Slashdot Mirror
Deconstructing the Patriot Act PR Campaign
Aaron writes "The Center for Democracy and Technology offers up an interesting point for point rebuttal to the the claims made via the 'rah-rah-esque' DOJ's website, part of the PR campaign (including Ashcroft speaking tours) to convince the public the Act is good for them. I think this Broadband Reports article also brings up a good point: among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight. The UN this year even launched an investigation into the use of the system to spy on UN diplomats without much fanfare."
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". I don't think the article gets it right once.
Hammer of Truth
A friend of mine was getting a security clearance. One day he came home and told his wife not to give money to Greenpeace any longer. Appearantly, just donating money to them was enough to cause concern. I wonder what it would be like for us "little people". Some file is kept on us and phone calls monitored every once in a while?
FROM: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNews Plus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307
"he ACLU takes this odd position on the 2nd Amendment for two primary reasons, along with a fall back stance. First, they have decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the 2nd Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they take the position that this is a collective right and can only be assigned to a militia group, such as the National Guard, which means that Congress can limit or remove gun ownership as they see fit. Secondly, they cite the 1939 Supreme Court case of US. vs. Miller, as proof that the Supreme Court agrees with their beliefs. And finally, they take the fall back position that even if their first two reasons do not hold water, the 2nd is now outdated because the founding fathers could not have envisioned the type of arms that are currently available and the dangers of a few using firearms in criminal activity outweigh the value of this right to society.."
Actually Benjamin Franklin said
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a measure of security deserve neither liberty nor security."
Benjamin Franklin is a national jewel,
I would think it would be best to at least remember his words correctly
It's clearly being used beyond is "intended" purpose, i.e., to track down terrorists. As this article describes it has been used in hundreds of non-terror cases already.
And if you think that every one it has been used on was guilty, look up bridges in the want ads.
According to Gallup, a majority of Americans believe the federal government exerts either the right amount of power or not enough power. It's over 70% total.
Most Americans Don't Feel Government Threatens Civil Rights,
It seems, thankfully, most people would prefer the government actualy do something about terror, rather than complaining about being watched while surfing the Net in libraries, before the next 9-11 happens.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The US will not and cannot formally and outwardly define "terrorism". It has made this very clear. The reason? Under any definition it would incriminate itself of the very definition. We have discussed this many times. There are some military definitions that some site, but they aren't formally adopted for the reasons stated above.
Just like "...in December 1987, at the peak of the first war on terrorism, that's when the furor over the plague was peaking. The United Nations General Assembly passed a very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every state to fight against it in every possible way. It passed unanimously. One country, Honduras abstained. Two votes against; the usual two, United States and Israel. Why should the United States and Israel vote against a major resolution condemning terrorism in the strongest terms, in fact pretty much the terms that the Reagan administration was using? Well, there is a reason. There is one paragraph in that long resolution which says that nothing in this resolution infringes on the rights of people struggling against racist and colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation to continue with their resistance with the assistance of others, other states, states outside in their just cause. Well, the United States and Israel can't accept that. The main reason that they couldn't at the time was because of South Africa. South Africa was an ally, officially called an ally. There was a terrorist force in South Africa. It was called the African National Congress. They were a terrorist force officially. South Africa in contrast was an ally and we certainly couldn't support actions by a terrorist group struggling against a racist regime. That would be impossible.
And of course there is another one. Namely the Israeli occupied territories, now going into its 35th year. Supported primarily by the United States in blocking a diplomatic settlement for 30 years now, still is. And you can't have that. There is another one at the time. Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon and was being combated by what the US calls a terrorist force, Hezbollah, which in fact succeeded in driving Israel out of Lebanon. And we can't allow anyone to struggle against a military occupation when it is one that we support so therefore the US and Israel had to vote against the major UN resolution on terrorism."
You must know your history before you can realize that the US is far from the beleaguered and oft attacked people just trying to defend itself. My god, especially when you realize the plight of many in the rest of the world, this couldn't be further from the truth. 9/11 was a tragedy, and we should find the bastards that pulled it off, but the rest... fear mongering, opportunistic, power grabbing bullshit that does nothing but add to the reasons for those we are "defending" ourselves against.
Because the use of Echelon in this country is clandestine and illegal according to the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act is the attempted rollout of the legal use of Echelon. If U.S. citizens accept the Patriot Act it makes things like Echelon more useable. Sure they can use Echelon now, but they cannot use the results in a U.S. court as a basis for prosecution. The Patriot Act would change that. We're sort of between the right to privacy and the state in which the Patriot Act would invoke.
The Patriot Act is a horrible thing and we should reject it. It continues the trend of concentrating power into fewer hands.
"among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight."
While Echelon is problematic, its purpose and use appears limited to threat analysis and corporate espionage. The potential for abuse is absolutely astounding, but it isn't something that's legal, and it isn't something that (so far as we know) has been used to gather evidence against anyone for a court case. Echelon is a difficult and touchy issue to bring up, partly because it would appear so integral to the member-nations' security, but mostly because so little is known about it.
What it comes down to is this: you can't attack every single problem at once. You go after the big stuff first, and then you come back for the rest as you can deal with it. Echelon is blatantly unconstitutional and violates so many international laws and treaties, it would take a pack of lawyers years to determine the totality of its illegality. The main problem these people have is the 'legal' (as per current law) violations of individuals' rights, or the potential thereof. If the FBI were illegally searching peoples' homes or records, or were illegally seizing all sorts of objects or information without probable cause, then it would be up to government oversight to reign them in. In this case, agents of the government are legally doing these things, and that's why these groups are jumping all over it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The old "fire in a crowded theater" argument regarding the limitations on rights is constantly misused. This example refers to the rights of a property owner to make use of that property. By yelling "fire", you deprive the owner of the rights to own and operate his/her theater as he/she sees fit. That is purely a civil matter.
No.
You're correct that the 'falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic' argument is widely misused. It dates back to Schenk, which is no longer good law, having been replaced by Brandenberg. And no one ever remembers to quote the part about it being a _false_ cry of 'fire,' though it is perfectly legal and quite commendable to cry 'fire' if it's for real, nor that it is only objectionable should it result in a panic. (given the inflammability of theaters in 1919, a panic would likely result in people being injured or even killed)
BUT you're wrong as wrong can be when you get into this nonsense about property. That's just stupid.
The reason put forth for that type of limit on speech is that it results in grevious physical injury to people, and thus shouldn't be permitted. Similarly, if someone spoke to a mob causing it to lynch someone, or someone spoke to an assassin, causing him to murder someone, though the speaker has engaged in nothing more than speech, the immediate effect of that speech is harmful, and that's why he's not free to do so.
I STRONGLY suggest that you read Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which is the CURRENT law on the subject, or at least read the decision in the case that the fire example dates back to, Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).
'Cos right now, you just look foolish.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
At least my representative is fighting it . What about yours?
You should be moderated even higher, the point you make is excellent. Not only the Patriot Act, but all of the federal espionage and terrorism-related acts as far as I can see are written in extremely broad fashion. Probably for a good reason, probably intentionally, to confer upon the powers that be broad leeway when they are dealing with nasty situations. The downside, of course, is that this imprecision makes those laws ripe for abuse.
0 .html
See this article about how "terrorism" under the Patriot Act is already being broadly defined in ways in which most people might not see the connection:
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,60440,0
"Terror Law Nabs Common Criminals
In the two years since law enforcement agencies gained fresh powers to help them track down and punish terrorists, police and prosecutors have increasingly turned the force of the new laws not on al-Qaida cells but on people charged with common crimes.
The Justice Department said it has used authority given to it by the USA Patriot Act to crack down on currency smugglers and seize money hidden overseas by alleged bookies, con artists and drug dealers..."