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.

23 of 1,108 comments (clear)

  1. I Understand Now by jlaxson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

    If I chug enough gasoline, I'll die. Let's put the Oil companies away for 12 years to life! For that matter, drink some bad water from a lake and you'll die. Put the Big Bang away for 12 - life!

    --
    On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
    1. Re:I Understand Now by ScriptGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point he was making was that any substance known to man "has the capability to cause death or serious injury"
      Chalk, WD-40, gasoline, soda, cigarettes, et al have the capability to cause serious injury or death when consumed and to some extent contain toxic chemicals.
      Thus this definition is seriously flawed and could be used to arrest people even if they haven't done anything wrong (aside from working for Dow Chemical).
      As a CME major, that scares the crap out of me.

      --
      Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
    2. Re:I Understand Now by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Okay, cigarettes are *NOT* designed to kill people. They are an age old tradition that dates back at least since the 1500-1600's in this country. I'm not sure how long it's been in European countries. It just so happens that cigarettes slowly create health problems, that eventually you die of. Christ, Turkey has trace amounts of some nasty stuff in them.

      Cigarettes are designed to be addictive. If tabacoo companies could find a way to make them addictive and healthy, they'd do it so fast it'd take your breath away (pun intended).

      Oh, I'm not a smoker. Never even tried one. My father died of lung cancer when I was 20. He smoked 4 packs a day of Pall Mall unfiltered for 40 years. I'll never smoke, I generally remind people that they shouldn't smoke, and that's it unhealthy.

      However, to say that "smoking is designed to kill people", in a discussion about a law that is the result of an idiot attempt to stop terrorists is just intellectually dishonest. Smoking isn't designed to be harmful, like flying planes into buildings is harmful, or like blowing up a Ryder truck full of Diesal fuel and fertalizer is harmful, or going to holy sites in Isreal and blowing up buses full of people. It's designed to optimize the amount of money Tabacco companies make. If they could make you live longer while you did it, I'm sure they'd be up for it, it is an increased revenue stream if you lived longer... *grin*

      Personally, I have no problem with people who chose to smoke. I have no problem with people who chose to drink alchol. I have no problem with people who want to use illegal drugs assuming they are law abiding and responsible. I don't want to pay to rehabilitate them, and I don't want to pay their medical expenses. If they do those things, I've got little to no issue with people who pick that as their form of enjoyment or relaxation hobby/habit.

      Kirby

  2. Campaigning by the Executive Branch by maomoondog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    John Ashcroft has been touring to gain popular support for Patriot Act II. Nevermind that his speeches are invitation-only, to "safe" crowds of police officers in order to avoid inevitable protests... is anyone else creeped out that the executive branch has so many characters making such public efforts at lawmaking rather than just the execution of law?

  3. It was once said... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin

    If the federal government persists in the behaviours that it has been engaging in lately, all that they'll do is force people who care to either leave the U.S., or to engage in rebellion.

    I hope that the courts start thinking with some sanity, and dismiss entirely charges against people, despite their illegal acts, because of the treatment that they're receiving at the hands of law enforcement officials in charges and the like. If someone is doing something illegal, like manufacturing an illicit substance whose creation process is relatively dangerous, they deserve the trouble that they'd get, but they do no deserve to be branded "Terrorist". The DA or police who came up with the charge deserve to be sued for libel.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. Just like the old Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is very much like how the Soviet's used to do it. If one read the Soviet era constitution, citizens in theory were told they had all sorts or rights and freedoms, including to due process, and that these could only be violated for the most heneous of crimes, such as treason. On the other hand, the Soviet treason laws were written so that anyone could be easily and effectivily charged under them :).

    Today, in America, we now say due process and freedom is to be enjoyed by all, except those potential or suspected terrorists. Again, the problem is that our terrorist laws being so written that anyone may be charged under them.

    And we now have our very own gulogs to boot. What a fitting description for both Guantanimo bay, and for the military brigg in Virginia where several actual American citizens have been held for close to a year now without any rights whatsoever.

  5. Re:It's a cliche, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you got to love the doublespeak. Using the word "patriot" to discribe a law designed to negate parts of the Bill of Rights. How patriotic...

  6. Didja see this? by mrpuffypants · · Score: 5, Informative

    Crowd plays the "Imperial March" from Star Wars as Ashcroft enters building: story

    And while I can't find it there was also, at a Patriot Act "whoo-ha!" rally, a protestor that directly addressed Ashcroft and said "You're fired" and told him that what he was doing was wrong. You didn't see any of that in the liberal media, however...

  7. Re:Great by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful


    When did a campaign of "Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader"?

    Bush's entire campaign was a disconnect between hype and reality. "Compassionate Conservatism" was a campaign slogan that sounded good, but Bush never made a real attempt to back it up. (How is a guy who sets a new record with the electric chair a compassionate conservative?) It was fun to watch Bill Maher ridicule the Republican parakeets like Tom Stoppard and Ann Coulter who repeated this tripe on his show.

    -a

  8. Re:Print the article... by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wouldn't it be easier to just remember not to vote for anybody with a "D" or an "R" next to their name?

  9. Vancouver's Pretty Nice by billstewart · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Back in the 70s, when the reason to consider moving to Canada was to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam was, as opposed to being shot by Americans in the War on Terror, the only part of Canada I knew much about were the Frozen North, e.g. Toronto and Montreal and Hudson Bay. Fortunately I was in the last year of the draft lottery and got a good number; I'd probably have done conscientious objector instead of leaving (and by the way, the same people who chanted "America - Love it or Leave it!" got really pissed if you left.) It wasn't till years later that I went to Vancouver and Victoria and discovered how gorgeous that area was.

    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
  10. PA or no, the police can pick you up anytime by jbs0902 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One example in the article is the guy running a meth lab

    1) I fail to have any sympathy for a guy who runs a meth lab.

    2) The sad fact is, Patriot Act or no, in the US and most "civilized" countries there are so many laws that the police can pick you up anytime they want for breaking the law. They just have to care enough to target you and figure out which of the gazilla laws you inadvertently broke.

    The "if you're a law abiding citizen" comment, misses the mark. There are so many laws, none of us can go through life without breaking some law. None of us are law abiding anymore, regardless of our intentions.

    Also, the sentencing is so Draconian nowadays that the penalty for fighting the arrest and losing makes a plea bargain much more attractive. Given the choice between a 20 years minimum sentence and a 2 year plea bargain, most people take the plea bargain. The 20 years just scares them too much.

    The problem isn't "those damn Republicans." Remember many Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. The problem is the political system. Rarely does a politician get elected because they voted to repeal a criminal law. Rarely does a politician get elected for being "soft on crime." Willie Horton anyone? Left or Right, you get votes by promising to protect "the public" and their children. That means you pass MORE laws, even if the existing laws are adequate, because that shows you did something. You pass TOUGHER penalties, because that shows you did something.

    That is why we end up with drunk driving laws that set the blood alcohol level at a value lower than the margin of error on the testing devices. And, when this is pointed out to the legislature they just change the margin of error on the test. Not by changing the test, but by changing the definition of margin of error. (Next up, Congress sets the acceleration due to gravity at 11m/s^2.) Because, we HAVE to be tough on drunk drivers "for the children."
    That is just one example of the stupid and unreasonable results of the "democractic" political system. I am sure you have your own examples.

    I am not supporting the Patriot Act. I wish it and the system that created it wasn't so. But, don't act like this is new. Don't act like the Patriot Act is an exception. And, don't act like the US and only one party is the US plays this horrible game. It is played by both sides, all over the world, all the time.

  11. Ranting and hating. by softspokenrevolution · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember when Dubya said that he was a compassionate conservative who wanted to teach little kids to read, and get our manufacturing jobs back from those 'filthy' Mexicans. Remember when the man could barely speak the english language and was just a jolly little fool who did absolutely nothing besides oversee a sudden plunge in the economy and then came up with the brain dead idea that giving tax money to people who traditionally don't spend money?

    I really miss those days. When That's My Bush was on television, it was okay to question the government and even though lots of people were unemployed it was still a pretty good time.

    In case you didn't note, this is going to be a rant. Two years and three days ago, a bunch of Religious Conservatives hijacked a couple of plains and showed the US (Succesfully this time) that crazy people mean buisness. The largest terrorist attack on US soil was no longer in the hands of a crazed American, but in the hands of a bunch in another country, and thus things became scary.

    The World Trade Towers were chosen because not only did a great number of people work there, and that their destruction would be economically crippling for the area and damaging to the US, but because they were symbols of what the United States stood for.

    In reaction to these attacks Americans suddenly took up and saw that all of these freedoms which we enjoy and espouse (but don't abide by in countries where we pick up cheap goods from, like China and the Middle East {that's right, gas is cheap in America, come on Europeans, stand up tell everyone how much taxes impat your gas prices}), allow people easy access to pretty much whatever they want. Yup, apparently the fundamental principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were total anathema to the dogma of security. Benjamin Franklin pointed out that fact and the converse, that a society cannot have both freedom and absolute security.

    Esentially, 9-11 has been used to pass a Neo-Conservative agenda of global tyranny and domestic oppression. I emphasize the Neo part, because I know many conservatives, they are wonderful and nice people who have many good ideas. These people, a mixed coalition of reps and dems, are responsible for a campaign of silencing all opposition and enriching themselves and their allies upon the spoils of wars.

    It is intersting to note how someone brought up 1984 earlier, it is mentioned in that book how war or the idea of such activity is wonderful at putting large populations into subservient moods. Notice how we have gone from a War on Terror (where we didn't find Osama or even put an end to the Taliban, or stop terror), to a War on Iraq (where we didn't find Sadaam and are busy ruling it like fuedal lords and expending 150+ billion on what was supposed to be a short and sweet little engagement). The American people are being manipulated in a very base manner into thinking that anything but pure agression will get us killed, and that if we vote for anyone but this psychotic faction that we will all die in some sort of hellish confligaration of biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.

    I for one see that pretty much everything this administration has done has a negative value. They have done much to obfuscate their agenda and to make them appear to be 'compassionate' but those agendas were never pursued, the heavily pushed "No Child Left Behind act" has absolutely no funding and even if implemented it was only going to require more idiotic tests and dropping out of school. Where is the Aid to Africa? Where are the morals and where is the trust that we were promised in 2000? We have simply replaced blow-jobs and S&L scandals, for corporate patronage, more S&L scandals, financial mismanagement, and corruption. And Ari Fleischer and the rest of the crew lies to us as much as the Iraqi information minister lied to the people of Iraq.

    Next year, when the fields narrow we need to get out there and force a change or else things will start to head from bad to worse and we will see freedoms and liberties that we once took for granted picked off one by one all in the name of some kind of security that we will never attain as long as our country remains self-centered and militaristic.

  12. More Paranoia by KrancHammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Geez.. you guys are right... It sucks that GWB is oppressing free speech and stuff. I mean, nobody can complain about the Patriot Act, Ashcroft, or the Administration without getting charged as a terrorist or getting arrested or just disappearing. I mean, there has to be hundreds of former slashdotters, indymedia types, and the like at the Death Camp in Guantanemo. My eyes have been opened to the truth. Bush and Co. are the Third Reich. Heil Ashcroft. And the media. Don't get me started about the neofascist government control of the media. Obviously, Al Franken's number one book slipped through all the government censors, but I bet they won't that happen again!

    P.S. That was sarcasm.
    P.P.S. I don't like the Patriot Act(s) either. I don't think its the end of life as we know it. Get a grip. Please. Leftists are so pathetically terrified of Bush and his administration its almost amusing. The amount of paranoia and blind hatred way surpasses the paranoia and blind hatred the right had with Clinton.

    --
    Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
  13. Re:Great by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah yeah, blame it all on the White House.... I am Bush, the great and powerful! Ignore the 535 members of Congress behind the curtain!

    Let us not forget that 530+ members of congress voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act. And some of these very same members of Congress are now also all over our televisions with the Democratic primary debates and what-not. Heck, IIRC the only Democrat candidates that didn't vote in favor of USA PATRIOT were the ones like Dean and Sharpton who just happened not to be members of Congress at the time.

    I find it darkly humorous that some of the very same members of Congress that are decrying the current situation in Iraq are the ones that voted "Uh... I dunno, what do you wanna do?" instead of, say, voting to declare/not declare war. They could have spelled out exactly what the president could and could not do in Iraq and exactly what the goals were, but that would have required Congress to have, y'know, a spine. Taking responsibility and all that.

    If they're so unwilling to exercise their rights and duties as members of Congress, why are we supposed to believe that they'll be any different in the White House?

    November of next year, do yourselves, your country, and your species a favor and don't vote for either major party. They've both shown themselves to be derelict in their duties as public servants.

  14. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by weaponx71 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.. youve had them roughly since 1931.
    Its called a Social Security number.
    You have just been branded for the Feds meat coral.

    Reclaim your US Nationalism title and live as United States Americans were suppose to live.

    And does anyone else see the IRS as another "King" that we should revolt against?

    I am sure most will completly disagree with all of this, but before you do, just do some research.

    One thing you should be worried about is the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned bank.. hmmm my constitution says thats a big no no...

    go ahead.. look it up..
    have fun earning you freedom.

    http://familyguardian.tzo.com/Subjects/Taxes/tax es .htm

  15. Glorifying Mission Creep by Effugas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:Print the article... by darkwiz · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...and take it into the voting booth in November, 2004.

    Agreed. And remember, Congress voted 357-66 in the house, and 98-1 in the senate. Which means, despite the rhetoric of Democratic presidential candidates - at least 69% of Democratic representatives (and 96% of Democratic senators) voted for it as well. So be sure to print off this sheet as well (pre-emptive google cache: here)

    Give all these assholes the boot: vote against the incumbent!

  17. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Exactly! I mean, look at the latest fabrication of the Republicans. They're claiming that a hurricane of all things is going to strike the east coast of America. Ask them exactly when or where, and they'll give you some malarky about how unpredictable the weather is. Looks like those new laws haven't done much if they can't predict where the "hurricane" will hit.

    Even better, they're warning people to both cover their windows with plywood AND to evacuate their homes. The notion that you can make a house air tight with plywood is ridiculous enough, but it does little good if the people aren't even there!

    Face it, the Republicans have trumped up this "hurricane Isobel" nonsense to spread fear and panic to the masses. Luckily, you all have us Democrats to tell you about this farce. Take it from us, the best thing you could do, even if a hurricane were to magically hit, is to stay _home_. In the event of an actual hurricane, the roads will be needed for rescue crews and linemen to repair the electrical and telecommunications infrastructure. That's what the roads are there for, after all. Even if your neighbor is in trouble, don't go to help! Call 911 and let the authorities handle the situation, because after all, who's going to be better trained for these situations, you or an impartial team of workers hired and trained to be able to prioritize these things properly?

  18. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by jonasj · · Score: 5, Insightful
    No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
    We should all go vote republican because they pose the biggest threat to our worst enemy? That's like saying that Apple is Microsoft's largest competitor on today's desktop market, so all those who are anti-MS should go buy a mac. "No. Don't use Linux; BSD; Hurd. That will only weaken the one system left that can help STOP this madness!".

    No! The republicans and the democrats is one party with two names! Voting for one is just as bad as the other.
    --
    You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
  19. Re: I, for one, welcome our... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


    > 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!

    I agree with your sentiment, but only reservedly: if you think back to the congressional votes on the "patriot" act and the war, you have to conclude that the Democrats - with a few noble exceptions - are only going to stand up to what's going on if there's a political advantage to doing so, or a political cost to not doing so. Most of them, I suspect, would be all to happy to have these same tools in their hands.

    If you vote in the Democratic primary for this kind of reason, make sure you vote for someone who spoke out against things when it was a political liability to do so, not one of the windsocks that changes with the weather.

    Sadly, some of the far-right nutcases have a better track record on this than the crowds of Democrats do.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  20. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After 4 more years under a Republican it's the backlash again the entire USA that will be the problem. It only took Bush 2 years to turn near-universal sympathy for the United States into near-universal fear and/or hatred. Just imagine all the damage he could do with 4 more...

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  21. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Tellalian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!

    Yes, don't vote for who you think would best represent your views. Instead, vote for who everyone else is voting for.

    At the risk of sounding off-topic, let me point out that the idea of a third-party "weakening" the first two is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone developed an informed opinion by doing a little research on all the possible candidates, then voted for who they wanted, ignoring fear-mongers like the parent, our political system could have a positive impact.