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?
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
There was a post about this on whatreallyhappened.com.. and it linked to a large article about it here.
I pre-ordered my 21" telescreen yesterday, I bought myself a newspeak dictionary and enrolled my daughter in the Junior Anti-Sex League.
The story hit earlier, when the FBI started asking for the records of everyone who went to vegas (plane records and hotel records) from Christmas to New Years...
The details are all over the net, but you can start by reading this, this, or this.
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
They may be able to read my bank records, but they cant read my mind thanks to my tinfoil hat.
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.
Insurance companies sell annuities which are, in essence, financial instruments.
Mmmm.. Donuts
IAALS.
Did the FBI fail to stop 9/11 because: 1) They didn't have this law? 2) They were still fighting the cold war and largely unprepared to fight Islamic extremists? I vote #2. But instead, we give these guys #1.
what reason would you have to hide it?
It isn't hidden. There is, however, something called privacy.
The "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" argument is a strawman I tire of. It's not about hiding. When I'm in the bathroom, I am not hiding. That doesn't mean I want everyone looking.
Same for my bank account. It's simply nobodys business what's going on there. If the FBI wants to peek, they'd better have a good reason to, and until recently, it was a judges job to decide whether the reason is any good.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
The temptation to just have a peek at: your ex's/neighbour's/brother's_business_rival's/... records will be more than some people can resist.
Quite appart that there should be a right to privacy.
The problem is that you may not be doing anything illegal, however your pattern of deposits and withdrawls may make you look suspicious. Before you know it you could end up being held/charged for something totally innocent.
Can you say police state?
"Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
Most every car dealer either arranges financing for their customers, and many are actual lenders. You know those "Buy Here, Pay Here" lots you pass on the way to work every morning? Those are cash cows, that border on usury. They sell a $1000 car for $3000, financed through them at 14-18%, and if you miss a payment, they drag it away with a tow truck and sell it to someone else.
Car dealers pull tons of credit reports, too. Some dealers won't let you test drive a car without pulling your credit. These guys are savvy financial operators, from the lowliest used-car dealer to the biggest multi-dealership operations.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
Y'know, so they can maintain their secular lifestyles of lavish excess. Their jihad-oriented faith demands bling-bling.
This way, they can crush the infidel Western capitalists in style.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
"but when real (documented) abuses occur"
Such as an article in a previous post (using the right wing Fox news as a source):
FBI agents investigating two strip club owners in Las Vegas on bribery charges bypassed a grand jury and instead used the Patriot Act to subpoena the financial records of the bar owners as well as several prominent city and county officials.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
1. Carp about it on a geek forum
2. Ignore it - after all no one really cares how much money you spend on chewing gum from chewinggum.com
3. Find out how your congressperson voted on this issue, and call their office, then write a letter to them about it. When you get the standard form letter back from them, go see them to discuss this issue. If that doesn't get you what you want, use your geek skills to build a community forum site and use that to attract folks who can develop a coordinated campaign to contact congresspeople all over the US to get this law changed.
Democracy can work. If this is really a big deal to you, then invest your time figuring out how it can and should be undone rather than whine about it here.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
He went to PayDemocracy and set up a campaign to collect donations.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
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.
The part which I find the most scary about this hasn't been mentioned yet: The US Postal Service counts as a "financial institution" for the purpose of this act.
As a result, an FBI agent can walk into the USPS, without a warrant, and demand a detailed listing of all the mail you receive.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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.
I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent... why do you care?" It's called the 4th amendment - our founding fathers didn't want the government to be able to search us without judicial review - without proving they had SOME case - and without our knowledge.
I'm innocent but I still don't want my rights violated. I don't want to be randomly searched, spied on, etc. I don't want the FBI or anyone looking at my medical records, bank records, etc. And I believe that for any person in the U.S., if the government or FBI didn't like you, they could put together "proof" that could get you locked up for life - not that they need any proof anymore.
If my home was searched, they'd find maps, atlases, sharpies, box cutters, CD-RWs, and a long list of other "terrorist equipment". I have books talking about how to protect your privacy, so I must have *something* to hide. I have books of a highly libertarian slant - I must be plotting to overthrow the government! I have a poster of the empire state building on my wall. The poster is there because I think it's a beautiful building, but the FBI could use it as "proof" that I planned to blow it up.
My financial records show I frequently buy computer equipment - I must by a computer terrorist! I make a cash deduction of $100 about once a week - I must be buying drugs! I wrote a check to a person with a foreign sounding name - he must be a member of my terrorist unit!!
Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.
There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
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?
The slippery slope argument has already been proven by the FBI's use of the Patriot Act in investiations that have nothing to do with terrorism. Some lawmakers have begun to speak out about the Las Vegas incident, complaining that they were assured that the powers they granted to the administration under the Patriot Act were to fight terrorists, not "garden variety criminals."
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.
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
It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much.
When they blast passages through the mountains with dynamite to build roads, you don't say they "eroded" it.
Slippery slope? The slope is a smoking crater. The rubble is being loaded into a dump truck and hauled away, and they weren't planning on noticing.
Everyone got mad when the Mayor of Chicago bulldozed an airport in the night, despite public outcry. Now the President and Congress are doing the same thing with the Bill of Rights. And yeah, I'm pissed.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
It would also help if the two parties weren't so chummy.
Oh, to have gridlock again.
The cocksucking jew bastard "STEPHEN SOLARZ" was the same motherfucker who led the charge for us going into Iraq in Gulf War 1 and if you can find a copy of the speech he made at congress..it will scare the hell out of you. We really have a ZOG! (source)
ZOG as in Zionist something something... shit people say things I write are conspiratorial, but man those liberty forums they have the right frame of mind... Run /.'ers
MoFscker
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.
With all those personalized credit cards they have now. If you're a pet owner you can get a Yorkshire Terrier picture on your credit card; scuba divers have their DAN credit cards, etc. I think Citibank should come out with the "Terrorist VISA" card, perhaps with a picture of Saddam or Osama on it, maybe a burning US flag or something. Of course, all the terrorists will apply for the new Citibank Terrorist VISA and then we'll know exactly who they are!
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I don't recall seeing any mention whatsoever granting specific powers of any kind to the FBI in excess of what is stated in the constitution. Of course no one really cares about such details when guys with guns and facemasks to hide their identity are dragging you out of your house in the middle of the night for extrajudicial executions. We are not too far from it now.
Nearly everyone is missing the fact that December 13, the day that Bush signed this bill, was a Saturday AND the day that the capture of Sadaam Hussein was announced. Does anyone smell a rat here, besides the one in the hole that the US (or the Kurds) discovered? What a great way to keep the news of the signing a bill that further pecks away at the Bill of Rights than to do it on a weekend and when another really big news item is released. The media appears to be complicit in publicizing only what the administration wants the public to know.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
I'm currently re-reading the ultimate conspiracy (and so much else) novel of all times: The Illuminatus! Trilogy.
:)
The following quotes fit all too well:
"...When communism replaces fascism as the number one enemy, your small-town conservative will be ready for global adventures on a scale that would make the heads of poor Mr. Roosevelt's liberals spin. Trust me. We have every detail pinpointed. Let me show you where the new government will be located."
Drake stared at the plan and shook his head. "Some people will recognize what a pentagon means," he said dubiously.
"They will be dismissed as superstitious cranks. Believe me, this building will be constructeed within a few years. It will become the policeman of the world. Nobody will dare question its actions or judgements without being denounced as a traitor. Within thirty years, Mr. Drake, within thirty years, anyone who attempts to restore power to the Congress will be cursed and vilified, not by liberals but by conservatives."
(...)
"To crush the opposition, we will need a Justice Department equivalent in many ways to Hitler's Gestapo. If your scheme works - if the Mafia can be drawn into a syndicate (...) we will have a nationwide outlaw cartel. The public itself will then call for the kind of Justice Department that we need. By the mid-1960s, wiretapping of all sorts must be so common that the concept of privacy will be archaic."
I'm waiting for George W.B. to start building the pyramid-with-the-eye on the top of the White house any day now
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
/., 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
As long as the supposed terrorist threat is enough that people will allow this stuff to happen, the terrorists are winning.
Don't vote for any representitive who voted for this law. If enough people do, they'll get the picture. The new guy may not be any better, but at least he'll be worried about re-election. The to parties are so similar it doesn't really matter weather a republican or democrat gets electd, so vote against incumbants that sign this shit.
I just did.
Easy lookup at http://www.senate.gov.
Remind them that election time is just around the corner and you'll be considering his/her reaction to this issue when you hit the voting booth.
It seems like everything to do with the war on terror is focused on 'follow the money'. Why? I mean, I understand that Bush, Cheney and everyone they've ever personally known have been cash fetishists. Therefore they assume everyone that they oppose is after their cash. Is that what it's about?
Sep. 11 budget?
19 airline tickets, bought ahead online.
Motel room, rental cars.
(maybe) an efficiency apartment in Florida to sit around a table and plot evil for two months.
Boxcutters.
Total cost? $8000? I could slap that on my MasterCard.
Terrorism is not at all $$ expensive. That's sort of the point. So what do they think they'll find by all this new power?
Common criminals, mostly drug runners, whose assets they can seize.
Buy firearms and lots of ammunition. As long as the population is armed, the government can't have complete control. If you want freedom, be prepared to fight for it because soon you may have to.
I'm not so naively optimistic to think it'll ever get fixed, though. Oh, well.
Litigious bastards
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.
By the same reasoning, unless the FBI is doing something illegal, what do they have to hide from judicial oversight?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
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.
Apparently, section 374 of The bill is the relevant section.
They accomplish this treachery by patching bits and pieces of the "Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978" without making any explicit references whatsoever to what the patching will do. It doesn't halp that some bills have sections that patch a patch for a patch, so that it's nearly impossible to figure out what the final result will actually say, much less what it means.
Forget line item veto, what we really need is an all or nothing law, so that a bill may repeal or replace in full an existing law but may never simply modify. Any replacement may NOT include any other text by reference, only by explicit copy.
That might actually fix some small part of the non-sense.
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.
I think you ment "The end can always be made to justify the means"
The problem is that it is very hard to quantify
the benefits an individual obtains from privacy. It is therefore, quite easy to justify removing those rights.
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
Is it any coincidence that Saddam was "captured" on the 14th of December?
Me thinks he was rolled out as a diversionary tactic just like good ol' Osama will be proclaimed dead from kidney failure or "captured" shortly before the '04 election to improve Bush's ratings.
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