Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Proud of Patriot Act Slippery Slope
frank_adrian314159 writes "Yahoo News is reporting that the DoJ has been using its increased powers under the US PATRIOT Act to pursue common criminals. DoJ Officials have been holding seminars on how to use increased wiretap powers against (non-terrorist) money launderers and drug dealers. One example in the article is the guy running a meth lab who's now up for a life sentence for 'manufacturing chemical weapons' instead of the much shorter sentence he would have been facing under the current drug laws. Wonderful, huh? Who didn't see this coming? Of course, you're a law-abiding citizen, so you have nothing to worry about, right?" Patriot Act II will allow any Federal agent to demand records from anyone who interacts with you, with no judicial oversight whatsoever.
If a chemical weapon is "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" then where does that leave manufacturers of (for example) petrol. That can cause death or serious injury, but I don't see the government throwing them down for life...
Yay for double standards o_0
Heck, even Ebay (via PayPal) has been charged with violating the Patriot Act. Are we only seeing the beginnings of this kind of abuse, or will someone with deep pockets step up to the plate?
Also of note, here is the full write-up of the wire tap law from Cornell
cat=terrorism -- its nice that theres a dedicated category for terrorism news articles.
:\
terrorism
n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.
Crack labs are violent?
Before 9-11 I was a conservitive.
After 9-11 I'm a radical libral...
And my opinions haven't changed.
I don't actually exist.
Drug dealers are scum.
And for that matter, so are drug users.
Their logic is: "We don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors behind their backs," said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, "and it's our responsibility when we find weaknesses in the law to make suggestions to Congress on how to fix them."
So constitutional protections are now marketed as "weaknesses" which need to be fixed. That whole 4th amendment thing is just a big loophole for criminals and evildoers who want to kill us because they hate our freedoms.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
But moving there won't do you much good, because that obviously labels you as a Subversive Anti-American, and it's just as easy for them to wiretap you 100 km north of the border as 100 miles south of the border, and the Feds kidnap Americans from Mexico so they'll probably try Canada too, and it's presumed that if you're not going there for Subversive Anti-American Reasons, you're going there because marijuana possession is temporarily not illegal in Ontario and readily available in BC as well, so you must be going there to score drugs for your import business, which still makes you an Illegal Combatant.
Australia's pretty nice, though it's a bit on the socialist side and some of the states are run by right-wing bluenose politicians, and the beer's not any better than American beer, though they do have more of it, and they're more friendly and less polite than the Canadians.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Are you guys in the 'States going to have to change your country's description ? Land of the free ?
Keep in mind that the US named themselves "the land of the free" back when slavery and apartheid were in full force, and that they have consistently lagged almost every other Westernized country in granting equal rights.
-a
The laws that need stiffening are the enviromental ones. If you want to take a dangerous substance and use it thats fine, but I don't want to have to worry about being harmed by your polluting the ground water and land around us. This goes for chemical companies too. I dont care who you are, if you harm other people its wrong. Harming yourself is a choice though. I don't know why this country decided one day that it knew best and I had to do what I'm told. US citizens are not unruly children that the goverment needs to set nap times for!
War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
I don't understand why many Libertarians vote Republican. Republicans are neither fiscal nor social libertarians. The Republican party is full of religious fundamentalists and Big Brothers. It has now been documented that Republicans spend MORE than Democrats. So why would a libertarian vote Republican?
Libertarians (and I consider myself to be one), please look beyond the Republican party in 2004!
cpeterso
an open Question to american voters (like in CA or FL)
will you be voting for Nader and the green party in 2004? (or whoever isnt a "D" or "R"
or will you be voting for the lesser of thoes two evils this time around?
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
Do you really think Ashcroft gives a damn about terrorism? Before 9-11 he was focused on crusading against pornography, drugs and all the other things which are against his particular view of christian morality, and that's still all he really cares about. The patriot acts were never about fighting terrorists (at least not to the DoJ), they were about implenting the kind of laws that they needed for their moralist authoritarianism, but which they couldn't have gotten passed otherwise. I suspect Bin Laden would be quite approving of the kind of fundamentalism many members of the current US administration display.
In addition to MartinG's point about the "due process" (or lack thereof) under UK anti-terrorism laws, the government in the UK is also trying its best to collect personally idenifiable data on any "troublemakers" whenever it can. Even if you're just arrested and formally cautioned for something -- without ever seeing a courtroom, never mind being found guilty of a crime -- your fingerprints, DNA, etc. will be taken. If you choose to accept the caution, it will disappear from your record after a few years, but would anybody like to bet on where the fingerprint and DNA data goes and for how long?
Using inappropriate legislation to gain this sort of personal information, which historically has been liable to abuse at a later date, is simply wrong. There is no pontification here, it's just the cold, hard truth.
The yes, the US government does and will abuse personal freedoms and due process in a similar way if it can. Remember how many people are still being held in the camp at Gitmo, and that's from the last war. How long exactly is processing them and charging them with some crime supposed to take?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Speeding is illegal. Suggest that every car should have a sensor that detects itself speeding, and automatically assesses a fine to be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction, and watch people recoil in horror.
Underage drinking is illegal. Suggest that random door-to-door searches for alcohol be employed to enforce that particular set of laws, and watch respect for the law diminish to nothing.
This does not mean there is not a critical purpose for GPS-based tracking devices (yes, even covertly deployed) and canvassing a region, for there certainly is. As uncomfortable as Patriot makes us, we cannot deny there are circumstances that indeed justify significantly more zealous investigation and prosecution.
But the circumstances matter.
To those whose powers are wide, their interest must be narrow. To those whose interests are wide , it is a matter of life and death that their powers be kept narrow. A team dedicated to the prevention of nuclear terror must not have their procedures threatened by, say, a "moral police" seeking to police adultery! Gloating about mission creep and the utter inability to keep sacred maybe the only saving grace of Patriot ("really, we just want to go after those who want to kill us all") is astonishing.
This is a slippery slope that costs lives. I cannot believe I am hearing it praised.
It depends on where my state is. If my state is overwhelmingly for either side, I will give my vote to whoever the Green Party chooses to nominate. If my state is close, I must do whatever possible to keep W from getting a second term.
And if Dean or Kucinich is the Democrat's nominee, I wouldn't consider either the lesser of two evils. (But if it's Kucinich, he'll most likely win my state--his home state--with an large majority, so I'll vote Green.)
I don't find this funny, at all.
I used to vote Republican (ten years ago). Now I say: TAKE BACK YOUR FREEDOM, USoA!!!
Vote Democrat!!!
I try not to be/think "partisan". But the truth is, the best possible chance Liberty has of making a comeback is (just about) anything non-Republican. The best possible chance of getting any non-Republican power back is in the hands of the Democrats!
No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
(If it can be stopped at all.)
Scott
--
Scott Gallagher-Starr
Assistant Director, North Bend Public Library
North Bend
I may. But having a "we'll destroy america as much as we want to, and if you don't like it you can leave" attitude doesn't seem very positive to me. It kinda rings of the "if you aren't doing anything bad, you have no reason to fear government cameras in your home" argument.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Where in my post did I use the word "libertarian?" Hell, one of the people I ran against last year was a Libertarian.
However, there is one major advantage that Libertarians have over both of the two major parties: They don't have the Dems' or GOP's dismal track record. Note that everything you have in your post is pure speculation about what might happen if the Libertarian Party became the dominant party, while Ds and Rs have had over a century of power brokering for us to look back on and say "no" to.
Ultimately, the solution is not to pick one party over another but to reject the concept of political party membership outright. Anybody who runs for public office while a member of a political party (any political party) is trying to serve two masters, and that conflict of interests should be a black mark against the candidate in the eyes of the voters. In this supposed "Information Age," voters have all the tools needed to research all candidates and make their decisions based on the individuals in question, not based on dilluted party philosophy.
And if you still don't like any of the choices you see before you, then put yourself on the ballot. Anything is better than being just another non-voter.
"Three states--Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont--and 112 cities, towns and counties have passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act on grounds it gives the federal government too much snooping power. Some have refused to enforce it."
Quoted from Patriot Rebellion Keeps Growing.
Listen up: you ain't gonna have a vote in 2004.
Mark my word, a crisis situation will be manufactured that fall. The US Vote will be delayed until the war machine succeeds in rally the people into Mom & Apple Pie unity, all set to elect Bush.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
They don't have the Dems' or GOP's dismal track record.
A track record is better than no track record.
Ultimately, the solution is not to pick one party over another but to reject the concept of political party membership outright.
Thats nice in theory, but doesn't work out in practice. Green Party members voted for Nader rather than Gore in 2000, even though Gore probably fit at least 75% of their party's platform. All they accomplished was letting Bush into office, and look how the last couple years have gone.
> I want to see some conservatives comment now on how Republicans are "conservative". Republicans want even bigger government than the Democrats. I am tired of this, everytime I read the news paper or watch TV George Bush is asking for more money for stupid shit.
You are on the virge of enlightenment: the anti-big-government, anti-careless-spending rhetoric isn't associated with a political view, it's associated with being the party out of power.
> Hundreds of billions for building schools and hospitals in Iraq, Billions for Africa
Since the current Administration is dead-set against spending your tax dollars for the same damn things here at home, you would do well to ask what he and his supporters think they are buying with all that spending.
> I cant understand the logic of these Republicans, they seem to be far from conservative
IMO, "conservative" and "liberal" aren't very solid concepts, and certainly don't describe the differences between Republicans and Democrats very well. E.g., if I want to 'conserve' our traditional 'liberties', am I a conservative or a liberal?
> Republicans seem to want Global Government which scares the shit out of me far more than the big US gov democrats.
These days the Republican party is a big bed full of strange bedfellows. Principally the Three 2-R's : the too-rich, the too-religious, and the too-right. They don't really have many interests in common, but they don't have too many interests in conflict either, so the party can cater to them all simultaneously. (And golly gee, look who the party has catered to for the past 2-1/2 years.)
But what you're referring to is a pretty small constituentcy, the neocons. They seem to come in several flavors, but the one of concern here is the Wolfowitz clique at the Pentagon (n.b. - civilians, not the military), who have a self-serving idealism that says that the world would be a better place under a "benevolent" hegemony by the USA. These are the scariest of the lot right now, since they're going to get us all killed in WWIII if Iraq doesn't embarass them out of power. (They existed at least as far back as the previous Bush Administration, but they didn't have much actual influence on the governance of the country until 911 gave them a chance to press their extremist views on a feeble-minded President who had surrounded him with advisors from the oil industry... a dangerous combination when the Middle East is the topic.)
Some slight good news is that there is a growing falling out between the neocons and the supply-siders. Sadly I didn't bookmark it, but someone - Slate, IIRC - recently ran a story about the flame war heating up between two groups of conservative editorialists, one that thinks intervention in Iraq is the ultimate good; the other beginning to think it evil to the tune of $87 billion...
FWIW, I read somewhere that one legislator suggested dismissal of the neocons as a pre-req for signing off on the $87 billion. It looks as though this particular brand of extremist is rapidly losing face, and I wouldn't be surprized if they are sacrificed on the alter of public opinion as the '04 campaign heats up and it becomes easier to start looking for someone to blame than to maintain the pretense that everything is rosy. But we certainly do need to run them out of Washington in a hurry, so we can get started cleaning up the mess they made.
It occurs to me that if we can get a Democratic President and substantially Democratic Congress, we may be able to get Republican legistators to turn against the "patriot" act as a manifestation of the bug gum'mit they so heartedly despised when they were out of power, and will surely despise again next time they're out.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
http://www.freestateproject.org
Of course, you may want to wait two weeks so you'll know where you'll be moving...
John Titor's claims seem frighteningly credible.
I think it would be very interesting if instant runoff voting was established for presidential candidates. Since your vote also includes your second, third, etc. choices, you don't have to worry about wasting your vote. It might make the political landscape much more interesting. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Litigious bastards
You are correct. The one party that can STOP this madness is, of course, the Constitution Party, the only party that promotes constitutionally correct government. A vote for the other parties is wasted on those that would further the decline of the American Experiment.
yes, I was the original poster. I came to libertarianism from the Left/Greens, so personal freedoms are slightly more important to me than freedoms for "Big Business". That's why I can't bring myself to vote Republican. I gave up on the Left/Greens because they don't recognize how an efficient, competitive market can be used to create good.
I won't vote for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate because I would rather get Bush out of office. I will vote for other LP candidates.
As you pointed out, tax cuts without spending cuts (or with spending increases we have now) are actually tax INCREASES for future generations.
Regarding Republican spending, here is a news article about a USA Today study that shows that Republican-controlled state legislatures spent more than Democrat-controlled state legislatures from 1997-2002. If the state with a Republican-controlled state legislature also had a Republican governor, then they spend even more. most frugal combination: a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor.
"USA Today Study: GOP state legislatures beat Democrats in spending"
cpeterso
All right all you yahoos, let's get to the truth of the matter.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
I seem to recall when one of the complaints against the government in this country was the government's ability to search anything they wanted without prior permission or notification. We kicked them Brits out 200+ years ago.
What stupid ass thought it'd be smart to start doing this again?
I, for one, am sick and tired of my civil liberties being destroyed for the sake of anti-terrorism. Why is it a good idea to let my doctor fork over records to the gov't and make it illegal to tell me about it? We all know that the systems out there get exploited. What'll happen next? You go to your doctor and get put on an anti-depressant... 10 years later, you apply for a gov't job, they pull your medical records, and you get denied the job because you were once a "psycho" on anti-depressants?
I'll gladly vote against anyone that's for this anti-rights bullshit
"It compiles, SHIP IT!" -Overheard at Microsoft's development lab
Greed is now God.
The notion of greed is completely subjective. Is it greedy to own a 27" television when you could have bought a 25" television and given the difference to the poor?
All anyone cares about is themselves and their possesions.
As if blanket assertions like this were ever helpful.
Hell that's what's killing the American Family.
I expect doom-and-gloom statements about the "health of the American family" from Fundamentalist Christians. Now Leftists invoke it as well. Yet another way that I see Fundamentalist Christianity and Leftism as the similar religions with different gods.
Let's see, why do mommy and daddy work 80 hours a week each?
Perhaps the American corporate culture has something to do with working its employees harder. It's completely understandable in this cruddy economy. I can think of several people who are in this situation right now.
Man that's so worth it isn't it? I mean you get to have your kids driven to school by the nanny in the new Lexus. Isn't that the American Dream?
Leftists (and college kids) often whine about this mythical person who meets the following qualities:
1. Has no interest in parenting their children
2. Has no interest in their marraige
3. Has no interest in hobbies
4. Has no interest in friendships
5. Has an overwhelming, extreme interest in buying things to impress strangers, make up for low self-esteem, or make up for small penis size
I think this person is a boogeyman; i.e., this person does not exist except in the argument where his/her (mythical) existence is beneficial to the argument.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
This really goes to show how little our constitution means, 4th Amendment be damned.
But the thing that really frightens me is this... most people are so turned off to politics that things like the Patriot Act slip under the radar. What's worse... a majority of those that actually are involved in our political system choose to be a Democrat or Republican, as if they're their only options.
In 2004, I want G.W. Bush to get out of my government. Sadly, it'll have to be done with a Democrat, and it shouldn't be that way.
After skimming the surface of the German government, I can't help but wonder how different America would be if several parties were in control, not just two. Any Germans care to enlighten me?
Do a google on "lippo group", then "vince foster". You'll find considerably more evidence for what I've put forth than exists to demonstrate the Bush is engaged in a war of imperialistic expansion to take control of the world's oil supply. I believe that last statement, by the way. I was talking to a successful Chinese businessman after 9/11, and he was convinced the US would invade the middle east, taking Iraq, Iran, and Syria. So far, we've conquered one of those places, and have threatened the other two.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
...Or at least they apparently are illegal to manufacture in the state of North Carolina. I'd say that cigarettes, if anything, is a "substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.
Which is the definition of a chemical weapon of mass destruction.
Start prosecuting, fellas!
--Stephen
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?