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."
Last night on the West Wing, there was an inspiring quote from Benjamin Franklin:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. "
This came to mind earlier today when I walked past an ACLU table on campus. They were gathering signatures for a petition against the "Patriot" Act. I'm glad someone is fighting for my freedom.
1) It will keep us safe. We must abandon all rights. We need it. 2 ). It'll destroy us. Our rights are gone, we must stop it. -- Is there a middle ground? How do we find it and what is it?
The Patriot Act has served it's purpose. It's time for it to go now.
-- $G
Are government agencies really allowed to do this? I suppose the DOJ is allowed to "educate" people about the law, and propogate the legal positions of the justice department - but any five year old can see that this monolog is advocating legislative policy (the extension of the PATRIOT act, among other things), using federal money.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
nothing to see here, move along
The US goverment doesn't want to protect us, they want to get reelected.
If they wanted to protect the USA they would do something to secure our borders. It does no good to post a guard at your door/airports and leave the network/borders unprotected.
All the privately held guns in the US couldn't stop a military attack by the federal government, if the government really were so inclined to attack its own citizens.
Shrug. The privately-held guns in Iraq seem to be doing a reasonable job.
There are numerous precedents for things such as the Patriot Act. They have usually been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but they have always stuck around until they reached the point of being struck down. For example the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were blatantly unconstitutional and designed to give the government the power to crack down on their opponents. Of course it wasn't taken out until 1840, not exactly a quick response.
Then of course we had the Espionage Act and Sedition Acts during WW1. Similar things in WW2, the relocation of Japanese-Americans... all sorts of precedents have been set in this regard.
Reflections of Unconstitutional Precedence
TImeline of American Hegemony
The goverment does not care if the laws that they pass or the actions that they take are unconstitutional. That is the one thing history has taught us again and again. It doesn't matter at all unless the Supreme Court is going to rule against them. These sorts of unconstitutional practices will be allowed almost without fail. Perhaps years later public opinion will shift and people will add another chapter to the history books on unconsitutional precedents.
Hopefully the SCOTUS gets the balls to do something about it. Although I highly doubt that our current court will become involved. We already know how they rule on major issues that affect our country. The precedent is to allow the govt to do whatever the hell they want, worry about the Constitution later. Especially when the ideologies of the different branches of govt meet.
Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
Constitutionally Institutionalized
I am the unpatriot,
for not standing behind
the man blind.
You are the patriot,
for standing in line
no questions in mind.
That no patriot can stand such an odius piece of legislation which tears apart our civil liberties and turns the Constitution and freedoms our forefathers fought so hard for into courtroom toilet paper. I love my country, that's why I want a government bound to the Constitution and that doesn't send us abroad, as John Quincy Adams put it, in search of monsters to destroy. We built the beast that seeks to annihilate us because we paid lip service to our founders' timeless advice and made-and empowered-enemies in foreign lands.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
He was saying, don't let the gov't take my gun because I may need it to protect myself from intruders or even the gov't.
Why would you think that anyone would need to protect themselves from the gov't? Could it be because of the threat of tyranny? Let's turn this around, shall we? Couldn't this act be the very sort of thing that you claim he was talking about?
You can quote dead white men all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that in the past two hundred odd years society has changed significantly and a single individual's ability to wreak widespread havoc has been increased million-fold.
First thing. 19 people killed 3,000 people. This is 157.89473684210526315789473684211 people killed per killer. If we assume that your statement about a millionfold is correct, then in Franklin's day, the same killer could have killed about 0.00015789 people. That is, no one could be killed unless 6,333 other people worked together. This is obviously wrong. There were murders without mobs of 6,333 people in the past. OK, so there may be an increase, but not as much as it may seem, I would hazard. Furthermore, if we look at the number of deaths relative to the size of the population, it would likely be lower. Indeed, on 9-11, only one in one hundered thousand people living in America died. More died in car crashes, more died from the flu, more died from alcohol than died on 9/11. Yes, 9/11 was a horrible thing, but let's keep perspective, too. For an example of perspective, consider that anywhere from 7784 to 9596 Iraqi civilians were killed by US troops since the War in Iraq started (source). Given this, how do you think that the Iraqi people should react? I leave you with these thoughts.
#define DRM chmod 000
However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC.
Um. Am I the first to suggest that the PATRIOT act wouldn't either?
Terrorists of today could reproduce 9/11 quite well (though with different targets, of course). The only difference is that the government is given more power. The only people subject to the power are innocent.
Not to mention, am I the only one who thought it strange that 9/11 was used a reason to go to war against Iraq? Why not use "I was mugged on my way to the store" as an excuse to go murder everybody in your office....
From the Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice:
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; passed in 1978) court to issue orders for business records in international-terrorism or espionage cases -- just as federal grand juries have long been able to obtain the same records through subpoenas in ordinary criminal cases. Records can be obtained under section 215 only through a court order (not, as Mr. Lynch states, through a "subpoena"), and only if the court determines that the FBI is legally entitled to them (the FBI has no authority to issue such orders unilaterally).
Section 215 of the Patriot Act does not make it "a crime for anyone who has been served with a subpoena to speak to anyone about the matter." However, Section 215's confidentiality rule is necessary to protect our national security, and is based on nondisclosure orders that courts always have been able to enter in ordinary criminal cases. For example, the judge in the Kobe Bryant case may order the news media to refrain from divulging information about the alleged victim's personal life, in order to protect her privacy. In the same way, if we were to serve a court order on a flight-training school to find out if a Mohammed Atta is taking flight lessons, we obviously would not want the school to tell Atta, who might then accelerate his terrorist plot. As with any court order, the FISA-court can consider sanction, but the Patriot Act does not make such violations criminal offenses.
We do enthusiastically welcome debate about the Patriot Act and invite all Americans to learn the facts about this important legislation by logging on to www.lifeandliberty.gov. Our new website includes an overview of the Patriot Act, its entire text, statements from Members of Congress explaining the law, factual information dispelling some of the major myths perpetuated about the act, as well as other information.
Read the whole article here, which is in response to another article on the same website.
Another Patriot Act article.
by giving it up
" ...such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC..."
I call bullshit on this argument. Don't even try to convince me that if someone had a gun in those airplanes that they would not have been able to stop a bunch of razor toting fanatics.
The biggest fallacy is the assumption that 'times are different' and therefore protections we enjoyed in earlier times do not apply. Again - bullshit.
I have news for you, people have not changed all that much, and one bullet in the forehead will kill you as fast in 1895 as in the year 2003. The destructive power of an airliner was available since the first one flew back in the 1920s. The only difference is the will of someone to try to use it. That does not justify flushing the Constitution down the toilet to make ignorant people feel 'safe'.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
A WWII veteran said to me one time as we were watching news coverage of a protest:
"Those who compare Bush to Hitler do a disservice to all those who fought and died in WWII and an even greater disservice to their cause
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Unless of course someone on the plane(s) had a gun, and used it to shoot the hijackers. Which might explian why the airline pilots union has been campaigning to let its members carry guns in the cockpit.
However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC.
Oh, I don't know. You sit me on one of those flights with a gun and they are not going to hijack that plane. At least they are not going to order it slammed into a building after they do.
"But you couldn't get on the plane with a gun!!!!" True, but your scenario doesn't make a lot of sense either way. NOT possessing guns wouldn't have prevented 9/11 either. (And may I ask, how did a debate on the Patriot Act turn into one about gun control?)
That's what the Patriot Act is all about, getting these systems to finally work properly so that we can stop another 9/11.
No. As you admitted yourself, we had the intelligence, we simply did not communicate it properly and did not fit all the pieces of the puzzle together properly. The Patriot Act is about increasing the government's ability to spy on us. Once they've decided we're not a threat worth watching, as they evidently did for the 9/11 hijackers, the PA has no effect.
And this one is just ridiculous: I think that many people are finally latching onto the concept that freedom to live safely is more important than freedom to be a criminal.
Do you know that Martin Luther King, JR. was spied on by the FBI? And we all know what a terrible terrorist he was, with all his sit-ins and peaceful protest! The movement to repeal the law isn't about protecting criminals, it is about protecting people who are doing nothing wrong from unjustified surveillance. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the government, not from terrorists and regardless of how many more people a single individual nutcase can now kill in one fell swoop. History has proven that government, like most people and organizations, will abuse any power they are given (DMCA, anybody?). The solution is not to give it to them or to ensure what authority they have is locked down so tight it is as hard as possible to abuse.
Apparently these dead white men understood what freedom meant better than people today. If I have to die because a law like the Patriot Act is repealed, I would consider myself lucky to die for freedom. Thank god people like Franklin and Jefferson, true American patriots, were there at the founding of this country and not cowards like yourself.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ahhh, preach it Mr. Dead White Man.
The Bush Administration seems to be having public relations trouble. Besides the creation of LifeAndLiberty.Gov, the administration has also created Freedom.Gov, a site dedicated to glorifying Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I believe that the creation of these sites indicates that the Bush Administration is taking a new approach to their critics. Instead of answering their critics directly, the administration is using websites to bypass them and sell their propaganda to the American Public. By wrapping their issues in pseudo patriotism, they believe that the average American will overlook the opposition and support the administration because it is the "American thing to do".
I also believe that the administration is starting to see opposition in Congress. On the LifeAndLiberty.Gov site, there are two sections dedicated to Congressional Opposition. I believe this indicates that the PATRIOT Act is starting to see more criticism from Congress.
-Valen
I'm sorry if I just don't get it, but I did not really see any mention of anything that actually refuted any of the DOJ claims.
All I see is a bunch of clarification of the points that would not have been appropriate to mention at a press conference (the likes of which the soundbytes were taken from).
I also notice that none of the new powers can simply be used willy-nilly. They all require the permission of a judge (who may well interpret the warrant request as, well, unwarranted).
Don't forget that the Patriot Act passed both houses of Congress. By a wide margin.
So instead of demonizing the man in charge of prosecuting our nation's laws why not blame your representative in congress for passing it?
According to Gallup, 67% of people believe in ghosts.
Those polls don't prove anything, except most people are ignorant. You don't need a poll to figure that out.