Slashdot Mirror
FBI Can Inspect Bank Records w/o Court Orders
AlexZander writes: "Thankfully, the so-called 'Patriot Act II' was discovered last year and the public outcry that ensued was enough to get the bill tossed out the window. One of the goals of that act, however, has made it into law under the radar of the community at large. However, on December 13th, President Bush signed Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (the relevant section is 374) into law, which among other things, grants the FBI the power to obtain financial information without a court order from a judge. It also expands the definition of 'financial information' to include car dealerships, jewelry stores, insurance companies, and other stretches of the definition of 'financial institution'. Wired News has the story here."
"The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request. Oh, that and the new law only requires a "national security letter" from a field agent stating that the information reqested is part of an investigation relevant to national security.
Yikes!"
Is there any clause in the act that states only when investigating for possible terrorist association or something to that effect?
So, will a five year long string of $50 withdrawals from Bank of America ATM's all over the country attract their attention?
It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much. There should be an expectation of privacy between you and your bank, just as there is between you and your doctor/lawyer/priest/gun dealer.
I'm all in favor of fighting terrorism, but I don't think John Aschroft & Co. having access to mine and my neighbors bank records will help any.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
The provision granting increased power was little more than a single line of legislation. But Dempsey said it was written in such a cryptic manner that no one noticed its significance until it was too late.
Isn't democracy grand? I wonder how many more infringements upon freedom and privacy intelligence agencies can sneak past our apathetic, uninformed legislators.
The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request.
Of course, librarians already have this imposed on them thanks the Patriot Act I bill. Our local library actually has some kind of disclaimer sign which basically states that, thanks to the Patriot Act, any book you check out from here can be reported to the feds without your knowledge.
Funny thing is that I was at the bank yesterday and was talking with one of the higher-ups at his desk when my eye caught a very small sign saying "We comply with the Patriot Act" or something to that effect with a picture of an American flag waving happily in the background. That was even creeper than the library signs.
Anybody interested in founding a savings and loan? How about one with a person offshore holding the money? I'm really sick of my account being flagged for 'suspicious activity' (I do LOTS of $100 cash transfers and wire transfers). Can I do my banking somewhere where Uncle Sam can't get in the way?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
So I'm ignorant and am not exactly sure what the FBI can determine from my financial records, but I'm still annoyed over this. This seemingly recent trend of similar bills should be cause for alarm. I know we're a republic, but it's still a democratic republic, dammit. I consider one of my personal best interests the right to privacy. I'm not a politician, so why am I subject to the same scrutiny?
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
Of course, this also works pretty well at not tipping people off that you're abusing this new power.
My own personal take on this is that the potential for abuse is there, but when real (documented) abuses occur - or occur often enough - public outcry will force the repeal of a lot of this stuff. (Note that public outcry on /. is not enough.)
This isn't really small potatoes, ya know. Bank records could include Visa, Debit, etc. Likely they could trace down where you were when you purchased something with this info, your habits, your buying trends.
Maybe they garner that you're a frequent patron at a bar where "terrorists" tend to frequent. Maybe that means you're a terrorist, or it could just be that they have good wings on 10c Wednesday. Regardless, association drawn, get ready to hold out your arms for the handcuffs.
Welcome to the land of the free.
Please put your civil rights into the bin on your left and leave your fingerprints at the office up ahead. DNA sampling is still in preparation, and we'll come to the firstborn son thing eventually.
Now come on in, we ain't got all day and I've gotta strip search that hot lady behind you, she sure looks like a terrorist.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Remember who voted for this bill and who signed it next time you vote.
Proletariat of the world, unite to vote
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush gets Congress to repeal the limit on Presidents serving more than two terms. Bush seems determined to become King of America.
The things he and his cronies are doing are the very things that led the founding fathers to revolt against the British.
What Bush is doing is a slap in the face to the spirit of the American revolution and the America character that seems to have died sometime soon after Reagan became president.
I love America, but I don't love what it's becoming. At some point I may have to vacate and become a citizen of the world.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
I'll probably get moderated down and ruin my good karma but what the hell:
Like it or not. It's time to choose a side. You may think Democrats are tree-huggers, welfare moms or whatever but there is no way Al Gore would have done the things Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft/et al have done in the name of "security." Pre-emptive war! WTF! Back in my history class they called that an invasion. This is a grab by people who have all the money they'll ever need and now want power to go along with it. How many more example do you need: Diebold, Patriot II, Enemy Combatants, Trireme Partners? Wake up!
Republicans want it all and they don't play fair. Look at re-districting in Texas. They carved up Austin, dammit! That's the most liberal city in the SW and now it's owned by five Republicans! Democrats are certainly not saints but much of their money comes from non-profit and far more well-intentioned organizations like the Sierra Club, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc. Remember when we used to debate the ethics of a situation like using sweatshop labor in China. Now the debate is on profit/loss and how by exploiting these people we will encourage their economic growth. That is a bunch of horseshit and we all know it. Unions fought tooth and nail to get 40-hour work weeks, weekends, and minimum wage and that was in a free democracy. What chances do you think the workers in a communist dictatorship have? None.
End of rant,
X
Even before this, I was surprised to find out I couldn't have a savings account and do more than six transactions a month on it, because the federal government said so. I had to close it because I had weekly payroll direct deposit going to it, and I was also transferring some funds out of it to a checking account to pay bills from. This added up to more than six transactions per month, so the bank was obligated to send me a warning and then close the account if I didn't change my behavior. So it comes as no surprise to me that this is happening; the feds have had their nose in my banking for quite some time now.
Just curious, but does this secret appropriations bill process have any limitations on what could be placed in? If we are truly paranoid can really bad, but unreleated things get put into this bill? Could it become a mechanism for gun control, abortion, etc. (controversial issues) to be changed silently? What keeps this from happening?
It's not just bank records! One of the other neat tricks in this bill is that the definition of "financial institution" has been rewritten to something like "any institution that handles large amounts of money." So this could in theory apply to any institution or business with which you do business with-- supermarkets, videostores, paypal, etc. With no judicial oversight or warrants.
"Looks like the "liberal media" conviently neglected to warn us about this. Gee, I wonder why."
The question of whether they are liberal (they are) doesn't indicate whether they are smart (they aren't).
I had a political science instructor once who said:
"Reporters, in an effort to appear unbiased, deliberately remain as utterly ignorant of everything else in the world as possible."
Truer words were never spoken. The vast majority (99.99%) of reporters are morons.
I pretty much haven't used credit cards in the last 8 years. About the only thing they'll see transaction-wise on my credit card bills is payment for hosting services and some business expenses. I've paid for my last two cars in cash so not much to dig up on me there. And while they can see my ATM cash-withdrawl activity, that's not going to tell them much except where I am (which is usually where I live).
So, basically, the solution to this kind of crap is not doing anything that gives away personal information about yourself. Cash is usually pretty anonymous.
I suspect that if the FBI did a financial investigation about all they could say is "He doesn't seem to own a house, he has bought two cars in cash, and based on ATM withdrawls we know approximately where he lives." If they look at my IRS records then they'd know exactly where I live, which is overseas... Actually, the lack of information that they could dig up probably makes me look like a terrorist or drug dealer. :(
They can only track those aspects of your life that you let them track. Live smart, transact intelligently, and you can maintain a lot of your privacy.
a free country? Please tell me 'cause America's not it, and I for one don't intend to wait until the government comes to take even more freedom away!! Where can a person go to just be left alone?
But this laws says that all bank transactions of a business are public property. It would take only a few corrupt FBI agents to destroy a company by exposing it's banking records. No foreign company will want to bank in the US because it will afraid that the FBI will funnel sensitive information to US corporations. It has been done before.
And, as if the tinfoil wearing folk do not already have enough encouragement, this is the best reason of all to keep your money in you mattress.
In summary, if the money and business begin leaving the US in even greater numbers, I cannot blame them in the least. I thought some of the actions of US corporations over the past were quite selfish, but now I am not so sure. I cannot imagine a responsible firm using US banks anymore than is absolutely neccesary
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Most federal judges will grant the FBI warrants over the phone within minutes. This just clarifies what the FBI can go after on finacial investigations. If the FBI wants to investigate someone they will, warrants or not. Dont kid yourself, not everything every police agency does is above board. But the majority of FBI agents are hard working, family people who worry about personal rights also.
The only thing that pisses me off, is they include this as a rider to another bill so it gets passed. A few things I'd like to change are.
1. No riders.
2. No fancey names like Patriot Act. (Protect the Children Act, etc..)
3. Daily updates on bills that are voted on, educate the people.
4. Stats on which way your congress critter is voting on issues.
5. Balanced Budget Act.
I work a 60 hour week, and with my personal life, I barely have time to see what my elected officals are doing. I'd also like to change the way we vote. Instant Runoff voting.(IRV) This would make it easier for 3rd/4th parties to run and take office. And you dont have to worry about wasting a vote.
As other posters have said, its a matter of privacy. A more specific reason I would prefer that a judge decide whether or someone's bank account is avaliable to the FBI for investigation is this:
If an organization has absolute power to do this without permission from a separate organization, someone could take advantage of it. For instance, if bin laden wanted to look into all of the major corporations bank accounts to find out which institution would be best to attack, he could exploit the FBI's power and send out forged letters the companies. Isn't this a crazy way to look at it? But this is the sort of thing that the idea of privacy is made to deal with.
Its not that people don't want the FBI being able to do it jobs, its just that if you give them too much free power, there is a better possibility that it will somehow get used wrong. I hope that helps.
It's not a matter of having something to hide.
I am not embarrassed about what's in my fridge, but I still don't invite people to take a peek. I'm not embarrassed about what's in my palm pilot, but I still don't post it on the web.
The question isn't, "Do I have something to hide?" The question is, "Why should I allow you to go on a fishing expedition through my private life when you have no admissable cause to suggest that I'm doing anything illegal?"
-monique
But, really, bank records? Its not like its the usual dirty laundry like how much porn you have on your computer... unless your doing something illegal, what reason would you have to hide it? (I honestly am inquiring... I'm sure /.ers can help me out here...)
You are asking the wrong question. The question that should always be asked is, why do they need it? If the answer is some nebulous, for your security answer, then they don't really need it, they are just fishing. There should be a specific and functional answer as to why such information is needed. Moreover, why do they want to avoid judicial oversight? Its not like they couldn't get this information before, it just required a judge to sign the subpeona. Sure, it takes a little time, but those records aren't going anywhere. The only reason, that I can see, that the FBI would want to be able to do this without judicial oversight, is to avoid pesky questions about thier resons for what they are doing.
And, to answer your question, read up on the Stazi (sorry, couldn't find a good link), or the East German secret police. Basically they existed to terrorize the populous, and many of the tactics being pushed by the US government today smell the same as those the Stazi employed.
Its not that I want to keep the FBI/Police/etc. out of all bank records. They should have access to that, but it damn well better be under judicial oversight.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
$15 for the Fifteen
When the House voted on the measure, fifteen House Republicans broke from their party to vote against the bill, specifically because of their concerns about the stealthily inserted PATRIOT language. I'm a Democrat, but I thought that kind of principled stand was what we needed more of, not less -- and I thought it was a shame that the most likely outcome for these guys would be a world of hurt, since the House GOP leadership (especially Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay) is famous for demanding loyalty above all else.
That's what "$15 for the Fifteen" is all about. It's a chance for people who want to express their opposition to this PATRIOT expansion to do so in the way politicians pay the most attention to -- in cash :-)
The idea is that you put fifteen dollars into the campaign fund -- one dollar for each of those Republicans who voted the right way -- and when the campaign ends, the total funds raised will be split equally between all fifteen of them, and each one will get a letter with his share explaining that this money comes from citizens who want to thank him for doing the Right Thing on this bill. It's not general support, it's support on this issue -- which means your $15 doesn't disappear into some non-profit's general fund.
(I should mention that it wouldn't be possible to run a campaign like this without PayDemocracy, a great service that I used to put it together. I have no affiliation with them, and I'm not getting a penny of your contribution.)
If you want to do something concrete to send a message to the politicians that there are people out there who are watching them on this issue, and that will support them if they do the right thing, come join me -- it doesn't take many $15 contributions before we have a serious chunk of change, and that will really get their attention. It's less than the cost of a CD, and it's a first step towards making sure that things like this don't happen again. Not too bad for $15, don't you think?
Read my blog.
Let's be honest. France, and Europe in general, is much more egalitarian and pays much more attention to human rights than America does these days.
I remember a time when the world looked to the US for guidance. But somewhere in the mid 70's, the shift began to turn. The disenfanchised dixiecracts who were offended with the Civil Rights laws passed in the 60's began dismantling them slowly. They also began retracting US foreign policy from one of engagement to one of hostile rapproachment. Executions became legal again.
Europe has continued to move forward and has aggressively acted to prevent fascism from rearing its ugly head again. It appears the US is going to learn the hard way.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Nobody loses here, but american citzens. The job of terrorist and others, those who actually pose a threat to national security, is to brainstorm up plans to get around and defeat our countermeasures. All this means for terrorists is that they've been tipped off, and now need to find a new way to launder money. Let's wake up, the CIA already had the power it needed, plus the benefits of suprise and secrecy, they just haven't been doing their job.
Me
That's all fine and dandy but the problem with the Libertarians is that they do not have a realistic plan for running the country. They have this idealistic notion involving minimizing governmental power and control, but you start asking the Libertarian candidates how they'll handle situations that need to be mandated on a national level (pollution & environmental, business monopolization, utility regulation, transportation, etc.) they give you a bunch of double-talk that indicates they have no plan, nor a solid idea of what they're doing. Libertarians, for the most part, have a very narrow, unrealistic agenda that while most Americans seem to find appealing, would end up creating unworkable policy that would make the country even worse.
> 3. Find out how your congressperson voted on this issue, and call their office, then write a letter to them about it.
Unless, of course, the vote in question was a voice vote only. Then how the individual congresspersons voted is not on the record. A quick look at the history of the bill shows this to be the case, in the House at least.
/., google news, and other sources should all have ample documentation of how well that clause works to restrict the use of these powers to terrorism investigations.
Seriously, they write themselves a note that says "Yup, this is for terrorism" and that's it. They don't have to show the note to a judge, they don't have to be held accountable for the veracity of the note, with all evidence inadmissable should the claims of the note prove false. They just have to write it.
You know, when I turned 18 my senior year of high school, I could write my own sick notes to get out of school, and I wasn't held accountable by anyone. You may find this amazing, but sometimes I wrote myself a note even when I wasn't really sick.
The enemies of Democracy are
The idea is that you put fifteen dollars into the campaign fund -- one dollar for each of those Republicans who voted the right way -- and when the campaign ends, the total funds raised will be split equally between all fifteen of them, and each one will get a letter with his share explaining that this money comes from citizens who want to thank him for doing the Right Thing on this bill.
Do that and you help the Republicans maintain control of the House, which means that the Democrats, who almost unanimously voted against this bill, will still be out of power. They won't head up committees. They won't control what bills go to the floor. And the Republicans will continue to build their Orwellian police state.
Sorry, but rather than rewarding 15 members of the Republican party who did the right thing once, I'd rather reward the Democrats who have consistently fought against such anti-American bills.
Want to know why incumbents typically don't get voted out even after proving themselves 'untrustworthy' as you call it? It's because the longer your congressman is in Washington the more responsibility he gets. Think about it, would it benefit the people of your state more if you had a congressman who is chairman of the powerful Approprations Commitee or just another freshman who is a junior member on the National Flower Day committee? Also most regular people don't bother to vote. Maybe it seems like too much hassle or they don't even know how to register or where their polling station is or they just don't pay enough attention to the issues to trust their own judgement. Meanwhile, all government employees are actively encouraged by their party appointed bosses to vote and are given time off to go do so. Republican appointees in agencies like the prison system tend to encourage their peons to vote Republican. Democrat appointees in agencies like HUD tend to encourage their peons to vote Democrat. But both parties are cognizant of the fact that the longer an incumbant stays in place the more power he holds for his district.
It seems as though this administration is made purely of strict constructionists of the constitution. Bush's administration has completely ignored what all the other presidents have noted as natural laws, like the freedom of privacy. Our many privacies are now being stripped along WITH the freedom of speech. They're saying that they can investigate you and the librarian (or whomever) cannot inform you of your invasion of privacy.
I remember reading articles before 9/11 how the FBI wanted Library records but couldn't get them easily. This is something they've been wanting to do for some time. They'll use it to find terrorists, and it'll be a good thing. But they'll also use it to invade the civil liberties of many law-abiding citizens.
The end never justifies the means. It is an invasion of our liberties and a tragedy to the memory of all who have died to perserve those rights to allow the government to do this to us.
To quote someone noteable on this issue:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
If you were to browse http://www.tsaunion.com you might find a story about a Federal Security Director who was fired for refusing to break the law. (He was ordered to perform acts that were discriminatory against women and minorities... he got his orders on AUDIO TAPE and was fired for refusing to carry out orders.) As he is even now trying to attain justice but efforts by investigators are being blocked in the name of "National Security."
So you see, "National Security" is a very broad definition when you can include illegal behavior of government employees and organizations.
That would make sense if Saddam's threat was anything but an incredibly trumped-up lie.
WMD? None.
WMD deployable in 45 minutes? See above.
Al-Qaeda connection? Fabricated.
Uranium acquisition? Faked document.
Long-range missiles? Not long-range enough to get to US!
Unmanned gliders? Balsa and duct tape.
Beligerant talk? None.
Neighbors afraid? Nope.
Huh, so what claim of an Iraqi threat to the United States DID stand up to scrutiny?
Unconstitutional is the word of the day here. You can't search my home without a legal writ requiring the authorization of recognized judicial authority. You can't force me to answer questions about ANYTHING without recognized legal council present to advise me. You can't take my possessions, use my personal associations or even follow my butt around without SOMEONE giving the Feds WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION SIGNED OFF BY LEGALLY RECOGNIZED JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WHO IS COGNIZANT OF THE CONTENTS, REASONS AND METHODS OF THE WRIT!
So what in the Special-Hot-Place-Reserved-for-Naughty-People makes it legal to pass a law stating the Feds can gain access to my personal financial records WITHOUT said writ?
Uh uh! Physical, personal, informational, financial, it's all the same thing...if it's MINE, they can't have it without said writ AND informing me BEFORE they start digging. It's illegal, immoral and designed to give the Feds an incredibly abusable tool (and it WILL get abused!) to beat me over the head with any time an agent feels like it. Not gonna happen. Anyone tries it, I'll sue the U.S. Federal Government for all the greenbacks they borrowed from some other country that they've squirreled away.
I don't keep living in this country just so some impotent government schuck can entertain himself with power fantasies come true.
"Courage is being afraid to do the Right Thing, and doing it anyway."
I keep hearing how privacy is not a right granted in the Constitution. When so many people feel so strongly about it, why not just skip passing pathetic privacy protection bills and make an amendment to the Bill of Rights that grants us the right to privacy just like we are granted the right to free speech, the right to an attorney, etc.?
-- paper
The thing that scares me the most about this is the current administation's readiness to be flexible about the definition of terrorism. Have a protest on the street? Hmm, that's blocking street traffic, affecting stores. Economic terrorism. (This was a law they were trying to get passed in Oregon). Any organization in your protest take in any money from outside the US? You just became an international terrorist organization, in the eyes of the Bush administration. Very scary, especially since the other Bush administration (Jeb down in Florida) came down hard on peaceful demonstrators in Florida. Guilt by association... the protests had avery small subset people who were anarchists, and had some violent leanings. I don'tapprove of violence, and neither did many of the other protesters, who were in many cases elderly. But everyone was cuffed, and the police superintendent basically said "tough, if one's violent, they're all violent, and they should all be treated hard". Hmm, guilt by association, I wonder if we should bomb Rumsfeld since he was Saddam's friend in the 80's, or bomb Bush Sr., because he helped train Ossama.
I'm usually pretty passive as far as politics go. I vote, but that's about it. But I'm scared of the times we live in. It's time for action. This administration has led us down a scary course, but most americans are too passive. It's our responsibility to show them that their vote matters, that this administartion does thigns that affect their daily life. make people want to vote. start talking about politicians, and more importantly what we can do about them, instead of throwing up our hands and say "well, thats' in washington"
Just how does one bring a test case against it?
:/
:/ Somehow, it's almost like the inverse of Mulburry vs. Madison (the case that gave us judicial review, e.g. that said that judges can declare laws unconstitutional).
If you sue without any proof that you were investigated, they can say that it's not relevant to you (courts only have jurisdiction over "cases and controversies" -- e.g. they can't just review laws out of the blue)... but, by law, you cannot get any such proof, because all these institutions have to keep these searches secret. Thus, congress bypasses all the judicial review that's supposed to be in place... those checks & balances which are supposed to limit its power... In other words, it's something of a catch-22 in terms of how to oppose the eroding of one's 4th ammendment rights.
Sadly, there is exactly one way I can think of to test it. Someone who is ordered to do one of these secret reviews has to take them to court, which would make you guilty of publicizing the fact that they wanted to do such a covert search. Translation: want judicial oversight? Get sent to Guantanimo Bay... Fun
I really don't like the way this law is constructed, even though I hate ter rorists, terr orism and everything they stand for
Posted anon in the (futile?) hope of not being labeled a terr orist due to specious logic. Extra spaces are to avoid word searches.
As I said in a post earlier today, this power accumulation and surveilance reminds me of Senator Palpatine.
A population fearing an enemy (be it terrorists, clones, or whatever) is the best way to gain more powers.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Looks like it's time to remind everyone of Bush in 30 Seconds...
The good news is that the courts seem to still be trying to do their job. They are already questioning the legality of some of the goings-on at Guantanamo Bay.
What happens is, if the new law is illegal (it is, since it violates the 4th amendment), it gets removed. I'd just love to have some FBI agent call and ask for information from me, because I wouldn't give him a damn thing without a court-approved warrant. He can arrest me for it, but then they have to prove that the law is legal, and they'd lose all their new powers when the court decided that it's not.
So what we need is someone with funding and a backbone to not give up the information when asked, so as to take it to court.
Remember the constitution supersedes all other law in this country.
Um... are you sure you're talking about France? Sorry, but you Nazi assholes already had your chance, and you blew it. People are going to remember that shit for a lot longer than ten or twenty years
Why don't you read up on French Politics. You are quite mistaken. The simple fact is a solid 30% of the French citizenry outside of Paris voted for the man whose party platform is anti-egalitarian. Whatever else you may be bullshitting about, the simple fact is France is not the egalitarian paradise the parent-poster seems to believe.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Just sent to my congresscritter:
t y/story/7989769p-8926319c.html
Mr. Ose,
It saddens me to see that you have voted 'Yea' on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll649.xml
As you may know, this bill grants FBI powers to view the financial records of citizens without a court order from a judge, removing the checks and balances so important to our government. There is evidence that the FBI has abused other powers given to it by the much contested Patriot Act:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/liber
I have spoken to many other citizens in our district who are also unhappy about your vote on this issue. Unless I see active action on your part in opposition of further such laws, I will be encouraging as many people as possible to vote for a candidate who will better represent our interests come election time.
Feel free to have your staff contact me if you have any questions.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that having one of (house|senate|pres) be a different party would prevent "out of sunshine" legislation - plenty of laws have been snuck through when there were different parties in control.
I assert that the only way to prevent this sort of stuff is to require that ALL laws must stand for at least 1 year public scruteny (e.g. be available online, and at public libraries), and then the only allowable vote is YES or NO - any changes restart the clock.
Consider this "open source" law - everybody gets to see what will be voted upon (not some sanitized version that has yet to be buggered in committee) - any funny business will be dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day, to burst into flames and die (sorry, but Angel is running in the other room).
The ONLY laws that I would allow to bypass this would be "emergency" laws, which would be under the following restrictions:
1) May only run for 18 months, with no possiblity of renewal.
2) May NOT create any permanent offices, penalties, etc.
3) Must be 1000 words or less.
Should the courts find a given "emergency" law to be substantially similar to any other law, it is IMMEDIATELY struck down.
In short, when trying to solve a problem (laws being passed in the dead of night with nobody around), DIRECTLY address the problem.
Of course, to make something like this stick, it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment. Thus, the real probability of this occuring in this day and age is slightly less than the probability of my inventing a time machine and getting this written into the original Constitution.
www.eFax.com are spammers
I'm going to bounce all over the wall on this one. The above is the thing that gets my goat though. Not because it was said but because it's the truth.
.5 million against 80 million is actually possible. However, that's assuming one thing:
.5 million US troops actually know how to handle small arms weapons in close quarters, urban environments, and rural settings. They do not. I guarantee you this. Very few troops actually know how to fondle an M16 or M4 rifle. I know, I have buddies in the Army that had me teach them how to field-strip the AR-15 variety of weapons and fire them so they'd have a leg up on the other recruits.
FACT: The 2nd Ammendment of the United States Constitution exists for the SOLE reason that the general population needs to have the arms to overthrow the government if need be. If you don't beleive that's why it was written, go read up on your history. It's the truth.
However, is it reasonable? In principle yes, but the US Citizen has been so hampered by firearms laws since 1934 and on that it's just not possible for us to arm ourselves properly. We have a few points of strength though.
True, the US Military is 500,000 strong. I would expect a 40% AWOL though if troops were ever force to fight against our own citizens. That's hopeful thinking though.
There are en estimated 80,000,000 firearms owners in the United States however. A highly trained, well equiped force of
All of the
None of the 3 (out of 4) have actually been trained, beyond moderate skills, on how to handle small arms. Two are tankers, one is an Air Force bomb loader, and the 4th actually is a special-op in training guy that DOES know how to handle a rifle. I know 2 more military fellows (one Air Force, one Navy) that wouldn't know how to work an AR style rifle if their life depended on it.
Our military, by and large, excepting the Marines, are not riflemen. They are manning tanks, computers, air craft carries, and aircraft.
You launch tank, artilerary, and bombers against the population and you have just lost the compassion of the American people. The civilian hunters and patriots are very capable of a guerilla attack against the politicians that vote such things into being. The day that happens I predict 435 dead members of congress, 100 senators, 1 vice president and 1 president. They'll never launch large arms against our people for this reason.
Well, at least not now. We have some semblance of firearms ownership left in this country.
It's fun to wax nostalgically about how "back in the day" arms were simple and the common people had the proper arms to form a rebellion. You'd think that this is no longer true because arms have advanced so quickly that we cannot keep up with the government. Oh, how I wish that were true.
FACT: The very arms that the original patriots armed themselves with ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO THE COMMON MAN! That's right, folks, we can't even own a black powder cannon anymore. The original partiots had them. We don't. How's that for a kick in the ass?
As a further kick in the ass, some asshat in New Jersey actually proposed a bill that would have made 50 caliber muzzle loaders illegal. Nope, nobody wants to disarm the hunters.... keep looking the other way.
Lets's look at this. The average American soldier does not have the skills necessary for urban fighti
Wars cost money. It's much easier to make sure that the oil producing countries stay in line by kicking the most belligerent one in the teeth. In the end selling oil is much more beneficial (to both sides) then going to war.
The U.S. doesn't really want to micro-manage the world. Fact is we don't really care what the rest of you do, unless, of course, it affects us negatively. Disrupting the oil supply would definitely effect us negatively.
However, don't discount the whole weapons of mass destruction thing. Once a country has weapons of mass destruction the U.S. loses a great deal of its leverage. For example, as much as the U.S. would like to be able to sort things out with North Korea like we did in Iraq, we can't, because North Korea could (theoretically, at least) use a nuclear device against us. Politically it is a little embarrassing for George Bush that no WMDs were found, but imagine a world where Saddam Hussein was armed with WMDs.
All things considered, the world is a safer place because of the U.S.'s actions.
He and his followers killed, raped, and otherwise tortured 10's of thousands of Iraq's own people. He also refused to allow the people food or medical aid (instead pocketing all money himself). Clinton sent troops to Bosnia over a very similiar event, only on a smaller scale. But then again, that was Clinton so it was OK, right?
Knightfall