually some kind of interest group that will attempt this. Based on the merits of the case, the court will decide to hear it and make a ruling. The consequence, if the verdict is affirmative to the plaintiff's position, is usually that the law is nullified and parliament is instructed to pass a new one. This is what happened several times with the abortion law. It's important here to realize that the constitutional court does not usually say how the law should be although it might hint at some possible implementations. Specifically, the court didn't decide how abortion was to proceed in contrast to the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

A second way is through somewhat called a "Normenkontrollklage". The term is typical of German legalese and means literally "norm control suit". The purpose of it is to challenge whether a unit of the government has violated the constitution in its actions. If, for example, one of the house of parliament votes on a bill and that vote is invalid for whatever reason but the president of the parliament at the time of the vote determined it to be valid, a Normenkontrollklage can be filed with the constitutional court to determine if the parliament followed the rules correctly.

In the case in question two years ago, an immigration law was before the Federal Council (similar to the US Senate as it is a body representing the states). The German constitution says that all delegates of a state have to vote the same for the vote to be valid. Well, during row call, the "governor" of one of the states answered in the name of the state with yes, the deputy governor asnwers with no. The Federal Council president asks again to clarify. The governor again says yes and the deputy says something like "you know my vote on this". The Federal Council president then counted the votes of that state as yes which led to quite a stir in the council chambers. The Christian Democrats (in the opposition at that time) filed a suit with the constitutional court challenging the outcome of the vote and won. The immigration law was thus nullified and had to go through the parliamentary process again. It's now sitting in conference committee, if I remember correctly.

Re:Nice Legislation system you have there!

[rajafarian]

"We" don't make the laws. "They" do with the assumption we actually want them to. Do they ask us? no.

While I think that may be true sometimes, I think many times they make laws because

1. Corporations asked ($$) for them.
2. It makes them sound like they're actually doing something for us so they can get re-elected. ("I passed a new law to protect our children.")

So this means...

[Eric Damron]

""Our government has a checks and balances system," Pieruccini said. "While sometimes it moves slowly, these cases . . . are going to find their way up to the Supreme Court."

So this means that as long as the Bush Administration can pass civil liberty eroding laws faster than the Supreme Court can hear them our society will move towards being a suppressive, totalitarian type of government.

The Bush administration has done more to destroy our way of life than any group of terrorists ever could. And the funny think is, is that the Republican party put Mr. Bush in power, not through the election process alone but in large part through litigation.

It seems to me that our laws are more and more being held hostage as tools for special interest groups.

If we want to reverse this trend we have to ensure that in next few elections we place people of integrity and intelligence into office. Something that this Administration is apparently lacking.

Re:Wake up to chauvinism

[fermion]

It is becoming increasingly clear that using the word "patriotism" is a misnomer. The kind of rhetoric coming out of Washington, asking for an unthinking fanatical devotion to the country, and maybe even to a single person, is very different from the democratic ideal of a intelligent, thoughtful populous.

To get a better word, we might look at current policies which amount to "let them eat cake", and use the appropriate word.

chauvinism

If the government controled teacher, ministers, preists, etc. have never taught this word to you, look it up.

Re:Crimes of Nixon and Clinton

[mrkurt]

Uh-huh. Sure. Good luck with that. What 'crimes' did Clinton commit again? Oh yeah, 'perjury'

Clinton not telling the truth in a civil case totally unrelated to carrying out the duties of the office of President pales in comparison to Nixon's crimes:

• Attempting to dig up dirt on Daniel Ellsberg, the author of the Pentagon Papers, who was going to reveal Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969
• In his utter paranoia over re-election, attempting to subvert the electoral process by approving the bugging of his political opponents, and engaging in skulduggery against Democratic candidates, Ed Muskie in particular
• After the burglars who attempted this illegal monitoring were caught, he attempted to cover up his administrations connection to the burglars
• Engaging in what essentially was bribe-taking (remember the milkmen?)

I think to this day it burns up the 'Publicans that they didn't get anything on Clinton, unless their aim was to drag his name through the mud-- and they can't really claim any credit for that. Clinton's mistakes in his private life are his own. That they ever became grounds for impeachment is totally ludicrous. Nixon, on the other hand, failed to do what Bushie is attempting to do: subvert our democracy. Bushie found a convenient excuse: the "war of Scare-orism". Only a diligent citizenry will keep him from succeeding.

Re:Might as well stay here

[reboot246]

No joke. Check this out Fraser Institute.

"The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 12.4 weeks. Patients in New Brunswick experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (5.0 weeks), while Newfoundland residents waited longest (20.0 weeks)."

Down here in good old redneck Alabama, when my doctor decided I needed an MRI on my hip, I got it the very next day. If I were Canadian, I'd still be waiting (read: suffering). If you love your healthcare system, by all means stay there with it.

Re:America

[vidarh]

Still, the US is frequently seen by people outside the US as having one of the most brutal, least just legal systems in western world. Contrary to people from the US on here, I don't live in a country where I could end up being detained indefinently without access to a lawyer and without charges if the government decided I was troublesome enough that they'd like to pretend I might be a terrorist, or pretend I might potentially be a material witness for some case.

I know lots of good Americans, and lots of Americans that oppose these laws, but there's still plenty of people in the US who need to realize that perhaps it's time to spend a bit more time worrying about having a mass murdering (see, the death penalty is considered barbaric in most of the civilized world) fascist wannabe (who have done more to take away your rights, and those of anyone unfortunate enough to be in areas under US occupation?) in the White house than trying to police the rest of the world (who, incidentally, would be much more likely to be friendly to Americans if US governments didn't keep on installing and overthrowing murderous dictators on a regular basis, depending on who they prefer today)

Revolutions travel 360 degrees

[quintessencesluglord]

And what is to stop the next gov. from attaining the sad state of affairs we currently have? And the next one? Yeah, "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". That sounds like eternal slavery to me. Given that the Constitution was written in a very different frame of reference then we are currently in, it might be a good idea to start re-evaluating the Constitution, and chart a new direction entirely. Given that armed militias don't really have the resources to combat a limited nuclear exchange (humor) or implement the best technologies, or the abuses shown by corporations; a strong federal government is going to be an evil necessity. Don't want them Canadians getting ideas. But the terms of that arrangement should be renegotiated. I still like trying public servants who abuse their position for treason. Flat tax, strong State's rights, and perhaps even the right to cede from the Union should the entanglements become too much to bear (if you join an organization, you should have the right to unjoin, as it were, or the Gov. is nothing better than an armed gang. Even the Mafia has better terms). I digress. Anyway, the point is (without sounding to Pollyanna) we already have most of the ideas and knowledge to make the US a better place than it currently is. We lack political will. It becomes a question of do you want to sacrifice now for something better, or continue the sacrifices you're currently making for...

Re:Action/Reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. Thank god for the Democrats, I was really impressed with the way they all stood up to Bush and voted against the Patriot Act.

Oh. Wait. Nevermind.

Re:Except that there are no rights to privacy

[RALE007]

I think you make a very good point. To further elaborate on your point and to make an analogy, the constitution does not spell out that citizens have the right to breathe air. Does this mean we do *not* have the right to breathe air? Or does it mean those who drafted the constitution assumed future governments could grasp the idea of fundamental rights and didn't bother spelling out any and every possible right that may need to be protected?

Just because something isn't in the constitution, doesn't mean it isn't a right our forefathers intended to have protected.

So I whole heartedly agree with what you say and just wished to expand on it with that analogy that popped in my head.

News claim is wrong. Only 1 city.

[fleener]

"3 states and 130 cities have passed legislation forbidding local local authorities from cooperating with federal PATRIOT requests"

Cite one reputable news organization reporting that information. To my knowledge, only *1* city (Arcata, California) has passed an anti-Patriot Act law. The numbers you cite are cities and states expressing their displeasure with the Patriot Act. Those cities have said, "We don't like the Patriot Act." Arcata has said, "It is illegal for you to comply with the Patriot Act." BIG DIFFERENCE.

Arcata City Council passes "Anti-Patriot Act" ordinance

Re:Canadian health care system is horseshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Golly, that must be why Canada (and most industrialized nations with nationalized health care systems) have lower infant mortality, longer median lifespan - better health by most metrics - than the good ole' US of A.

My two physician friends from the UK who've spent time working in the US laugh themselves silly about the state of clinical medicine here. They laugh about the lack of preventative medicine, they laugh about the overuse of absurdly expensive diagnostics that are not substantially better (gotta justify the expense of that new MRI machine), they laugh at the procedure-based pay system, where an MD's income is directly tied to the number and types of procedures performed. You're gonna have that lower back surgery whether it is likely to help you or not - the doc has payments on an 8-series beemer and a cottage in the Hamptons. Or maybe she's a young doctor just scraping by and she's choosing between bankruptcy and $250,000 in student loans.

Either way, you lose.

Zieg heil!

[Mooncaller]

Nazi scum.

Repressive anti-freedom legilation has its roots in liberal philosophy. America is strong because the people are empowered, not the federal government. A government only becomes strong at the expense of the people. This has always and will always be true. A strong Federal government results in a week America.

As a Libertarian leaning Republican, I strongly appose the PATRIOT Act. One only need to study the history of the events leading up to WWII and the subsequent invasion of France, to understand the problem with it.

Constitutional Conundrum

[Dukeofshadows]

Civil liberties in the US are under fire now than perhaps any point since the McCarthy era. The Patriot Act serves as a frightening visage of what power-hungry legislators may serve up to placate scared populations. What frightens me more, and what I have not seen mentioned here yet, is the precedent such an act sets. This precedent is carried into this new Domestic Security Enhancement Act which would allow for government-controlled wiretapping, secret arrests, and DNA bank construction on ordinary US citizens without our permission!

The balance between security and freedom is a tenuous one, with increased freedom permitting greater criminal activity and increased security quashing intellectual exploration and constructive criticism. Any criticism of our government is branded un-patriotic in many places (and even unofficially in the press) and may cause arguments or fights. Would the Patriot Act II, or DSEA, allow for political opposition to become targets of investigation by the ruling party? Our intellectual freedom is one of our strengths but what will happen to American society if we start to strangle it?

There are even those who get incensed about questioning the leadership of respective parties, whether G W Bush or H R Clinton is concerned. The actions of our government of late have divided this nation moreso than any I can ever remember. We have factionalized over new attempts of the current leadership in the federal government to expand their powers to those normally resevred for wartime status. However, without a Congressional declaration of war, can these be justified? Would US citizens be forced to turn to military courts under the new DSEA legislation where appeals may not exist and due process is a formality at best?

The first Patriot Act nearly bankrupted several states and forced reductions in education, law enforcement, education, and other areas. Another one may well bankrupt these states and damage the financial strength behind many others. Kentucky released 600 prisoners, while other states have taken more drastic measures. Thus, financially, socially, legally, and intellectually, we can ill afford this new legislation.

If the federal government is going to continue to impose on the rights of the people and states behind them, it sets up some of the same fears and mentality that lead to the Civil War. Any government that instills fear in its own people while being unable to properly manage its resources inevitably collapses, like the USSR. We appear to be on track to a similar fate if we enact these bills so blindly. Even the original Patriot Act divides local governments to the points that the police chiefs are willing to buck the local government to answer to the federal one. There must be better ways to protect the people of the US from the (rare) terrorist event without subjecting us to such loss of liberty and rights.

Re:Nice Legislation system you have there!

[Fuzzle]

Just as you would have been then. Don't make a mistake, our founding fathers were England's anarchists.

Re:Except that there are no rights to privacy

[DunbarTheInept]

This is exactly why there was some argument against having a bill of rights in the constitution in the first place. The fear was that if you explicitly state what rights *DO* exist, it sounds very much like you are saying that something being disallowed is the norm until stated otherwise. Some would have rather had the constitution phrased the opposite way around - state was citizens are NOT allowed to do, and state that anything not explicitly mentioned in that list is allowed.

Re:Canadian health care system is horseshit

[Rob Simpson]

Golly, that must be why Canada (and most industrialized nations with nationalized health care systems) have lower infant mortality, longer median lifespan - better health by most metrics - than the good ole' US of A. My two physician friends from the UK who've spent time working in the US laugh themselves silly about the state of clinical medicine here. They laugh about the lack of preventative medicine, they laugh about the overuse of absurdly expensive diagnostics that are not substantially better (gotta justify the expense of that new MRI machine), they laugh at the procedure-based pay system, where an MD's income is directly tied to the number and types of procedures performed. You're gonna have that lower back surgery whether it is likely to help you or not - the doc has payments on an 8-series beemer and a cottage in the Hamptons. Or maybe she's a young doctor just scraping by and she's choosing between bankruptcy and $250,000 in student loans.

Sheesh, never any mod points when I actually want 'em. This Scientific American article deals with some of the same issues.

Actual Nullification

[jmping]

As a supporter of the ACLU club which pushed the City of Claremont, CA to pass a bill that prevents the use of the Patriot Act clauses within the bounds of claremont (though not speaking in my capacity as a member of that group), my research found that local government is given the power to restrict the use of law enforcement as it sees fit.

National government cannot force local governments to act in accordance with any new policy like this, what national governement has done is to declare certain, formerly off-limits investigative measures to now be appropriate in certain cases.

By recreating the laws that the Patriot act is designed to circumvent at a local level, these efforts do put a true legal block on the searches. Though federal authorities may ignore the local statute, any objective court should be able to decide that the federal action is out of bounds and dismiss the case.

McCarthyism

[zendal]

Sounds like good ol' fashioned McCarthyism arresting people who we suspect to be Terrorists.
It also is reminiscent of the witch hunts. It also sounds similar to the start of Nazi Germany with the secret police.

Meanwhile, numerous interest groups are taking aim at the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, which would strengthen the Patriot Act by allowing the government to make secret arrests, place unrestricted wiretaps and create DNA databases on ordinary Americans.

We need to protect our privacy or we will no longer be a free nation we will be no better than old Communist Russia where you can't make a move without the government knowing.

How many?

[taxman_10m]

How many cities passed legislation against the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that Bill Clinton signed into law after the Oklahoma City bombing? Being the precursor to PATRIOT you'd think that some of these civil libertarians would have noticed it.

The other side of the debate

[RussP]

Read this article by Robert Bork. Summary: you have probably been seriously mislead about the PATRIOT Act.

Re:Nice Legislation system you have there!

[PudriK]

A friend and I were recently talking about Jaywalking, when Leno interviews people on the street and discovers that most of them couldn't tell you who the Vice President is or where Iraq is.

So whenever people complain about voter turnout, I think, thank goodness! We have enough idiots in this country without them skewing the vote. Unfortunately, politicians are getting more and more skilled at alarming these idiots into allowing them to make these sorts of laws, whether it's Democrats ensuring tax-cut payments for non tax-payers, or Republicans getting "Patriot" laws to protect us from "terrorists" by letting them lock them away without a lawyer or a hearing.

I fear the downfall of America will be our poor education system.

Not true.

[ionpro]

You might want to brush up on your Constitutional reading there, buddy. There are four paths for an amendment to be ratified -- granted, only two of them have been used, but all four are possible:
1) Passed by 2/3 of Congress -> Ratified by 3/4 of states' legislatures
2) Introduced by 2/3 of states -> Ratified by 3/4 of states' legislatures
3) Passed by 2/3 of Congress -> Constutional Convention, 3/4 of states' delegations
4) Introduced by 2/3 of states -> Constitutional Convention, 3/4 of states' delegations.
So, there are two methods of dissolving the federal government where the federal government isn't even involved. Plus, remember -- Congress is voted from the people, so if it got to the point where the feds were so bad that the public would support government dissolution, the public could (and would) vote in people who felt the same way.

Library Aids for fighting the Patriot Act

[KFury]

When the laws get you down, find ways to work with them.

Of note: Five technically legal signs for your library.

So Proud...

[phrogeeb]

Living in Denver, Colorado, I find myself constantly surrounded by right-wing bandwagon-hopping jingoist Bush supporters that all but carry the fasces around on their tomahawks. It makes one liberal minded independent feel like a bit of an island, and it sure is good to see all of the overwhelming logic and liberal (if not necessarily independent or individual) thought going on here.
I know I've come to expect the anti-anti-Privacy stuff from the \. crowd, but it's still nice to see that I'm not the only person in town who sends off a couple letters a week to my state legislators etc. letting them know what pissants I think they are.