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."
So... now we have even less freedom? I'm starting to think about moving to some country where we can't be persecuted like this! Like... Russia maybe?
503 Sig Unavailable
The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
When is somebody going to stand up and say enough is enough? A better question is, who CAN stand up to this? I don't know enough about how laws like this get passed without consent from the citizens of this country, so I would simply like to know who I can write and bitch to so this doesn't happen.
I figured the fourth reich would rise eventually. Didn't expect it to be the US though.
Whelp, I'm ready when you are!
Your's Truly,
A Slippery Slope
How's the weather in Canada?
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
Yeah. Great. My open response to Congress can be found at www.wtf.com
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
I feel safer from terrorists already!
Uh-oh. I hope the FBI doesn't see I made this post with the word "terrorists" in it and IJ*&^Tu
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 guess the administration couldn't get their way by "taking it to the people" so they just said "fuck the people" and did it anyway.
I am saddened and ashamed of our government. While I don't expect to like everything the government does, I do expect to have a government that operates in the open. Otherwise we're no better than the corrupt regimes that we criticise.
M
I didn't realize that Bush was in Congress.
The United States Goverment Has just issued a statement denying rumors of a war waged with Iraq some months ago. According to the statement "We were never at war with Iraq. We have alway been great allies with Iraq.".
and try to enjoy it.
sigs, as if you care.
Too late? I'm afraid I have to tell you that it's a few years too late. Ashcroft has already subpoenaed your purchase records, and already knows that you don't have that there patriotic hat and pin, now, when it really counts.
Sorry, bub, but you're screwed.
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
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.
i) Write a physical letter to all of your representitives in congress to berate/laud them (as appropriate) for their votes on this bill.
ii) Join the ACLU.
iii) Convince your employer to destroy all non-essential records of employee or customer transactions.
iv) vote, and convince all of your friends to vote, in the next federal election cycle.
v) If all else fails, vote with your feet. Canada is close by.
- - - Patent applied for and deliver us from evil
We (meaning people who are afraid of what the gov't is doing and are at least a little politically minded, not just /. readers) need to figure out how to get more people to care about their civil liberties and realize that the current government is taking them away. Until enough people are upset about this, it will not stop untill it is too late. Unfortunately, I don't believe Joe Sixpack will care about this until it starts affecting his fast food and TV viewing habits, and even then I think he'll be pretty accepting of it. I saw a bumper sticker recently, though obviously meant to be sarcastic, seemed to sum up the feelings that most people have on this topic: "That's OK, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway."
How can we help put the implications of things like this in face of more people and move them to action? It seems like an impossible task...
Given this recent revelation, I'm sure everyone is ready to trust the FBI with greater power and lesser accountability:)
It's really a shame though. I know a lot of the people working there are quite professional and care about doing a good job and protecting the Constitution of the United States, the ideals that make America a good place.
But after the legacy of Hoover misusing the agency many decades ago, evidently missing the boat on predicting the 9/11 catastrophe, the last thing they need is this kind of power handed to them by higher ups. Those superiors are political appointees with a vision for enforcement that shares more with authoritarian states than with the principles America was founded upon.
If I was a mid-level bureaucrat in the FBI, I'd make efforts to establish accountability policies, citizen review boards, etc. even if the current administration doesn't think they're necessary.
If they don't this, then they can be assured of getting tarred and feather during Congressional hearings 5-10 years from now, much like what happened to the CIA in the late 1970's.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Terrorist gun Waco Ruby Ridge Patriot Act Federal Reserve FBI CIA Osama bin Laden Saddam Hussein Echelon Carnivore
:P
Now, imagine that each time this entry crosses the Internet, government keyword parsers are triggered and the entire TCP session gets flagged for later review.
Reload often for maximum government annoyance!
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
The link to that site has been posted quite a few times in /.'s discussions. He claimed that he was a Time Traveller from 2036. Among the "predictions" he made back in 2000, was the Black hole research at CERN, the Chinese Man mission, the Iraq war, the Columbia disaster, and most importantly the VAST increase in powers that the US Government gave itself to suppress citizens.
The last one supposedly leads to a US Civil war in 2004. I might have laughed at his posts in 2000, but with these more and more frightening developments, I can't help but wonder.
An interesting read nevertheless.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
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.
But, hey, if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
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)
When the 1st Amendment no longer protects your voice.
And when the 4th Amendment no longer protects your privacy or your suff.
Thank God we have the 2nd Amendment to tell our elected representatives that enough is enough.
It's time to put "... from my cold, dead hands" back where it belongs.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
For example, time-limited disclosure. If the FBI think that I'm channeling funds to a terrorist organisation and want to get hold of my paypal records to check on that then fair enough. And if they don't want me to know that they've tried to do it, then fair enough too. Until they establish that I'm not a terrorist. At which point, I want to know what's been happening. So have time-limited secrecy. By default, any use of these powers could be disclosed 3 months (say) after it occurred, unless the investigators have appealled to a higher authority to keep it secret.
Frivolous abuse of power is then discouraged (because every investigation that fails to find anything interesting is published) and systematic abuse of power is at least partly discouraged (because if you want to cover up what's happening, you're going to have to get a judge to agree to it after 3 months).
1) FBI can subpoena information about you from practically any business or organization
2) without approval or permission from a judge
3) a gag order on the targeted organization
4) spending bills are generally considered confidential and usually are not subject to public debate
5) not being publicized
Goddammit, why is it that so much of the science fiction I read is coming true? Just recently, I decided to read Starship Troopers, where the whole damn book is about how the 20th century democracies failed leading to a system that voluntary military service had to be completed before a person became a citizen.
I won't even mention 1984 (oops) or Farenheight 451 (oops again!).
This shit has been predicted for over 50 years, now! The visionaries spoke and were ignored.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
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."
Not intending this to be a troll, but something about Bush's speeches always grated on me. I finally figured out why: his prolific use of words like "freedom" and "democracy". Not so much that he said them but the sheer frequency of its usage.
What bugged me was that he feels he needs to keep saying it. Ever notice that China is officially the "People's Republic of China" despite very little representation for or by the people? Then there's the "Democratic Republic of Congo", which isn't democratic. And let's not forget the "Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea"--a 2-for-1 deal there.
My 2 cents: the more someone feels the need to use rhetoric to hammer a point, the less that point happens to be true.
As long as Americans have it in their heads that their constitutional rights are still protected, they'll go on their lives peacefully until something like, oh I don't know, the ozone is gone or winter no longer happens anymore. As scary as it is to start saying shit like this, Mark My Words, we're in for a civil war within the next 30 or 40 years at this rate. They're fooled around with and screwed up every constitutional right and amendment we have. Pretty soon they'll be exercising the lack of our rights, and if they get that far, they'll start doing stuff like chipping people and screwing them over if they don't like them. Tommarrow people will be trying to make a living and they can't, and unlike in max headroom, those people in the fringes won't go about their daily lives happily. All it takes at that point is a few more people to say fsck it, I hate this and to pick up a gun or knife, and you've got civil war.
The number of protesters will continue to grow year after year after year, until what happened in the soviet union in georga happens here. People will get tired of the bullshit and getting no straight answer and with the goverment giving itself ample time to play with the system.
Seriously, think california's ballot system will be fixed by 2k5? I sure don't. How long can a geek keep a stupid person fixated?
"We want electronic voting."
Nerd: Sure, I'll make it.
1 year passes
"Um...you didn't do it right. We want it to check for security and work properly when tallying."
Nerd: The tech is still developing. Give it another year.
1 year passes
"Still isn't working properly."
Nerd: I'll get on it right away
Yet another year later
"We want you to print out the ballot to proove it tallies correctly, some landslide elections look suspicious"
Nerd: Ok, but it'll take awhile for everyone to change their systems, give it 2 years.
2 years pass for the implementation of printers.
"but now the ballot is printing out with the correct vote but it isn't being tallied, I want it to be tallied too."
Nerd: I didn't know you wanted it to be tallied, ok.
"Um..now it's stored on an insecure medium and broadcasted on an insecure medium, and the votes are still coming in wrong. Fix it."
Nerd: Ok, but I'll need another few years to fix it as well.
2 more years pass.
"Um, now the master server isn't working right, can you fix that?"
Nerd: Sure. Gimme a few months...
And by this time, everyone loves a certain party and the other party is somehow out of power. But nobody cares, all the elections are fixed and nobody said "that's enough, fix it and fix it now or we're going back to regular ballot until something that works comes along".
Candy-Coated Knowledge
The media, however, needs to make a big issue out of the innocent people whose rights are trampled by misuse of power. It is for them that the system of checks and balances was created to begin with....
Its media attention like this that will build the political motivation to oppose these new laws
They are anti-abortion. (oh wait, btw that bill was directly modeled after the Nebraska law which was struck down, pandering assholes)
Just wanted to note that it was directy modeled on it, and then directly addressed the problems that the supreme court said were problems.
Seems a bit all encompassing to me. I think I sold lemonade at a "financial institution" on my street corner when I was six.
We've since gotten rid of all of our records of transactions. I hope the FBI doesn't come looking for any of them.
The "hype" that you so casually brush to the side is the fact that the government is simply making itself less and less accountable for its actions. Do you have the slightest clue as to why the Constitution was drafted the way it was? The limiting power it (supposedly) has? It's to keep government from growing out of control. Unfortunately things like the 4th Amendment are considered relics these days, where fear and the wreckless pursuit of "security" are at the forefront.
Regardless if anyone has been "harrassed" or not (and they have already, and don't get me started on civil asset forfeiture laws) the government will continue down this path, and I don't see the voting population of this country seeing too much of a problem with it. By the time they will it will be too late.
For sure.
Once you make legal what was previously illegal, it's not a violation anymore.
That's what people are complaining about.
The right-wing has been doing things right for years, while we write short essays, donate a few dollars or email our representatives they have organized fundraisers, church events and gone door to door. I think its a matter of seriousness. They take what they do very serious. The go out into meat-space and change things.
Personally, I'm tired of being so certian that I'm right that I sit smugly back an do the bare minimum (if anything at all). Those radical hippies have turned me off on politics, but maybe their not what its all about?
Quack, quack.
they said in septermber they've NEVER used this power of the patriot act
They are lying.
Hammer of Truth
No violations?
I'm just curious, as I really would like to know. What about the violation to a person's right to a timely trial? Aren't there a fair number currently jailed thanks to the Patriot Act that have yet to have their day in court?
You want to revolt, then grow a spine and do it. Stop yapping and act already.
Each television season gets increasingly boring, so we could do with a good high farce or slapstick comedy, even if its on the news.
Oh, and I already own lots and lots of guns, so watch your back for the counter-revolutionary terror, Sparky. ;-)
--- Ban humanity.
Too late, Diebold has already programmed their voting machines.
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.
Yes, Virginia, you do have a choice! No, voting third party is NOT wasting a vote and if you can educate your friends on this point then you and I and the other people who think outside the FBI directed box can make a difference. With enough third party candidates in office, the scales can tip. Look into libertarian, green, and other party systems. Vote independant. Write in. Unless the state you live in has some inane requirements for putting a third party on the ballot to be voted on (in which case lobby - yeah, I hate to use that word in a way - to get the law changed to make it easier for third party candidates to be put on the ballots) then you DO have a choice. Exercise. Send a message to the "good-old-boy two part system" by putting someone else in office. Hell, that is just what the current American government system needs is a nice wake-up call that the current two party system is fscked and new blood is needed.
Whew, sorry about the mini-rant there.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
I would like to encourage you to watch this great lecture streamed through the internet. Prof. David D. Cole of Georgetown University Law Center explores the parallels between the first Red Scare, the era of McCarthyism and todays equivalent... terrorism. If you have a good internet connection with Real player and an hour of your time, I would recommend catching this enlightening lecture. To learn how denying the civil liberties of others may later trample on your very on liberties and rights in the future. Parts of the original Patroit Act are in this lecture as well.
"Freedom and Terror: September 11th and the 21st Century Challenge Freedom"
by Professor David D. Cole, Georgetown University Law Center
Real Player stream
The lecture is available by webstream on demand:
http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/webstream.htm
For more information on the Academic Freedom Lecture
Series please see:
http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/AFL/afllecture.html
----
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't trade unionists.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemoeller, Lutheran Pastor.
I haven't seen one piece of information that states that the Patriot Act or another infringement on our rights has improved our 'security'. You'll reply that we haven't had a terrorist attact in that time. You know what, you're right. You'll also notice that we've bombed or occupied most of the nations that aid these terrorist. These terrorist have also targeted sites closer to home (Israel, Saudi Arabia).
The FBI has ALWAYS had the power and authority to stop wrong-doers. What this legislation does is further remove the checks and balances that keep our government from becoming the tyranny we defeated over 200 years ago. Point: Pre-911 you want to tap a phone get an emergency warrant from a judge. Now you can just tap without impunity.
I could go on and but it will mean more if you look it up yourself!
Pardon the rant, but I'm sick and tired of the sheep hiding behind the 'its the government so its ok' or the 'if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide' arguments.
We've spilled alot of our blood to secure our freedoms and now we're pissing it away in the name of security. The FBI knew about the 911 attack. The bureacracy stopped the flow of information to the necessary people. Why don't the fools in Washington legislate THAT!
Quote from the Wired article:
[quote]Justice Department officials tried earlier this year to write a bill to expand the Patriot Act. A draft -- dubbed Patriot II -- was leaked and caused such an uproar that Justice officials backed down. The new provision inserts one of the most controversial aspects of Patriot II into the spending bill.[/quote]
Why is this process allowed? Why can an article that is completely unrelated to the bill be tacked on, and passed as a whole? "A spoon-ful of sugar helps the medicine go down", I suppose.
Methinks tactics like this should be outlawed, as it can create a conflict of interest: "I don't really like section Z of this bill, but if I don't pass the rest of this bill my constituents will be livid and throw me out of office..."
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
"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!
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]
Your right to bear arms isn't a threat to the government. It is, however, a threat to your kids, spouse, friends, neighbors, postman, local law-enforcement...
I could not disagree more. It is indeed a deterrent for reasons already stated in this thread. It's not about who has the bigger weapons. It's about having a means to resist if, God forbid, it ever comes to that. 2 million servicemen (the entire U.S. military, including all services, active, reserve, and guard) cannot hold back the other 250 million of us, even armed with sticks, tanks not withstanding.
Also, the U.S. military is composed of educated volunteer citizens. In other words, us. If it comes to true tyranny by our own government, many soldiers will leave their posts and join the resistance.
But there's a large gap between mass resistence to government tyranny, and a few paranoid, disillusioned militia members. I hope we can always tell the difference.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
"If voting really changed anything, they would have made it illegal by now"
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
There's usually an election coming up.
If the clowns in DC don't want to support you, write some more letters and find someone running for office who will.
Then get all your friends and their friends and their friend's friends out and VOTE.
Sure, you'll be on the government's list for your anti-American activities.
Sure, copies of those letters you've sent will show up in those governmental files.
Sure, there will be agents sent to investigate you.
But there's a very good chance you won't be killed.
When you look at that in an historical perspective, it really doesn't get any easier.
There is at least one Demo candidate who has revoking the PATRIOT act as a part of his platform - he's also got some good ideas about other problems in the U.S. Check it out:
http://www.kucinich.us/issues/patriot_act.php
Bring the tech companies over here instead! I could use the work :)
:P
:)
Seriously, though, I can't believe what you guys call "freedom". We don't technically have "freedom of speech" over here, so it's not legal to insult people all over the place, but I haven't had a problem with that yet. And you can always call your politicians a bunch of bastards over here and everyone will laugh and agree with you. Besides, voting is compulsory. You think that's a bad thing? It's against the law to not be allowed out of work to vote. Everyone gets their say, because they have to. You might not like that, I think it's fantastic.
Of course, Australia's been grovelling to the US a lot lately. Bunch of Tall Poppies, the lot of you!
Don't mod me down, making fun of people is the Australian way! It's fun!
Talk to everyone you know, everyone who'll listen and inform them of what's going on. That is the absolute best thing you can do. If everyone on this site would do that the message would certainly reach a large number of people quickly. Be accurate, be concise, be calm - keep it strictly to the facts, no preaching - and most importantly keep it simple at first.
I had a conversation about this several months ago with my father, aunt, uncle and some others. These are not stupid people by any stretch, but they could not believe what I was telling them in regards to these sorts of things. They were uninformed on this topic. I simply forwarded them links to text and analysis of the PATRIOT act, DMCA and a few other gems. Next time I talked to them they all agreed that it was bad news, really bad news. It definitely has given a new view of our current government.
Put the information out there and get people to see it - that's the kind of thing that will result in change. And it's something you can do yourself on a person by person basis.
Does anyone care to guess how many violations or abuses that have been uncovered where a private citizens rights have been violated?
Did anyone guess Zero? Because thats exactly how many violations there have been.
I don't think very highly of the ill-informed knee-jerk reactionaries and scaremongers that tend to populate every YRO story here, but I don't find this rebuttal to their rhetoric any more convincing.
We can't know whether the Patriot Act powers have ever been abused or not. All we can know is that zero abuses of the Patriot Act HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED.
No matter how many eyes it has on it, Open source software can still contain bugs. Open government is no different.
I still think they're both generally better than the alternatives.
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.
What is your point? It's not terribly clear, and it almost looks like you're saying that we should disregard the famous Niemoeller quote because he's Lutheran. If so, that's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long while.
Perhaps some Lutheran's supported the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi's. Perhaps even most were. I have no idea.
So what?
It's quite clear from Niemoeller's quote that he was expressing remorse for failing to stand up for, among others, the Jewish people! Whatever else had happened, he personally was saying that this was wrong.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
There have been recorded and documented misuse of the existing Patriot act. The most curious has been the now occassional use of "anti-terrorism" laws and provisions to prosecute common drug offenders. I am reminded that German facism also started with the prosecuting of the "unpopular" in society outside the scope of normal law.
I also remember that even in periods when normal constitutional protections still did exist intact in this country, they were major abuses by some. How soon we forget the bugging and domestic spying on Dr. King, or the Nixon plumbers engaged in domestic espionage against percieved political "enemies", in the press and elsewhere. Even under the existing Patriot act and certainly under these new extensions, these and other past outragous might well now be technically "legal".
The consitution exists in it's limited form to protect citizens from the potential danger of their own government, both as understood from direct experiance (of prior British rule), and of potential and percieved dangers and risks to liberty that were only guessed at at that time.
The framers of the contitution were generally pessimists, for they thought constitutionally protected freedoms would only last at most a few generations before there would be need to start over...but while perhaps wrong on time scale, on this, like so many other things, they may yet, unfortunately, be proven correct in time.
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
"The genius psychic reporter was able to identify undercover police officers because they looked like anarchists?"
No. I would say he identified them because they pulled tasers out of their pants and jumped into an unmarked police van. And don't say "How do you know it was an unmarked police van?" Anybody over the age of 3 can spot a ghost car.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
It's simple really: Democrats are corrupt, Republicans are evil. The difference is subtle, but I tend to prefer corrupt. It implies one may have had some convictions at one time but just lacked to backbone to stand up for them, meanwhile evil has plenty of backbone - but it's devoted towards nefarious ends.
I think many understand the Republicans are mostly out to serve a small wealthy elite, but perhaps they vote for them partly because they fantasize themselves as part of that "elite" one day. By way of objectivity, here's a brief litmus test - do you currently have plans to buy your *second* million dollar yacht? If so, by all means, you should be voting Republican.
Meanwhile Democrats start out supporting the working class, but soon discover a fundamental law of nature - the rich have more money than the poor! Once they realize they'll always be out-fundraised by the Republicans, they begin to be tempted by those corporate special interests. Sure, at first they'll justify it and tell themselves "what's good for this large employer is good for my constituents", but the seeds of corruption have already been sown. Soon their opinions will be completely dictated by their corporate backers.
The only real solution might be campaign finance reform, but while everyone says they want it, it's amazing how soon after elections the politicians on both sides forget about it.
"Martin Niemoeller was a Protestant pastor born January 14, 1892, in Lippstadt, Westphalia. He was a submarine commander in World War I. He was anti-communist and initially supported the Nazis until the church was made subordinate to state authority.
In 1934, he started the Pastors' Emergency League to defend the church. Hitler became angered by Niemoeller's rebellious sermons and popularity and had him arrested on July 1, 1937. He was tried the following year and sentenced to seven months in prison and fined.
After his release, Hitler ordered him arrested again. he spent the next seven years in concentration camps in "protective custody." He was liberated in 1945 and was elected President of the Protestant church in Hesse and Nassau in 1947. He held the title until 1964. He was also a President of the World Council of Churches in the 1960's.
Niemoeller was a pacifist who spoke out against nuclear weapons. He is best known for his powerful statement about the failure of Germans to speak out against the Nazis:
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
He died in Wiesbaden on March 6, 1984. "
I feel so sig.
second, missles turn guns into blobs of steel, so what use is a gun if your facing the turret of a tank coming up your front lawn?
So, you do the same thing the VC did. Hide, wait for the tank crew to get out of the tank, and then kill them. Quite simple, and effective. Really, if there was a popular revolt in the US (and I mean more than some whack job malitia), it would be a meat grinder for both sides. Remeber, how do you tell a good loyal american from one who is pretending to be loyal, until he shoots you? You can't. If there is an armed revolt in America, it will be fought in a very similar manner as the Vietnam conflict. You will have a populous that doesn't really like the military that is trying to control it, who can hide in plain sight, and the more damage the military does to the enemy, and to infrasructure, the more people it turns against itself, and the more damage it does to its own infrastructure.
This is why the government having files on everyone is so dangerous. If open, armed, revolt ever becomes necessary, and the government has files that give it a pretty good clue about who the dissidents are going to be, the people lose the advantage of being able to hide in a crowd. The war would be over before it ever got started. Also, it will be advantagous for the revolutionaries, if there are plenty of weapons just lying about, and they don't have to storm a government base for them.
Sure, if it comes down to it, a revolt is going to kill lots of people; but let's not give up their greatest advantage before the war even starts.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
A big problem is that a large part of the American population has a black and white view. It is either white or black, it is either good or evil. In reality things happend in large number of grays. The catch is this is too subtle for people who are used to a binary approach. We need to encourage people to look amongst the grays and feel comfortable choosing from them. This is where many countries in Europe differ from the USA, since they have a large number of parties and people vote across the board, unless there is one thorny issue that really gets people's back against the wall.
There almost needs to a website put together that people can access that lists the stand points of the various political parties. That way people can have an unbiast view as to what each party is striving for. The site should also include the policatical history of laws that were brought in and what the voting position of each party was.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Just remember, if you stop spending money like sheep, the terrorists win, but if you give up your freedoms in exchange for "security" they dont.
If you are in a public place, you can be videotaped by anyone, as you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If someone wants to videotape police actions but are worried about a tape being confiscated, they should have the VCR seperate from the camera, connected wirelessly. Then they would still have the tape, showing the camera being smashed. News reporters would eat that up.
Since it took me more than a few minutes to find the part of the bill everyone's excited about, here's a pointer:
In the Conference Report, the change to the definition of financial institution is in Title III, Subtitle E (Sec. 374), which begins on page 76 of the PDF. The explanatory statement for that Section begins on page 112 of the PDF.
The Section in question is really just a reference to another Section of United States Code. On top of that, the PDF of this report is not searchable (it's a scanned image). Do we have an award for Information Obfuscation in Government? Why can't we at least have these reports in hypertext, with live links to the referenced laws?
Facsism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.
:
From Merriam-Webster:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Nazism is commonly refered to as National Socialism. By definition, the take over of private sector economies and services is socialism, whether it is done by force, democratic process or defacto part of the societal construct.
More to the point socialism is more of a economic construct then an authority construct. Socialism can and does flurish under different authority constructs, as does capitolism.
Mostly pure capitalism + Democratic Repulic
The form of government around in the US/UK during the industrial revolution prior to labor movments. Business was king, sweat shops were common, an curruption was common place.
Socialism + Authoritarian Rule (Single dictator/Ruling elite):
Nazi Germany/Facsist Italy(circa late 1930s thru mid 1940s)/Most brands of Communism
Capitalism + Authoritarian Rule (usually ruling elite):
Most modern theocracies and true monarchies (UK doesn't count since its monarchy is only a state head and does not rule the UK).
Socialism/Capitalism mix + Democratic Republic:
Most western forms of government. Most are much more Socialist then say the US, but it is a sccialist society, no matter what the republicans say..:-)
Most disagreements over what socialism is, comes from a disageement about the side entrees that could come with socialism. There are more then just democraic vs authoritarian, and my catagorizations are prolly not 100% correct, but they make the point.
In general, socialism/capitolism mix and Democratic Republics work really well together since they can protect the public at large from the psudo ruling elite that is created by from capitalsim, but provide enough insentive for people to be productive members of socities.
Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
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.
If I'm getting this right, the bill is H.R.2417 and the text of it can be found here along with the ammendments. And even though the Senate disguised who passed it with a voice vote, the House did it the transparently democratic way and the vote broken down beyond yeas and nays into partys and names can be found here.
where'd my typewriter go?
Roe V. Wade.
It did not establish a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. It found that some anti-abortion laws violate a woman's constitutionally protected right to privacy.
Now, if it can be unconstitutional to enforce an anti-abortion law because it violates someone's right to privacy, HOW IN THE FUCK can it be constitutional for law enforcement to spy on people who are not breaking any law?
But our government is no stranger to contradiction. For example, Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug, meaning that it has "no medicinal purpose", but they provide some terminally ill people with it. Heroin is also schedule 1, but in the UK Diamorphine (heroin) is perfectly legal and used as a pain reliever for people in extreme pain.
What's wrong with the world when a right wing republican, like myself, is arguing against providing law enforcement with more power and against the insanity of US drug policy?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This was sent to my various representatives.... Write physical letters and let them know this is not acceptable. I'm about as fed up with this crap as I can be.
Hon. Jim Talent:
I was outraged today to read reports stating that several of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot II bill had been passed despite the negative public debate surrounding the original bill. These provisions include: Expanding the definition of financial institutions to include a wide range of commercial and retail transactions. Another item is the elimination of Congressional reporting on intelligence and antidrug effectiveness. A third measure being the elimination of Congressional reporting of how often National Security Letters (NSLs) are used. By quietly passing these provisions within a spending bill for the Justice Department, It seems to have been moved through Congress in a manor that attempts to minimize public exposure and debate.
I cannot express the level of disappointment that I feel in this matter. The cunning manor these provisions were passed in chills my faith in this governments ability to reflect the will of its sovereign, the people. I am tired of reading the news and finding yet another public figure claiming that more of my rights must be set aside to fight terrorism. What returns have we seen from all that has been "given" so far? Yet we are asked, nay told, to give up more. We are given only empty assurances that these provisions will only be used on those who are evil; the innocent have nothing to fear from warrantless searches. So little have we to fear in fact that congress will not even require them to report on how often they use these powers.
There seems to be a fundamental shift in the way our government operates today -- the notion that the government "grants" us rights that can be suspended when it so desires seems to be prevalent. This is However, a careful study of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution reveals the intent of our founders that rights are granted by virtue of being human and can only be denied under very limited circumstances. I believe that with erosions such as these Patriot provisions those circumstances are no longer limited, and the line that divided us from the nations that we feared and ridiculed for their lack of human rights only decades ago is vanishing.
The current administration and much of my party (Republicans) seem to be unable to represent my interests any longer. In this case they can't even seem to bow to the collective will of this country. The message being sent to the public is clear: If the public dissent grows too loud, then table controversial legislation and pass it's provisions later in secret. This behavior does not inspire confidence in the political process. This President and his administration have lost my vote, and It can not be brought back. I cannot support an administration that treats our rights as an impediment to be overcome. Additionally, any of my representatives who supported this method of passing these provisions have lost my vote as well. I will be working to educate all that I know that this was done and who was responsible.
I hope this nation's leadership can turn this ship around. When I look at this country today and consider all the freedoms that have vanished since I was young; it does not make me proud. In fact, it saddens and angers me greatly. I would hope it does you as well.