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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
> 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
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
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
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?