Slashdot Mirror
Congress Expands FBI Powers
Dave writes "Well, since the Patriot Act II never got off the ground, looks like Congress has done the Justice Department a favor, according to Wired News, and added in some of the most controversial provisions into a non-descript intelligence spending bill. Now the FBI can subpoena information about you from practically any business or organization - without approval or permission from a judge, and with a gag order on the targeted organization. These spending bills are generally considered confidential and usually are not subject to public debate, so despite the far-reaching implications of these new powers, it's not being publicized like the Patriot Act was. Time to get out my patriotic hat and pin before it's too late."
Invading the privacy of innocent people to get at the guilty... I love it. You know, if the law of averages worked out in its favor, like if 99% of the people they spied on were involved in something, I wouldn't have a problem, but I'd imagine that less than 0.001% of the population is up to no good, and who knows how many they spy on.
I'll probably disappear now that I posted this, because I'm sort of enemy fucking combatant for disagreeing with the abuse of power...
evil adrian
Unfortunatly, if you rise up against the US Government, you are a terrorist, and such a movement would likely be crushed by the military, which is mostly right-wing. A guerilla war against the government and popular uprising would be required.
C:\>
Canada weather is nice today. But you try living in Austria in 1939.
Not available to public debate? Seriously, it's scary. When something that impacts us this greatly, and gives an arm of the government this much authority is put through and passed without us being able to say anything about it, that's WRONG. The people who are in office are there because we put them there to represent our views. When we are going to finally get that concept in our heads and boot these idiots from office?
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
I didn't realize that Bush was in Congress.
and try to enjoy it.
sigs, as if you care.
All of this conservative rhetoric about the government as a bunch of jack booted thugs, and now, they go and do exactly what they claim to oppose.
After three years of total Republican rule, we have the largest and most intrusive government ever. So much for limited government and free enterprise out of the so-called party of limited government and free enterprise.
This is my sig.
Plain and simple, the voters. How many people truthfully voted in the last election? Probably less than 30% of the registered voters. Yeah, I know it's tough to take that 15 minutes out of your hectic day, but if you don't like who is in there now, it can be changed. Unfortunately at this point, not enough people really give a damn.
Just mentioned this to several of my "older" co-workers...
.02,
One told me I was insane for caring. "This went on in the 1950s and nothing bad happened why should you care now?"
Another said, "Well, I have lived a bit, traveled, moced about, have and have had friends on both sides of the law, have worked inside and outside of law enforcement, have been the victim of FBI intimidation when fighting racial hate crimes, have a Criminal Justice degree and completed half of law school, and with all that still find myself a free and able individual with nothing to fear from the law. So, no, I don't think you are being realistic."
When we have people that honestly believe this is for their benefit it will only get worse. It is truly a sad day when people choose to ignore history and believe that flag waving, rights waiving, non-sense that is fed to us daily by a near facist government.
Just my worthless
I've noticed Presidents usually keep a lot of their predecessors' policies intact. Don't count on any Democratic successor to Bush to make a serious attempt to repeal any of this Patriot Act crap. IIRC, wasn't the "clipper chip" an idea initiated under the Clinton regime? Democrats may be "liberal" but they're just as quick to trade our privacy and freedoms for so-called security if they think it'll score points with voters.
How long until we need to rotate the American Flag icon 180 degrees?
(That may sound like a troll if you haven't read the.. what's it called? oh ya.. Constitution)
Spot on comment about Joe Sixpack. What will get his attention is when all those NRA-endorse politicians start sneaking in gun control under the guise of "protecting us all from terrorism."
Just a big fat MHO, but I think those silly yellow-orange-red alerts are just as terrorizing to the American public as some dude hiding in a cave in southeast Afghanistan.
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
The key here is that unarmed civilians marching in large numbers are a whole lot more difficult to shoot at than a bunch of loonies with guns.
But then, it means that americans need to get off their fat asses, which is not going to happen any time soon.
really? the voters? We get a choice between Moron and his party 1 and the other Moron and his party 2.
It's like getting a choice between Windows ME and Windows 98SE.
What do you mean passing laws "without consent" from the citizens?
Over half of the citizens of the US don't vote, so they HAVE COMPLETELY CONSENTED to being fucked in the ass by their politicians.
So who are we going to blame for this? Let's start with the people who don't vote.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
The congress has just passed a law which violates the fourth amendment. Somebody needs to sue to have it overturned, and quick.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"When they came for the communists, I was silent, because I was not a communist;
When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;
When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf."
Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
In reference to the Nazi governments
policy towards 'dissidents'
I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
- Did you vote? Did you do your best to become informed about the issues and candidates?
- Do you know who your representatives are? Do you know what they stand for? Do you know their voting record?
- Do you give money to organizations that support your beliefs?
- Do you give money to politicians that support your beliefs?
- Do you volunteer to support those groups or politicians?
People will tell you that you can't make a difference, that democracy is for the rich, that the elections are fixed and the candidates are identical, so voting is moot anyway. Those people are trying to control you; to make you so numb and so confounded that you do nothing. Listen to those people, and you are guaranteed to not make a difference."By the people, for the people" means that WE are in charge of running the country, and we as a people have been asleep at the wheel for too long. Democracy works best when the citizens do their best to participate. Conversely, it works poorly when people feel disenfranchised, get an "I hate politics and refuse to pay attention to it" attitude, and watch TV instead.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
The point is, jackalope, that the US Constitution was set up *specifically* to avoid the type of government that the current administration is turning into. Given a paranoid executive, an ever-expanding budget, and completely unfettered ability to act, any government investigative organization will inevitably begin to maintain files on every citizen of that country. The potential for blatant misuse and corruption is enormous and, again, one of the things the Constitution was specifically designed to prevent.
However, since the Constitution appears to the current US government to be only so much ancient toilet paper, this comes as no surprise. What remains encouraging are a few semi-enlightened souls in Congress who seem resistant (although not nearly enough for my tastes).
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
The issue isn't the arms, the issue is to get enough people to stand up. The world just saw a peaceful revolution in Georgia the other day.
Try that instead. Get a million people walking unarmed to the White House and take it over. If they start shooting at unarmed civilians, then you know you live under a tyranny, and other tactics may be in place. But before you've tried that. talking about a violent revolt is just wrong.
That is not right. You shouldn't have to give these idiots MONEY to have them vote according to the people. Isn't that what a "represented democracy" is supposed to be? Personally, I think we need a forceful overhaul in this country and implement a true democracy where any American 18 or over can cast a vote. The votes are counted and a law is either passed or not passed based on those votes. We could have a big vote every 6 months. Where X number of laws/issues could be voted on. It would be the job of congress to lobby us to try to get thier laws passed. The problem with a "represented democracy" is that those who should be representing the people are often representing those with the largest donations.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
They locked up their riched man for being corrupt and accepting bribes.
In the US they'd have elected him to office!
I happen to be one of those "right wing" military folks and as far as I'm concerned you can have your revolution.
My job ISN'T to stop citizens from revolting, it's to protect the constituition. I'd hope many of my follow soldiers would recall stuff like Kent State and do what is right rather than what they're told. As far as I'm concerend our government is going WAY to far with the crap it's coming up with. That's why first of all, I'm going to VOTE. It's not going to be for a democrat, but I wish there was a viable candidate other than the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft bunch.
On the other hand most of what I see in here in left wing propaganda. I don't guess you'll need the second amendment when your peacful revolt fails. Even though honestly I'll admit a million angry left wingers on capitol hill stalling government OUGHT to be enough to overwhelm police and military as well as incite SOME kind of change.
-- this space for rent --
they said in septermber they've NEVER used this power of the patriot act
They are lying.
Hammer of Truth
The difference, of course, being that "hippies" that set fire to things have committed a punishable offense and drawn the justified attention of law enforcement. Peaceably assembling, however, whether you, the FBI, and anybody else who thinks the government should be allowed to run amok likes it or not, is not a crime and, therefore, law enforcement has exactly NO business poking its nose into those peaceful demonstrators' lives. Milling about with the protestors to make sure they stay in line is one thing. Actively engaging in snooping into their lives is not only quite another, it's highly disturbing behavior from a government that's growing less and less interested in what "the People" care about and what their best interests are.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Or perhaps we should just disallow 'donations' to political offices. We don't allow it in the judicial arena, why should we allow it in the politic general? While we're at it, we should take the power away from congress to vote their own raises. The government should be accountable directly to the people. There are just too many issues to the general public to vote on every single one.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
When you can't find out who has been investigated, through what means, when, and why, it becomes damn near impossible to suspect, much less prove violations. A perfect example of that, since you brought him up, is Jose Padilla. An American citizen held indefinitely without charges being filed and without access to an attorney. All this because he was labeled an "enemy combatant" while on a plane where he committed no act of violence. When people effectively disappear based on unproven information supplied by the government, it becomes really hard for me to believe that the issue *can* be blown out of proportion.
* Not defending the actions of Jose Padilla (whatever they may have been), just believing he should have the right to a fair trial like every other citizens
*applause*
Our society can be changed (for better or for worse) through the use of four boxes. Soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.
What the kook you're replying to so desperately needs to understand is that there are some Damn Good Reasons why the four boxes are intended to be used in the right order.
I guess it needs to be defined for you then:
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
We are being told what to do be a single entity (the current regime), we are having the FBI look into demonstrations and their leaders as to stop possible terroism during those (and of course it is under the guise that it is for the good of the people protesting), we are told to go to a country and fight for its freedom to protect our own, and I don't even want to get into the racial profiling going on everyday regarind terrorism.
So whats the justification for having them, then?
KGB = Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (Committee for State Security, USSR)
It's not a matter of if the files will be seen by people.
"I don't care who the people vote for, as long as I get to pick the candidates." - Jay Gould
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Although the "official" Lutheran church of Germany went along with the Nazis, there were many pastors of conscience (like Niemoeller) who spoke out and acted against them. I can't remember if he was one of the ones imprisoned and/or killed; I'm pretty sure he was at least put into a camp at some point.
Grüß Gott aus Bayern!
Now if only they'd come for the trite and the histrionic :-)
;-)
Hopefully they'll come for the carelessly apathetic first.
--
There are three kinds of people:
Those who make things happen.
Those who watch thing happen.
Those who wonder what the hell just happened.
Republicans are evil
Never ascribe to evil that which can just as easily be mere incompetence. (or something similar).
I think both parties are stupid. True evil actually requires a degree of intelligence, which I certainly haven't seen from either party.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Funny, the "piddling attacks" in Iraq ARE upsetting the current regime. If the US can't keep order there, imagine trying to keep order in a vastly larger country, and more important, maintaining Big Business (tm) in such a condition of "piddling attacks".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I'm fine with the cops PROACTIVELY having extra troops on hand and dispersed throughout the crowd.
I'm fine with the cops PROACTIVELY having vehicles strategically placed to remove any individuals who break the law.
I'm fine with the cops PROACTIVELY having cells set aside for possible law breakers.
I'm fine with the cops PROACTIVELY having riot gear assigned prior to any demonstrations.
I am NOT fine with cops spying on citizens that have NOT broken ANY laws.
The laws that we HAD were a result of past abuses by the authorities.
Now we're seeing those protections removed.
Do a google search on:
fbi bomb bari
Educate yourself about your government's activities.
They are for less government regulation remember? (oh wait)
They are for less spending. (oh wait)
They are for the little guy. (oh wait)
You know, for those reasons and others, I voted Republican in '96 and would have again in '00 if my car hadn't broken down on election day. I voted for the guy in my district (Jack Kingston) that voted yes.
At this moment, I am ashamed of saying that. It's as if the entire purpose of the Republican and Democratic parties have shifted completely to the opposite since Bush was elected.
The Republicans are now the liberals, wanting to change every damned law in a way that contradicts their original purpose so they can micromanage people's lives. The democrats are now the conservatives fighting to keep the laws as they were intended. God, even Bob Barr (R-GA) joined the ACLU after losing his district in the redistricting of Georgia.
Anyone wondering why this is a big deal, you need to ask yourself one question. What does the Justice Dept have to hide that makes them so determined to avoid citizen oversight? What are they doing that the people won't like?
Here's a list of who voted yea and nay.
Only on
Isn't it funny that those boxes have been neutered in reverse order?
We get gun control laws first, because noone "sane" would notice - they never get that far because it's not that bad yet.
Then, once there's enough gun control to make armed resistance too difficult to pull off, they start neutering the jury - re-working laws so jury notification can't happen, and twisting the legal system's procedures around until only idiots and sheep can get appointed to an actual trial jury.
Then they start disenfranchising everyone, finally moving on to trickery and outright ballot manipulation to get their way.
Then they start going after the protesters.
Sneak up slow enough, and you won't even be able to tell what's happening - after all, it's not like it's much worse than our parents had it, right?
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
I'm not sure that I agree with you on that. Americans are pissed and I think they'll stay pissed. They still feel particularly misled about going to Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from selling WMD to terrorists. No WMD have turned up, and the evidence linking Iraq to US-terrorism are weak at best (however, if I recall correctly, Hussein was offering a $60,000 stipend to families of Palestinian suicide bombers hitting Isreali targets). Furthermore, Americans are pissed that Bush went into Iraq, guns ablazin', with no exit strategy other than to ask Congress for more money -- this is still leaving a horrible taste in the mouths of voters (it will continue to unless he fixes it). There is also the matter of Cheeny hiring his former firm to take a large chunk of rebuilding Iraq with no RFP issued. Americans are sick of his rhetoric -- every time this guy is asked the tough questions about Iraq, he spews out the same "I don't know anyone in their right mind who thinks the world would be better off with this guy in power". His response doesn't answer the question, and all that it does is makes it clear to me that in Bush's mind, the ends certainly justify the means.
In order to get re-elected, Bush will have to pull some serious rabbits out of his hat. Specifically, he'll have to show some pretty convincing evidence of WMD in Iraq and get Iraq settled with the majority of our troops out of Iraq with an Iraqi government in power.
Unless he fixes these issues, there's no amount of campaign spending that will erase the memory of Bush's fuckups in foreign policy. He's got all the rope he needs -- I'm certain that he'll finish the job of hanging himself. After a presidency like this one (the next year notwithstanding), you must think that all of your fellow countrymen are a bunch of assholes if you think that they'll vote for this guy again. Living in America my whole life (and being an American), I've met a fair number of other Americans in a fair number of regions. Most of the ones I met seem like pretty nice, intelligent people. I sure as hell hope for my sake that they can put 2 and 2 together on this one. I think that they will.
PS -- FWIW, I don't think that we'll do much better with Democrats in the White House.
-Turkey
" all it takes is one smooth-talking demagogue to sway the opinions of millions of uninformed people. Legislation would become a battle of TV ads."
Which differs from the current situation how?
And unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that money is a form of speech, making it so much harder to make any meaningful campaign finance reform.
However, I'm not so sure were quite ready for direct democracy. We would need a serious overhaul of our voting system, and how would we keep states like New York and California from having unfair power, just to mention a few possible issues.
A bit trollish dontcha think?
How does a direct democracy change this?
Hmmm... leave it to the FBI to see a "human chain" as a threat. Here's another one:
So let's see here: we can't videotape the cops because they feel "intimidated," but of course the same doesn't apply to police, who routinely videotape activists. In fact, videotaping and photographing the police is essential to stopping police repression of peaceful protests.
And using the internet to "raise funds" and "coordinate activities" is suspicious?
I guess I should just turn myself in.
Even if you assume that belief was still held by Lutherans in the Nazi era and specifically by this Pastor, that only makes the quote more poignant.
You must not only stand up for the freedom of those groups who you aren't a member of, you must also stand up for the freedom of those groups who you don't like.
The enemies of Democracy are
No, no, no. All their rich men are corrupt. What the man they locked up did was to challenge the status quo.
ALL of them could be locked up for being "corrupt". But the police chose to only arrest the one man who was too "liberal". Amazingly enough, all the other corrupt crime bosses got a pass.
I say this to illustrate what is wrong about "law and order" police states. It all depends on who the leaders choose to prosecute. With careful selection, you can eliminate all your political enemies, and reign supremely corrupt forever.
Who of Enron is in jail? Seven billion stolen by fraud, stolen while the administration cheerled them on and blamed hippies for shutting down power plants. But somehow, the Justice Department has time to raid a cathouse in New Orleans and slam Tommy Chong in federal prison for selling plastic tubes.
It all depends on who you choose to see committing a crime. The crew who enabled Enron in California kicked out the only man who fingered them as the guilty party, and now control the governor. Wanna bet the Enron lawsuit gets dropped now? No criminals exist if no one prosecutes.
Majority? Certainly not the majority of the people. I wouldn't trust that either, but I can't think of a single issue that it's ever been allowed to speak on. The closest I can think of is the majority of Californians, but that is always a "choose yes or no on this piece of legislation which has been made as obscure as feasible" kind of question. Still, I can usually decide which I prefer, if in no other way then by looking at who supports it and who's against it. But the majority of the senators isn't that much more trustworthy, and no where near as limited. Their interests aren't the same as mine, and my ability to influence them is...minimal to say the least. By the time I've heard about a bill, their position has already been purchased.
Vote against them? Sure. But the way the elections are structured there are only two viable candidates, and the opposition will come up with someone who is even worse. Condorcet voting would solve this, but is there any belief that we'll ever see that, even at the local election level?
I find myself perpetually amazed that some people are able to actually be in favor of even one of the candidates that we are presented with. Most, however, are just choosing the lesser of two evils, and knowing as they do so that they are still choosing evil. This appears to happen all the way from the local level up to the federal level, but the degree of evil increases as you get one person "representing" a larger and larger populace. I suppose that it's better than the local baron fighting the folk in the next barony over, but it sure isn't good.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
All money can do is buy ads, not votes, but ads are time to make a case, so money is important. That said:
Americans are restricted in what we can give to candidates for office. However, we can donate either a very large or unlimited ammount to special interest groups, which can donate large ammounts or just run ads for a certain candidate. Attempts to restirct this have actually lost in court, up to the supreme court (highest court in the USA) because such restrictions violate free speach.
Instead, we have "quid pro quo" laws which make it illegal for elected officials to actually do anything which favors the people they have accepted donations for. The standard of proof seems to be, basically, a direct link between the donation and the action. Obviously, proving this is absurdly difficult.
Example: anti-abortion group seeks to donate money to candidate. They just ask around until they find someone in a tight race who is anti-abortion. They give that person money. Person wins and votes against abortion rights. Obviously, there is no case here. The person already decided what they felt and then took the money. Sure, they might have been more vocal, spent more time or effort or pulled in more favors for abortion than they would have otherwise.
Other example: energy company wants tax break. Donates to a candidate who has no background in energy policy at all. Perhaps has never voted on an energy bill. Candidate wins and pushes for tax break for energy company. How can one prove that that is not what the candidate origionally believed? Most likely, the candidate is anti-tax to begin with. Aren't they all?
Discussion of this issue in America has become exteremely jaded. On NPR (national public radio, in America) on the fairly conservative finance program (Marketplace) I have heard repeated references to business "getting what they are paying for" from congress, and repeated references to "bought and paid for" politicians. I don't listen (radio/tv) to much coverage of congress, but I have heard Democrats accuse Republicans of quid pro quo, to which the republican simply replied your side does it, too.
Further, ads from special interest groups (SIGs) in favor of a candidate are not supposed to have any input from that candidate. This is apparently violated constantly.
These politicans should be beyond reproach, yet most are obviously taking bribes. How can we change that, and stay within the constitution?
1. Force politicians to recuse themselves from any decision in which they have an interest, including having an ad run for them by an interest group.
1a. All ads for a candidate should be subject to veto by that candidate.
Want a pro-abortion SIG to endorse you? Fine. You can't vote on any abortion issues for the next term of office.
2. Ads run against a particular candidate must pay to provide equal time to the candidate, available directly after the ad, to rebut the ad without pentalty of recusion on the topic, e.g. without regard to (1) above.
2a. If any significant connections can be made between the candidate and the ad run against the candidate, the candidate forfits the reply time. Instead it would be used to indicate the connection.
This is needed to prevent candidates from putting up "straw man" arguments against themselves and then attacking such ads in the free time allowed. Now, you might think that's crazy but actually this happens already in City of Los Angeles politics.
3. Disallow corporations from any form of political donations or speach. Corporations do not have the right to vote, only real people do, thus there is precedence for disallowing them political speach.
Sure, you can make an organization to promote any political cause you want, say the environment. You can take donations from anyone you want. You can run ads for any candidate you want, discussion them and the environment. Then they have to recuse themselves from any votes on that topic, b
a war on terrorism? How can we end a war on a method?
Or perhaps we should just disallow 'donations' to political offices.
How far do you want to go with this? And are you imagining the probable unintended consequences while you make that decision?
You could disallow donations to political offices, but continue to allow people and groups to advertise for politicians they approve of, in which case the current practice of "people give money to candidate or party, which buys political advertising with it" will just get replaced with "people buy political advertising directly". Washington will still be ruled by money, but now it'll be exclusively money from large contributors who can afford commercial time, instead of individual contributors.
You could also disallow whatever you define as "political advertising" entirely, in which case (aside from the obvious First Amendment problems) people's opinions will be influenced by "the news" instead, and the segment of money which rules Washington will be restricted further: to those corporations large enough to own news outlets and slant the reporting they provide.
It's not as if your Senators are whoring for campaign contributions to pay for their new mansion or yacht; those campaign contributions pay for the propaganda that gets fed to voters before election day and keeps the best funded candidates in office. Any attempt to limit that propaganda will just end up as a limit on free speech. If you want to reduce the influence of money on politics, the only way to do so is with an informed electorate who will be less susceptible to expensive advertising when deciding who to vote for. What's worse, producing an informed electorate will have to happen from the ground up. You won't find any easy "campaign finance reform" answers: try and anticipate the unintended consequences of "matching funds" type ideas (hint: most involve increased barriers to entry for independent and third party candidates), for example, and you'll see why.