Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional

Adam9 writes "According to Yahoo/AP, a federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations. The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project."

Comments

And???

[DarkHelmet]

Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

It's great that this is the first blow towards stamping out parts of the Patriot Act, but it's not winning the whole war.

I hope that Maher Arar sues the pants off of the US Government. To quote the article:

The Syrians locked Arar in an underground cell the size of a grave: 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high. Then they questioned him, under torture, repeatedly, for 10 months.

I hope that this man gets compensation for what he had to endure. I'm crossing my fingers that in the process of him doing so that most of these police-state laws that have gone into effect go the way of the dinosaur.

This isn't 1943, and this isn't 1984. The law should reflect that.

Re:And???

[neilcSD]

I think it's a good thing that this has happened. After all, if we allow terrorists to change our society in a significant way (i.e., turning the United States into a police state), then they have, in a way, won. However, I am not against giving up some personal freedom to make sure that our nation as a whole survives and hunts these fuggers down - When you want to catch a wolf, do you send a sheep? No, you send another wolf. However, they need to make DAMN sure they don't persecute the innocent.

Re:And???

[Selecter]

Yeah, that was a shitty deal for Mr. Ahar, who has never been charged with any crime ( at least in a non-kangaroo court fashion. )

BTW, The RCMP ( the Mounties ) just searched a reporters notes, computer, sources for the Toronto Star for information about his case.

From the Star:

Prime Minister Paul Martin has blasted the RCMP for raiding an Ottawa journalist's house in search of leaked information in the case of a Syrian-born Canadian who was detained by the Americans and later deported to Syria. Martin says the RCMP's focus should be on who leaked the information, not who reported it.

They have a Canadian version of the Patriot Act, you see.

Re:And???

[Spazmasta]

then they have, in a way, won

More than "in a way"... they will have won, period. It's not like they expect the US to give up and remove all our military from the middle east or anything like that, terrorists have been attacking other american territory and other countries for a long time. Their goal is to cause chaos, to make people live their lives differently, by what the terrorists dictate. Exactly what they want is for the US to waste millions on extra metal detectors or anti-anthrax machines, or to give up our freedoms. By "fighting back" and installing all sorts of extra security features, we are only playing right into the terrorists' hand. Fighting back is not trying to guess their next move and save a few peoples lives, but to continue normally, not wasting our money on anti-terrorist measures, and instead spend that money to prevent the deahts of the thousands that might die from poverty, that might become victim to an underfunded education system, the thousands that will die because our great country doesn't want to provide the money for a working free health care program like even Canada has, just because we need to invade a country like iraq in case they attack us first. Terrorists aren't the real threat. Our own irrational fear is what we should be worrying about.

Re:And???

[Golias]

I call this ruling proof that the system works.

When the PATRIOT act was signed into law, I didn't like a lot of it, but I was one of the people saying "don't get your panties in a wad. Congress and the President are doing their best at legally stepping up enforcement, and due to the urgency they're doing so by re-treading RICO laws. Anything which turns out to be unconstitutional will get struck down by the courts, and life will go on."

Sure enough, some of those provisions of the new law are being tested against our constitutional rights via the court system. This is how our system of government is supposed to work. Bravo for American government!

There's still a few more elements I would like to see struck down, but some of the enforcement powers in PATRIOT have also made a difference in our ability to avert another attack on the scale of what we saw in 2001. Our democratic system of checks and balances is not perfect, and certainly not efficient, but it seems to work better than anything else that I've seen.

Re:And???

[Lord Kano]

I hope that Maher Arar sues the pants off of the US Government.

I consider myself to be loyal to American ideals, but the treatment of Mr. Arar is enough to inspire someone to become a terrorist.

Imagine being this man's child. Your father disappears for nearly a year and when he is returned to you, he is a shadow of his former self. 40 pounds lighter, limping and unable to get a peaceful night's sleep.

This is unacceptable. I didn't donate a cent to and of the "9-11" charities, but if Mr. Arar was to set up some kind of fund I think I would contribute to pay his lawyers to sue my government.

LK

Re:And???

[acroyear]

Sure enough, some of those provisions of the new law are being tested against our constitutional rights via the court system.

On the other hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now (most Senators and a sizeable # of Congressmen are either lawyers or have been in service for a number of years) to have been able to make the decision that its unconstitutional and not even bothered to vote for or sign it in the first place.

Passing something with so many bluntly unconstitutional clauses, just to say "we're doing *something* (even if for now its the wrong thing)" is just plain poor leadership.

Re:And???

[JoeBuck]

It will be proof that the system works if and when the appeals are exhausted and the ruling still stands.

Our democratic system of checks and balances requires that checks are possible. If one man can order anyone, US citizen or not, locked away for life without charge and without even the ability to see a lawyer, we have no "democratic system of checks and balances", we have a king.

Re:And???

[Golias]

On the other hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now (most Senators and a sizeable # of Congressmen are either lawyers or have been in service for a number of years) to have been able to make the decision that its unconstitutional and not even bothered to vote for or sign it in the first place.

Law is a complex topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. That's why we have more than one Supreme Court justice. You will notice that a 9-0 decision does not happen often on the big issues. It's also why we have more than one political party.

Re:And???

[Golias]

Wait... saying that "Law is a complex topic upon which reasonable people can disagree." gets moderated as flamebait!? I have a strong suspicion I'm being "bitchslapped." Oh well, I have karma to burn. I'll just repeat myself with the +1 bonus turned on this time:

Law is a complex topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. That's why we have more than one Supreme Court justice. You will notice that a 9-0 decision does not happen often on the big issues. It's also why we have more than one political party.

Re:And???

[Anonymous Coward]

If no one 'got their panties in a wad' do you think we would be seeing any of this act declared unconstitutional?? Don't kid yourself. Our system of government works because people get mad about this type of b.s.

If Congress and the President were 'doing their best' and temporarily doing a power grab to defend us poor Americans from the evil terrorist infidels, then why didn't they include a sundown measure in the act where by it would expire after x,y,z number of years? This would give the president and the other branches the power they 'need' while making sure that our civil liberties aren't permanently eroded. If the powers granted in the act turned out to be necessary- then congress could vote on the act when it came up. Congress would have had the time to review the act and maybe read the thing. PATRIOT was pushed through congress in how many days?

The whole act should be repealed- not just parts. I do not believe it has made a difference in our ability to 'avert' another attack. It has been widely known for some time that agents had identified and reported the 9/11 senario as a vulnerability- those reports and warnings were ignored. I am not convinced that the PATRIOT act has helped us do anything but tighten the grip our government holds on us.

Our government is not perfect, and this is a great example of why it must change. No act should be hurried through Congress because our President wants to go to war and his opposition is being called unpatriotic. We shouldn't have to be going through the act and fighting to get parts of it stricken three years after it was passed. This act should never have been there in the first place.

This is a failure of our government not a triumph. It took freedom away and we are now fighting to get it back.

"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Ben Franklin

Re:And???

[gid13]

"I call this ruling proof that the system works."

Well... You might be hard pressed to convince Mr. Arar of that, at least in the short term.

Further, and more disturbingly, you're essentially saying that the government can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING it wants to in the short term, since it will only be bound by the constitution after the significant amount of time it takes to challenge it in court.

Re:And???

[kenjib]

The fact that many in congress are or were lawyers doesn't mean much when you consider they most of them voted yes on the bill before having a chance to read it.

Re:And???

[red floyd]

but failing to pass something in that session would have been political suicide for everybody involved.

And that's the problem... the impulse to DO SOMETHING!!! ANYTHING!!! is often a bad one.

Perhaps part of the Hippocratic Oath should become part of the Congressional oath of office... you know, that part which goes, "First, do no harm"...

Re:And???

[monk]

"When you want to catch a wolf, do you send a sheep? No, you send another wolf."

Seems to me you would end up with a whole pack of wolves...

When you want to catch a wolf, you use a human. If you want to wipe out wolves you change the habitat in such a way that it does not support wolves. I'm afraid the climate lately has been very friendly to wolves.

Re:And???

[Telastyn]

I think that on the third hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now to know that any legal recourse against such an unconstitutional law will take about 3-4 years. About the length of most governmental appointments... *hrmmm*

Re:And???

[maomoondog]

I call this ruling proof that the system works.

Still works, but stretched to the breaking point. I don't like the idea that 9 appointed judges are the last thing left between me and tyrannical laws. So many of the freedoms I'm most greatful for seem to have been handed down by the Supreme Court... why aren't our elected legislative and executive officials doing a good job of upholding constitutional rights in the first place?

If we could get "freedom" to be more than a catch-phrase in election politics, we could prevent laws like this from being signed into law and used to threaten and abuse groups in the first place.

Re:And???

[_KiTA_]

>> It's also why we have more than one political party.

We do? Last I looked we have 1 party with 2 faces, that only disagree on very superficial things.

Re:And???

[rsborg]

While the treatment of Arar is appalling, it has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

How TF did this get modded as insightful? The Patriot Act, specifically the provisions that were found unconstitutional, allow for "secret detentions" where lawyers could not consult for those who were "terrorists" (in this case Mr. Arar). Well, that's great, but if a prisoner can't see the charges against him and neither can he obtain a lawyer, he's screwed... and that's what happened to Mr. Arar.

Re:And???

[prisoner-of-enigma]

why aren't our elected legislative and executive officials doing a good job of upholding constitutional rights in the first place?

Precisely because they are elected, my dear Watson. Being elected, they are beholden to the swaying to and fro of the public. Elected officials are always thinking about the next election, and thus anything they can do that says "I did something" is viewed as a positive, even if it's later shown to be unconstitutional. The wronged Congressman can then say "well, I did my part but those liberal/conservative judges knocked it down" and still gain the voter's support.

That is why the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted our government to be a troika of a sorts. The Executive and Legislative branches are elected and can follow the will of the people. The Judicial branch is not elected and thus (in theory) not subject to the whims of the passing fancy of a public mob. This is a Good Thing, because it's times like these that judges are called upon to do unpopular things. The fact that they can do so largely without facing the ire of voters means they don't have to worry about their political skins like elected officials do.

You know, the longer I view the Constitution, the more brilliant I think the framers were. Truly men of vision, trying to set down a system of fair, just laws in which freedom could endure. What a shame we've made such a mess of it since then.

Re:And???

[amRadioHed]

I'm not speaking hypothetically, I'm speaking of actual would-be mass-murderers who have been caught and stopped because of our improved enforcement efforts.

Could you elaborate on that? Do you have any names or other references to back that statement up? I don't mean names of just any terrorists who we've captured, like Abu Zubaida. I mean names of guys who's capture was actually aided by provisions of the Patriot Act.

Bush emphasised his sucess in protecting us by pointing out that "twenty-eight months have passed since September the 11th, 2001--over two years without an attack on American soil." But, the same can be said for the period before 9/11 too, can't it? Aside from that one horrific day, the US was never really under seige by terrorists.

All I see is lots of innocent foreigners and legal immigrants being treated in unacceptable ways with no justification. Maybe american citizens too. I don't really know of any American citizens for sure, and that shouldn't make a difference. However, some people incorrectly believe that what side of the border you were born on should make a difference when we are talking about human rights.

Re:And???

[demachina]

When it comes to the Patriot Act and a continuing parade of followons I think you need to think out of the box about why we are blessed with them. I would argue that the Patriot Act didn't entirely happen just because of 9/11. Rather 9/11 was a convenient excuse for the Bush administration to do a lot of things they wanted to do anyway but they couldn't get away with until they had 9/11 as an excuse.

If you scoff look at the war on Iraq. They wanted to attack Iraq and depose Hussein from the day Bush was inaugerated. Cheney, Perl and Wolfowitz wanted to and wrote about it years before that. 9/11 just gave the Bush crowd a convenient excuse. The fabricated a bunch of unproven ties between Iraq and Al Quida and trumped up non existent WMD's. Presto, they have an excuse to take down Iraq and radicly alter the world to conform to their world view, or at least they thought. It remains to be seen if Iraq turns in to more of a problem than it was under Hussein when the Shia's try to take the power that is their right in a real democracy (though I wager the U.S. will prevent any election that isn't rigged).

I'd argue the Patriot Act is also just a manifestation of the desires of a right wing administration that wanted repressive laws to enforce order and to stifle dissent, 9/11 just made it feasible to pass them. Right wing adminstrations like everyone to either agree with them or shut up. When an administration can spy on anyone without judicial oversight, watch everything you read, everything you buy, they make people live in fear and most people living in fear keep their mouths shut. Ideally they make everyone shut up without even arresting anyone. Though they will arrest and intimidate a few that keep dissenting. That is the thing they want most out of the Patriot Act, an end to criticism of them and a cowering populace.

The fact is the current administration loves 9/11. It is the best thing that could have happened to Bush. Before it happened his popularity was declining and he was looking like a one term President. Afterward he is a towering figure of strength, hard to beat, vote for him or America will go down in flames. Since 9/11 nearly every speech Bush gives is laden with the words terror and terrorism juxtaposed with freedom and patriotism. You are either with us or against us. If you disagree with us you are unpatriotic and soft on terrorists or practicly a terrorist yourself. Every speech is designed to drown America in fear so you will turn to them to "save" you from terrorists lurking in every shadow. The war against terror will never end, and they are the only ones who can fight it, so you have to keep them in power from now to eternity. Fear is a mind killer and the Republicans are using it to great effect to stiffle dissent and to protect their hold on power at all costs.

So the 9th circuit overturned one little piece of the Patriot Act. Well the 9th is the most overturned court and the most reviled by the right wing. Its a propaganda boon for them to say, there they go again, they are a bunch of left wing loons, they aren't with us, they are against us, they are practicly terrorists themselves. See why we need a bunch of right wingers in all the courts. Even if the Supreme Court does overturn this its one little piece and the Bush adminstration will just come back with a bunch of new pieces to replace it. They can currently pass dangerous laws a lot faster than the courts can overturn them. They probably put a few garbage pieces in, in the first place, so a couple would get overturned, people would cheer, and the really bad stuff would still be there.

If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act pretty much the only option is to put Bush and the Republicans in congress out of power in the next election, though we are bucking a head wind in the form of giants piles of cash to brainwash people through TV and the threat of rigged elections thanks to Diebold and the Pentagon's SERVE. The Democrats suck too but I think we all remember now why Republicans t

Re:And???

[juksey]

" Their goal is to cause chaos, to make people live their lives differently, by what the terrorists dictate."
Partially true. But not entirelly. I have seen Al-Quaeda documents that have a picture of the globe with a sword through it. I have read parts of an Al-Quaeda training manual that says:
"The main mission for which the Military Organization is responsible is:
The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime."
And the methods listed for accomplishing that mission are horrendous.
These people really believe that they can destroy us, and that is their goal. I do not believe in giving up my basic freedoms, but I do believe in taking action to make sure the world is free of these terrorists. We need to go on with our lives, but we need to do so in caution. We cannot let down our guard and allow these people to continue training and plotting against us. We need to do exactly what we are doing in the Middle East right now.
And no, I do not believe they want us to fight back. They just want us to cower in fear and leave ourselves venerable to more attacks. They do not want us to defeat them on their own ground. Their plan doesnt work if they are all dead or in prison, nor does it work when they have no organization. Do you think the Al-Quaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan can spend much time planning for an attack on American soil if they are too busy worried about trying to lash out at our bases in Afghanistan? I dont.

Re:And???

[demachina]

Free speech zones, what a great tool for stifling dissent. They have a multifacted purpose.

- The Secret Service insists they are for the President's security though anyone who is a pro Bush supporter gets close to the President which completely undermines the security argument.

- Thanks to the careful positioning of the anti Bush pens the President never sees protestors, and always sees the pro Bush supporters, so if he is the naive idiot many think he is must think the whole world loves him, thanks to the rose colored glasses.

- The media chasing the President doesn't see protestors so they never cover the protestors. Of course the new patriotic, corporate media doesn't much want to cover dissent these days anyway. Its unpatriotic.

- The protestors soon realize they are wasting their time so they give up which ensures no critical mass ever builds which would make someone take notice. So it looks like there is no serious dissent. Its a simple fact of life protests like those at the Democratic convention against Vietnam in 1968 couldn't happen today because it would be crushed to ensure "security".

- The Secret Service, in the process of sorting people between the pro Bush people and the anti Bush people, can thouroughly catalog and brand all the potential troublemakers and ensure they are hassled at every future opportunity. Its really quite orderly.

Wouldn't it be cool if a bunch of anti Bush protestors dressed up like good Republicans, with pro Bush signs. The Secret Service quickly ushers them up close to the President. When the President pulls up they rip away the pro bush signs to show anti Bush signs. The Secret Service would freak, though I assume they must look for and gaurd against fakers. Maybe good Republicans have a secret code word. To successfully pull this off the protestors would have to be people who hadn't previously been cataloged as anti Bush protestors, a.k.a. terrorists and a threat to the nation.

Re:And???

[Threni]

> These people really believe that they can destroy us,

Look up an interview with Bin Laden by Robert Fisk. Bin Laden is ignorant of world politics. He just wants the US out of the middle east.

Re:And???

[Threni]

Some info (sorry, I was busy earlier):

http://www.robert-fisk.com/understanding_enemy.h tm
which links to:
http://www.robert-fisk.com/fisk_interview3.ht m

And, to even things up, here is 5 minutes in the company of George W Bush, immediately after he learnt his country was under attack:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm

Patriot Act is Unpatriotic

[Trejkaz]

News at 10.

Re:Patriot Act is Unpatriotic

[pheared]

Unfortunately Bush 2 would have you believe that it is Congress' duty to "act now" to keep the PATRIOT ACT in effect. Thinking otherwise would be unpatriotic. Terrorist.

What The World Has Been Waiting For

[ackthpt]

...has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

Finally, I'm freed to give this advise!

"Darl, what you are doing is wrong, stop it."

Maybe now he'll listen.

A Small Victory

[andyrut]

It's awesome that the Supreme Court has finally examined and ruled this part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. However, this particular section of PATRIOT is only the tip of the iceberg that denies constitutional rights to individuals.

What Slashdot readers and other techies should be particularly concerned with is that, under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism now encompasses many computer crimes which have nothing to do with terrorism. Deface a web site? You're a terrorist. It also allows wiretaps and other intrusions without the hard-nosed rules that usually come with warrants, as long as it's placed under the crime of terrorism -- which now includes even minor computer crimes. The EFF has posted its detailed analysis of the Patriot Act, and how it affects people concerned with electronic freedoms here.

While this is a minor victory, hopefully this is the first of many parts ruled unconstitutional.

Re:A Small Victory

[acroyear]

As far as i know, unless there are political reasons to not do it, like their boss (i.e., Ashcroft) says don't do it, they have no choice BUT to appeal.

It is the policy of the Justice Department to support the implementation and preservation of all laws in the book. If an appeal rules one defunct, then they must appeal to preserve it until told its "not a priority".

Trust me, to Ashcroft and Ridge, Patriot IS a priority.

Re:A Small Victory

[0WaitState]

It was the 9th Circuit Federal court, who usually do the right thing and then get overturned on appeal by Scalia and the Supremes. So, this is about as effective as singing folk songs and waving placards in the designated "protest" space at least one mile distant from wherever Bush is fundraising today.

Meanwhile, the much-worse provisions of Patriot II were tucked into the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress last week. So, if you want to make a difference, call up your congresscritter and mention how relieved you are at this temporary reversal of Patriot I and how you really don't want to see more of these unamerican laws passed. You could also donate money or time to interest groups: EFF, EPIC, ACLU, whoever's most likely to throw Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney out of office, etc.

Re:A Small Victory

[zenyu]

It was the[sic] 9th Circuit Federal court who usually do the right thing and then get overturned on appeal by Scalia and the Supremes.

Furthermore, the number of decisions out of the 9th Circuit that get overturned is high enough that the rest of the country rarely pays any attention to what they have to say, except possibly to determine what the law isn't (or won't be).

Actually they have if not the lowest then one of the lowest percentages of overturned rulings. But they do hear most of the important cases just by virtue of their territory. And the most important cases get heard by the SC. When they get overturned most people know they will ahead of time, given the biases of our current crop of nine, but the 9th circuit is also careful in these cases to write the type of strong opinions that law students will read in their classes and that they know will eventually become the law of the land.

EFF Patriot Act Analysis

[Eyah....TIMMY]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation made a very good speech last year at DefCon about the dangers of the Patriot Act.
They have an analysis on their site about the Patriot Act and what it means for us.
Here's also another article about why we should be concerned about it.

Meanwhile, Howard Dean wants to ID you

[Anonymous Coward]

Howard Dean wants a federally mandated identification chip (linked to your state id) and id readers in EVERY computer. You'd even need it to access the internet, with limits on your access based on your information! Talk about big brother.

NOT the USSC!

[DAldredge]

It wasn't the USSC, it was a Federal District judge.

This was a no-brainer

[soft_guy]

Basically they wanted to advise a group of people on how to peacefully resolve a dispute.

This was a case of a super-vague law that prohibits someone from engaging in speech that basically no ordinary person would even find to be controversial speech. I'm surprised that the DOJ even threatened them with enforcement of this in this case. It should have been obvious to them that pursuing some white hat like this would just bust their pet law.

Sweet!

[scosol]

Does this mean I can smoke weed again without supporting terrorists?!?!?!? :P

The part of Act that's unconstitutional

[mikeophile]

Is the part that starts right after the title and continues to the end.

There is nothing patriotic about it if you have any love of liberty or freedom.

Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional

[CrayzyJ]

I love liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, they were used as tools by terrorists.

Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional

[baltimoretim]

I love oxygen and hydrogen. Unfortunately they were used as tools by the terrorists.

How long will our government ignore the (fundamental) elemental threat?

Re:The part of Act that's unconstitutional

[NMerriam]

I love liberty and freedom. Unfortunately, they were used as tools by terrorists.

Indeed it is unfortunate.

Free speech is used by the ignorant to challenge the educated, freedom of assembly is used by Nazis and the KKK to rally support and intimidate others, the 5th amendment is used by the guilty to avoid self-incrimination, and the 4th is used by criminals to conceal evidence of their crimes.

All of this is, indeed, unfortunate -- and exactly as it was meant to be in a free nation.

phew....

[andy55]

a federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.

phew... now I can safely continue to consult for microsoft...

unconstitutional maybe, but...

[donutz]

It just seems to me that it's bad policy on a person's or organization's part to lend support to groups that are engaged in terrorist activities. How can you truly know if you're being a good humanitarian, and helping out those who are being repressed within the terrorist group, or if you're just furthering their goals by helping out people within their group?

Re:unconstitutional maybe, but...

[jfholcomb]

Yeah that is the argument however if you look at the "new" definition of terrorism...."any person or group that seeks to question the US government" something like that. Well dont we as citizens have the DUTY to keep our government in check? How is that going to happen with this law on the books. Worrysome and knee-jerk from our leaders in washington. they seem to have done it just so they can say look at what we did we are trying to protect you and the CHILDREN. Bah

Re:unconstitutional maybe, but...

[gerardrj]

Define Terrorist.

There's not really a good way to define it that doesn't lump US in that category.
For those that say "you just know", that's not good enough.

Re:unconstitutional maybe, but...

[ChrisKnight]

> It just seems to me that it's bad policy on a
> person's or organization's part to lend support to
> groups that are engaged in terrorist activities.

Do the words "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?

-Chris

Re:unconstitutional maybe, but...

[BoneFlower]

Ok, here it is. I start a terrorist group because I think cigarettes are too expensive. We have violent raids. Kill people, steal money, cigarettes, guns. Real nasties.

A lawyer comes. Offers to help us lobby for reduced taxes. Shows us the ways to legally get around the taxes. Shows us how to roll our own to save money.

We see, after all our violence doesn't do squat, that peaceful means can actually work. We'd stop bothering with all the weapons stockpiles, and take public speaking classes and talk to lobbyists when we have problems with a law.

Under the Patriot act before this ruling, that lawyer would be banned from helping us, and if he chose to follow the law, our reign of terror would go on and on. We wouldn't learn, and more people would die.

The problem of fighting violence with violence

[spun]

is that you become that which you fight against. Isn't it ironic, that if these terrorists really do hate our 'Freedom,' that is precisely what we are giving up to fight them? Sounds like they win, in that case.

Re:The problem of fighting violence with violence

[NMerriam]

Wars, including the fight against terrorism, aren't about fighting "violence". They are about one side defeating the other side.

Yes, but the point of defeating the "other side" is to take their land, destroy their factories, etc. There is no way to defeat the "other side" in a war on drugs/terrorism/poverty. You can't stomp out a social ill or political disagreement with force, because there is no physical necessity belonging to the other side that may be destroyed or usurped.

Calling a political policy a "war" doesn't make it so.

YES!!

[Irvu]

Seriously, a ruling of this type not only rectifies a bad law but serves to remind people that bad laws can be changed. Lord knows I needed some good news like that.

It's unbelievable...

[eclectro]

Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

It's unbelievable that we have an attorney general that this concept eludes entirely. No wonder he lost an election to a dead guy before dubya found him.

Remember, when you vote for Bush, you're voting for the "package" deal.

Yay!

[Junior J. Junior III]

I'm glad it's that part, and not the part that says the PATRIOT Act will expire. It'd suck if that part got ruled unconstitutional.

Re:For the Dean Supporters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, great, so when you lose your driver's license, you will no longer exist as a person. Glad I'm voting for Edwards . . .

Major Victory

[zelurxunil]

"a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."

I'd merely like to point out that this "Part" of the Patriot act is just that, a part of it. This still isn't dealing with any of the true hard issues, such as eavesdropping without a warrant/court order, forcing libraries disclosure of a persons activities, and so on. This is not trully a victory for anyone who really cares about Pravacy, or rather "Your Rights Online." Merely a victory for everyone trying to take a quick shot at this administration.

Just the start

[Neppy]

Immediately after 9/11 opposition to just about anything labeled "anti terrorism" was practically nil. Only now are common citizens who have been in the dark starting to realize that not everything being sold under the label is really good for them. Court decisions are just the beginning; hopefully the taboo of challenging anti terrorism measures wears off for politicians and the public too. If the general public was aware of what is really in PATRIOT the pressure for politicians to repeal it would be pretty huge.

Phew

[Malicious]

Librarians around the United States, heaved a sigh of relief.

Just the beginning

[SenorFluffyPants]

A lot of people are saying that this is only a small part, that we should not get excited about the ruling. It seems to me that this is one of the first ones to face the scrutiny of a federal appeals court and, if so, that this is a good sign that other sections of the act will be similarly stricken down.

Even with the Supreme Court we have now, one would expect most of the act to end up in the dumpster once it has to face any kind of scrutiny in a court of law.

In related news, Judge Audrey Collin ...

[burgburgburg]

was declared an enemy combatant and relocated by the Ashcroft Ministry of Truth to sunny Guantanamo Bay.

Defending PATRIOT

[WombatControl]

I'm sure that I'm distinctely in the minority here, but I think the criticisms of the PATRIOT Act are entirely blown out of proportion. I've actually read the PATRIOT Act, and I see very little that matches the wild claims that have been levied against it.

Take for example the infamous Section 215 that civil libertarians claim allows law enforcement to search your library records. Except this power requires the consent of a federal judge, no library records have ever been searched, and such provisions have already been used in other criminal cases. Library records were searched in the hunt for Andrew Cunanan, the man who shot fashion designer Gianni Versace in 1997, and to hunt down the Zodiac killer in New York in 1990. Yet no one raised a fuss about these searches. It is clear that there is a direct double standard at play, fueled by ignorance of the law.

Most of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act specifically extend already existing powers specifically to fight terrorism. Most of them were already codified in law under earlier racketeering statutes such as RICO. Yet no one seemed to question those moves then.

The fact remains that our rights were abused far more heinously during the War on Drugs and the term of Janet Reno as AG than they ever were under Ashcroft. No-knock warrants are far more suspect as far as civil rights are concerned than extending provisions of RICO to terrorism. I fail to see the logic of a system that gives greater protections to Mohammad Atta than it does to Tony Soprano.

If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well. Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened. Several 9/11 conspirators were pulled over just before the attacks - but because the police didn't have access to immigration records or terrorist watch lists they were let go with only a warning. Another event like that is simply intolerable.

The fact is 9/10ths of the arguments against PATRIOT are based in a sense of partisan politics rather than a rational examination of law. Had PATRIOT been a creation of Clinton Administration I doubt anyone would be talking about it, but in a country where partisanship overwhelms common sense on both sides rational discussion about the best way to protect this country from the clear and present danger of terrorism is difficult to find.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[Anonymous Coward]

The flaw in your argument about the library records being seen is that for the two examples you gave that they were viewed by the feds AFTER the illegal acts.
The Patriot Act allows the feds to inspect the records BEFORE and at any time if they remotely suspect you of anything.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened. Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened. Several 9/11 conspirators were pulled over just before the attacks - but because the police didn't have access to immigration records or terrorist watch lists they were let go with only a warning.

And what divine power do you possess that no other human on the face of the planet possesses that allows you to make such a claim as fact? Most of the 9/11 conspirators were here legally on visas issued by our own beloved State Department which already had access to such vital information but failed to research the applications adequately.

The crux of the matter is that most of the provisions of the PATRIOT act are unneccessary and law enforcement and courts have proven time and time again that they are capable of handling terrorism cases using their existing laws and powers.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[WombatControl]

The standard for issuing a search warrant does not change - there must be "probable cause" for such a search, meaning that a crime does not necessarily have to have been committed before such a search would be authorized. The rules under the PATRIOT Act are the same rules that would be applied to any other criminal case in that a judge would have to be consulted and a warrant issued. The only difference is that the PATRIOT Act makes this process swifter and allows for such searches to occur without the knowledge of the suspect.

This is only logical, as trying to uncover information about a terrorist cell doesn't exactly work when that terrorist cell knows they're being hunted.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[geomon]

Except this power requires the consent of a federal judge, no library records have ever been searched..

Which is why it should be expunged.

If it isn't needed, then why put it in?

The fact remains that our rights were abused far more heinously during the War on Drugs and the term of Janet Reno as AG than they ever were under Ashcroft.

While I agree that the WOD is much more threatening to civil liberties than PATRIOT, why do you support putting more power into the hands of the government when they obviously don't need it (by your own admission, re:librarians)?

Also, the Reno-Ashcroft remark is pure trollbait. I haven't seen Ashcroft sprinting out to repeal any of the WOD provisions, so they stand in full force as they were under Reno. And the laws were passed by the Congress, not the USAG.

If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well.

Good!

Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened.

Your crystal ball is scratched, scuffed, and otherwise translucent.

The fact remains that, despite the passage of PATRIOT, information sharing between agencies remains spotty. And the reason for the lack of exchange is not due to fuzzy-headed liberals blocking the governments efforts. It is due to the time honored tradition of 'empire building' in government agencies.

That behavior will not end with the expansion or the repeal of PATRIOT.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[Aidtopia]

Take for example the infamous Section 215 that civil libertarians claim allows law enforcement to search your library records. Except this power requires the consent of a federal judge, no library records have ever been searched, and such provisions have already been used in other criminal cases. Library records were searched in the hunt for Andrew Cunanan, the man who shot fashion designer Gianni Versace in 1997, and to hunt down the Zodiac killer in New York in 1990. Yet no one raised a fuss about these searches. It is clear that there is a direct double standard at play, fueled by ignorance of the law.

Let me say up front that I'm not a lawyer. But the biggest problem I see here is that there is very little if any oversight. Traditional search warrants are (or become) public record, making it possible for people to check for abuse. For example, in California, after a wiretap is completed, law enforcement must contact every party that was heard on the line to let them know they had been recorded. With the gag rules in the PATRIOT ACT, there's no after-the-fact oversight to make sure the judge who granted the request was doing the right thing and that the enforcement agencies aren't routinely asking for wide-reaching powers. You say that, "no library records have ever been searched," but you don't know that because of the gag rules.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[craw]

The problem with 215 is that it greatly expands the governments ability to obtain practically every conceivable pieces of information about anybody. Not foreign spies, anybody. And who grants this authority? The highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, who meet in secret, and extremely rarely release any infor about what they ruled on.

Before the Patriot Act, one could be investigated if one was a spy suspect. Now, the provision is that there is an ongoing investigation related to espionage or terrorist activity. This is a big web to spin and the FBI spins it without oversight.

Then there is the gag order that can be unilaterally applied by the FBI. Those that handed over info the FBI can be restricted from ever telling you that this info was given to the FBI.

However, 215 is not the main problem, the expansion of the National Security Letters (NSL) in the Patriot Act is the real problem. The FBI can issue a NSL without a Federal Court order if there is an on-going investigation that is taking place. Before, NSLs could be issued if it was believed that you were a foreign spy. And without any court oversight, the FBI has a "free-hand" to issue NSLs whenever they want. This is a big legal loophole in the Patriot Act.

What can one do with a NSL? The FBI can get info from your phone, ISP, banks, and credit card companies. Remember, all this without a court order. Additionally, a gag order can be issue to those companies to not disclose that they gave the FBI the information about you.

Re:Defending PATRIOT

[evilviper]

Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened.

There are a LOT of things that should have stopped the Sept 11th attacks from happening, but none of them did. One more thing that *should* prevent it, isn't necessarily going to...

The fact is 9/10ths of the arguments against PATRIOT are based in a sense of partisan politics rather than a rational examination of law. Had PATRIOT been a creation of Clinton Administration I doubt anyone would be talking about it

That sounds just like every other Republican argument I've heard in years... Blindly supporting the right-wing, and then peremptively criticize your opponents for being partisan...

Here, let me try...

The fact is 15/10ths of the arguments FOR the PATRIOT act are based in a sense of partisan politics rather than a rational examination of law.

See how well it works! You don't need actual facts to support your claims. You just have to be the first one to offer the above "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument, and your opponents, why may even have legitimate complaints, look like they're just being political stooges.

Oh Crap! What are we going to do now!?!?!

[LilMikey]

According to the State of the Union address the Patriot Act is essential to the fight against terrorism! What are Americans to do?! We had all better start stocking up on plastic sheets and duct tape again. Good thing none of them stinking Democrats have been able to successfully attack the 2nd amendment under Bush's watch. I'd hate to lose those vital rights. How else could we defend ourselves?</angry sarcasm>

In all seriousness, this won't have much of an effect on personal privacy for average Joe and I imagine the powers that be will do everything in their power to keep the steamroller running, but a good swift kick in the nuts to the Patriot Act can only be a good thing for those of us that appreciate civil liberties.

Just Remember

[Pave Low]

It was a ruling from the Ninth Circuit, the most left-leaning court in the land.

It's also the most consistently overturned court, so this ruling is definitely not the final word.

Re:Just Remember

[sulli]

Okay, Mr. Conservative News and Views, would you vote to uphold this odious bit of legal treason? Would you if it were signed by a Democratic President (as the DMCA was, for example)?

Stand and be counted if you really think so.

Re:Just Remember

[Pave Low]

Here's mine, where's yours?

Here's a couple:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=105613989048 1

http://www.nusd.k12.az.us/nhs/gthomson.class/artic les/judicial/9circut.htm

Excerpt:
Over the last 20 years, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has developed a reputation for being wrong more often than any other federal appeals court.

By both measures, the 9th Circuit was wrong more often than any other circuit in the dozen years Posner surveyed, though 1997

Re:Just Remember

[dwillden]

The facts you need to check are that it is not a ruling by the 9th circuit (yet). This was a ruling by a Federal District court in LA.

If/when it gets appealed, then it will go to the 9th, who I'm guessing will uphold the ruling on the initial review, and if appealed the full panel of the court will probably also uphold it. The full panel doesn't get overturned nearly as often as the initial three judge panels.

In fact the full panel is often the group that does the overturning. A prime example is the Pledge of Allegience case.

Re:Just Remember

[jjohnson]

Here's one: http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/re versal_rates.pdf

Upshot: the 9th in 2002, at 75%, was marginally worse than the 2nd, 7th and 6th (67%, 67%, and 71%, respectively), and much better than the 4th, 5th and 8th (100%, all). It was also noticeably better than state courts (81%). Only the 11th, D.C., and the federal circuit were noticeably better at 50% each.

The 'heavily reversed and overly liberal 9th' is one of those memes that has an ounce of truth to it obscured by a ton of partisan bravado.

bout time

[knodi]

I went around cube to cube (hey, I was on break) sharing the gist of the headline, and I got a unanimous [pardon the french] "about fucking time" from EVERY SINGLE person, except one guy who just clapped slowly. He's an odd one...

Russ-Russ!

[bbuchs]

Just for the record, MY senator - Russ Feingold - was the ONLY one to vote against the Patriot Act. And, from what I've heard, getting a Republican lapdog into his seat has become Karl Rove's pet project.

(At least that's what Russ keeps saying in the campaign contribution letters I keep getting...)

it's been interesting to see

[my sig is bigger tha]

all the hoopla go from fighting drugs, and the laws getting passed be about controlling drugs, to now being about terrorism...

the laws continue to be about controlling us, only the rationale changes.

Re:For the Dean Supporters.

[Dirtside]

I try not to trust Declan's relatively yellow journalism any farther than I can throw it, but assuming his article IS accurate, it's entirely possible that Dean's views have changed in the last two years. Keep in mind that he's referring to a speech Dean made in March of 2002.

This isn't to say that Dean HAS changed his views, but when someone quotes a two-year-old speech as evidence of a person's current views, I get a little suspicious. Hasn't Dean said anything about this idea since then?

Re:In related news, Judge Audrey Collin ...

[FreshFunk510]

Remember:

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

Read the Ruling carefully?

[Tarwn]

I read through the article and it seems like the judge is asking for it to be reworded rather than stricken, and the piece in quesiton is only the expert advice portion, not the pre-existing portion concerning materials/resources.

So while the people who are jumping up and down for joy about pieces being over-ruled may have to wait for a while, I'm personally happy that we are looking at suggested corrections. I don't by any means think the patriot act is perfect, but I much prefer people trying to improve on it rather than just throw it aay all together.

Re:For the Dean Supporters.

[Just Some Guy]

But how can this be? He's a Democrat!</sarcasm>

I say this only halfway in jest. Mention the President and you'll get a score of rants explaining in rabid detail why he's the second coming of Joe McCarthy, but worse. Listen, Slashdotters, and listen carefully: neither party has a monopoly on boneheads. If you hate one of them because you think they love everything you detest, you'd better darn well make sure your own guys aren't rooting for the same thing.

Re:For the Dean Supporters.

[scmason]

Though I remain an ardent supporter, Dr dean poses an ineffective solution. Families and villages have been raising children for many of thousands of years without 'enforcement by governing bodies' and it works out fine. We have progressed and evolved under this non-zero summed game. It is the natural way of things to take care of themselves.

I repeat, we have made near constant progress. Why do we suddenly feel that government must be responsible for keeping our youth off of porn? It does not make sense.

But as I implied, we are all human and we all progress together. Howard Dean is no different. I have had views as my past self that my present self does not agree with. I suspect that the same is true with Dr Dean.

This should be posted on it own headline.

interpreters needed

[planckscale]

Patriot Act:

Blah balmama blahblee bloo blaa blahh = You tamil tigers need to sit down and talk with Shrilanka about your differences without violence = aiding foreign terrorists.

Blah bloumomama bemomo buani blah blah = You tamil tigers need to light a sack of crap and ring the doorbell and run = aiding foreign terrorists.

What's really best for a foreign group? No dialog and isolation leading to FUD, or positive communication? The act should be specific. I'm glad that we have checks and balances.

Re:Where's the ACLU?

[kitzilla]

Actually, the ACLU has been fighting the Patriot Act and Patriot II since before most people knew it was going to be a problem:

ACLU and the Patriot act

Hopefully, that will cure your rant. You can stop foaming now.

Sure there is

[revscat]

Terrorist: A non-government actor seeking political change through violence directed intentionally against civilian populations.

I don't think that governments engage in terrorism, but that's just semantics. Doesn't mean I don't think they do bad things, though.

Re:Sure there is

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just described the French resistance, the founding fathers, the mujahudeen, the contras, the African National Congress, and a host of other US supported rebel groups, except the US didn't support the ANC and still considers Mandela to be a terrorist. Anyway you left out the part about whether or not you agree with their cause. That's the key that distinguishes between a terrorist and a freedom fighter/rebel group.

Re:Sure there is

[ArsSineArtificio]

You've just described the French resistance, the founding fathers, the mujahudeen, the contras, the African National Congress, and a host of other US supported rebel groups, except the US didn't support the ANC and still considers Mandela to be a terrorist.

Perhaps you could explain how the French Resistance, the Founding Fathers, etc. directed violence against civilian populations, as the parent poster noted.

Re:Sure there is

[SydShamino]

>> French Resistance

I suppose all the little children of nobles that lost their heads weren't civilians?

>> Founding Fathers

Did the British government own that tea we tossed overboard? Destruction of civilian property to support political goals is terrorist activity, whether it's blowing up a house or chunking tea overboard.

Re:Sure there is

[Artifakt]

The "French Resistance" was against Nazi Germany in world war 2. Those nobles with kids were decapitated in the French Revolution. Resistance and Revolution are separated by 150 years or so.

The tea at the Boston tea party was owned by the British East India company. Founding investment in the firm was overwhelmingly from the British Monarchy of 60-80 years previous, and the firm enjoyed a royal monopoly, and employed British military personel as its "para-military" security forces, ergo it was a government front organization.

Sorry, but that's 0 for 2. Your history teacher needs to hunt you down like a dog and make you give your high school diploma back.

Re:Sure there is

[Valar]

Lost heads during the resistance?
Surely, you are thinking about the revolution. Which is something completely different.

And the difference between throwing tea overboard and blowing up a building is that no one can reasonably expected to get hurt by some tea thrown overboard. Acts of property distruction are just that (or maybe even lumped in with vandalism-- not terrorism). Explosions are messy, and in a populated area (i.e. in a house) an explosion can reasonably be expected to hurt someone.

Re:Howard Dean isn't a complete liberal

[jafac]

I wonder if people will finally get the idea to stop voting for Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld when they outlaw porn.

PATRIOT, not Patriot

[brauwerman]

"PATRIOT ACT" It's an acronym, not a word.
"Patriot" is no better spelling than PatRiot.

for what it's worth.

why would interagency cooperation be killed?

[rbird76]

as far as I know, interagency cooperation has always problematic because agencies compete for funding; agencies thus hoard information because it will help them get funding.

1) How does the PA ameliorate this?
2) How does killing the PA mean that the interagency cooperation provisions cannot be passed separately (what makes it unconstitutional on its own?)

I wasn't a fan of the previous administration (although I am liberal and dislike GWB fairly intensely), but the extra provisions in the PA overstep a lot of bounds. For example, the library provision also forbids the donors of information to notify you of a search, a provision that is not consistent with previous law. In addition, I don't believe that a search for library info. has to be approved by a judge, but only by a clerk - this significantly lowers the barrier to getting a warrant.

The admission (I don't have the pointer right now) that the PA is being used primarily to go after nonterrorist criminal activity doesn't give me any reason to accept the promise that the PA will not be misused with anything other than a large bag of rock salt. The evasion and doublespeak on the PA's support website doesn't make me trust the people responsible for enforcing it any better. The attempts to add powers to the PA under cover of secrecy do not amplify my (already miniscule) faith in the ability of the PA to achieve its designed goals.

Giving trustworthy people the sort of power embodied in the PA is questionable - eventually power corrupts (although absolute power is "pretty neat" (Clancy, from somewhere else). Giving that power to someone many consider untrustworthy is a mistake. The words, evasion, and untruthfulness of the current administration do not lead me to trust them with the power the PA invests in them. I trusted WJC more than I trust GWB, and I wouldn't trust either of them with the PA.

But who labels the terrorists?

[zCyl]

It just seems to me that it's bad policy on a person's or organization's part to lend support to groups that are engaged in terrorist activities.

Imagine, for a moment if you will, that some group X is labelled as a terrorist group by the government, and this group's members happen to think they're not terrorists and don't support terrorism. There are two groups of professionals they might desperately like to hire, lawyers to plead their case, and public relations experts to present their case clearly. It's only fair in a free society that the accused be afforded a chance to defend themselves in this manner.

a step in the right direction

[MoFoQ]

now if we can get rid of the statute that enables "law enforcement" less checks and balances and the portion that enables indefinite confinement without lawyer or family visitation/contact of those classified as "combatants" (even US citizens). So much for due-process as guaranteed by the Constitution. I've said this before and I'll say it again; the Patriot act is one of the most unPatriotic pieces of legistature known to man, especially since it defies the very spirit of the Constitution, the common foundation of our society.

You know...the more I think about it, I get the feeling that both Ashcroft and Bush failed their history classes.

The worst part is that I also get the feeling that Stalin/Lenin won without a fight.

Re:a step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps your values changed. Mine did not.

Hatch, too, had the legislation in the works long before 9/11 he just used 9/11 as an excuse to do what he was going to do anyway.

Any school bully can say to the principal "I only do it to people who deserve it". It would take a great nation to put trust in rule of law and fair trials in spite of a president that creates such terror in the hearts of those who trust him to justify overriding important American values for better political control.

I had no problem traveling after 9/11 because it was a random act of violence, and I thought we had a government interested in pursuing the perpetrators (until they decided Iraq would be more fun).

But after the US government terrorizes so many travelers, it is getting to the point I will not travel, especially to New York, where the US took an Canadian prisoner with no evidence at all against him and sent him for torture in Syria.

I would like evidence that we are becoming more a republic. We were a republic before the word of a presedential liar could deny a man a fair trial.

Aid & Comfort to the Enemy

[chiph]

My guess is the original PATRIOT Act writers wanted something like the "Giving Aid & Comfort to the Enemy" laws, but couldn't quite figure out how to get around the provision that they only applied during wartime (since Congress hasn't declared war on them, it can't apply).

Chip H.

Information-Sharing Provisions In PATRIOT

[WombatControl]

This is why I recommend people read the PATRIOT Act before commenting on it. For reference, the specific statutes that accomplish this are Title II Section 203(b) which increases the ability for law enforcment agencies to share wiretap information and Title II Section 203(d) which allows for the sharing of data accumulated in FISA searches.

Furthermore, Title VII also specifically modifies the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) to remove specific statutory limits to information sharing between law enforcement agencies.

I wasn't a fan of the previous administration (although I am liberal and dislike GWB fairly intensely), but the extra provisions in the PA overstep a lot of bounds. For example, the library provision also forbids the donors of information to notify you of a search, a provision that is not consistent with previous law. In addition, I don't believe that a search for library info. has to be approved by a judge, but only by a clerk - this significantly lowers the barrier to getting a warrant.

That is simply incorrect. From Section 215:

(Each application under this section shall be made to)`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court;

Furthermore, it is only logical that the government have the right to delay the notification of a search. (The PATRIOT Act does not allow for notification to be cancelled, but delayed under such time as the threat of a terrorist attack is no longer a concern.) If there's a reasonable suspicion that someone just put a nuke under San Francisco, the very last thing we need to do is tip off the terrorists before we've had a chance to find it.

Re:Information-Sharing Provisions In PATRIOT

[nomadic]

That is simply incorrect. From Section 215: (Each application under this section shall be made to)`(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court;

Magistrates aren't judges, and their powers are limited compared to real judges; they don't even necessarily have to have a law degree. They generally do stuff like sign search warrants.

I'm not sure why the law references 28 USCA 43; that section simply states the makeup of courts of appeal, and no reference is made to magistrates.

Re:So what?

[Phillup]

See... the thing is... only congress can designate someone as an "enemy".

I think this little fact is going to be the real blow to the current administration. When the Supreme Court looks at the cases before it and decide that, yes, during a time of war the president does have these powers... and, only congress can declare war.

So, Mr. Bush... *you* do not have these powers.

WHAT THE???

[poofmeisterp]

Why is it that the one part of the Patriot Act that is actually meaningful and somewhat beneficial is the one declared unconstitutional?

I really need to find another country to move to.

Re:WHAT THE???

[Qzukk]

Meaningful and somewhat beneficial? Are you smoking something?

Lets say that you work the helpdesk at WhizzyFast ISP. Someone calls you up, and asks you how to connect. You explain how the dialup process works, and step him through the settings he needs on his computer.

Three days later the men in black put you in a cell and leave you there for a month or so without even telling you what you did (if you haven't been paying attention, this is Bush's favorite tactic).

So what happened? Well, after the person called you, they successfully connected to the internet and pwn3d three fbi.gov servers in quick succession. Naturally, the FBI was pissed, so they moved quickly and issued a subpoena for the phone records. The next day, they subpoena WhizzyFast ISP records to see who handles which calls. And the third day, you're in a cell with very plain walls, rather bewildered.

Oh, and don't forget, "cyberterrorism" is a terrorism offense, so by helping the script kiddie, you aided a terrorist. You could claim that you had no way of knowing that the person on the other end of the line was a terrorist, but I suspect "Bubba" who you're sharing the cell with doesn't care much. Without a trial you don't even get the benefit of "guilty until proven innocent".

Re:Syria

[Mistlefoot]

The US government is responsible because they sent him to a country that was not his. Mr. Arar WAS and IS a Canadian citizen.

The US government CHOSE to threaten Arar with deportation to a country that it knew would torture him if "he didn't talk"....and then made true on this threat.

This would be like England sending an American citizen, who was wrongly accused of being a spy for Israel, to Iran......and than claiming that they had no idea Iran might torture him.

"He was detained" by the US, and sent not to his home country, but by the US to be "tortured by Syria".

Re:Syria

[expro]

When the US government starts handing over people to the Korean government for information extraction and then acts shocked that they get tortured, these innocent victims of the US government will hope Bush hasn't totally destroyed all avenues of legal recourse.

He was a Canadian citizen travelling in accordance with normal laws and the US took him prisoner and gave him to Syria specifically so that he could have information extracted from him (without so much as consulting on it with Canada). This was done in New York.

I suppose in the twisted minds of Bush loyalists, it was reasonable to give him to Syria with no due process or consultation with Canada and they were shocked when they heard how he had been treated by such a civilized nation as Syria.

Now some other nations like Brazil are starting to retaliate for Bush's complete disregard for international decency and law toward travelers, and I wish it were only Bush loyalists who sufferred the effects.

Re:For the Dean Supporters.

[Phillup]

So?

I look for one thing in a president.

Keep congress in check.

That is all... and that is something this one has done piss poorly.

For the record, president's don't create law. But, everyone here knows that... right?

P.S. It may be a bit cynical to only expect one thing from a president, but I've come to realize that expecting more is pretty unrealistic.

Re:So what?

[sadomikeyism]

Article III

Section. 3.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That good enough fer ya???

A-frigging-men

[localman]

The PATRIOT act is very dangerous. It is a wonderful relief to see it challenged. Even if enacted with good intentions (a dubious claim at best), there is no organization that would not abuse such power. If you think otherwise you are terribly naive. Do not trust the government blindly.

My grandfather was kidnapped and interrogated for five years by the Polish secret police because they were absolutely sure he was a spy. He wrote a book about it. It's an excellent read for anyone who wonders about the dark side of "national security".

That all seemed, at the time, to be a failing of communism. But recent events remind me that it can happen any time and place that the people pledge thier uncritical allegiance to their leaders.

I love this country and want it to be the best it can. With that in mind I keep a close eye on those in charge to be sure they don't run amok. I wish more people did. I hope enough do. The leaders have certainly been running amok in the past few years.

Cheers.

As long as we have the Second Amendment

[$criptah]

we will always have the rest of the Constitution.

everyone could be an enemy...

[rbird76]

and that's the problem. Most of the terrorism we've dealt with at home (in the US) has been US nationals, and people who might otherwise be difficult to characterize. Getting rid of all the Arab-looking people? Well, then, the Black Muslims will take their place. If it isn't them, it could be a militia member off his medication, an environmentalist going after housing, or an anti-abortion person shootting doctors or blowing up clinics. There is no one to kill, or rather, to get rid of the problem, you have to kill everyone. Which is not exactly a practical solution.

Conventional war usually has some delineation of ground - thus combatants are grouped (imperfectly) base on geography. In wars where this has not been the case (Vietnam, establishing the peace in Iraq), we have been unsuccessful precisely because of the inability to distinguish bad from good without killing a lot of good people because no such delineation exists. A war against terrorism is worse because it doesn't have to be motivated by any single distinguishing characteristic such as race - it is driven by ideas, and ideas can't be killed unless you kill everyone who has them. Since it's hard to know who has an idea (particularly if they are silent about it), fighting this war as a "kill them before they kill you" action on any sort of large scale is doomed to fail miserably, while destroying the freedoms it claims to preserve. On small scale, "kill them before they kill you" can work but only in the presence of specific knowledge on people and their intended acts and targets rather than vague assumptions about race and ideas. (I'm not impugning you as a racist or closed-minded - just that the selection criteria for such action will tend to be the easiest to use (and race has been one of those), while the ones that would actually be effective are so drastic as to be counterproductive.)

The US is supposed to defend freedom, not destroy it.

Re:Syria

[mindstrm]

One thing you left out.. he was also a Syrian citizen.

I am as outraged as the next guy, probably more actually... what was done was 100% totally wrong.

Your scenario would be more accurate if the person was someone who lives in America, but has joint American/Iranian citizenship being deported to Iran, despite not having lived there for 30 years.

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then praytell me why are there terrorists attacking our troops in Iraq? During a presidential election year? With a host of democrats saying we should pull out of the country?
They're not terrorists (attacking an invading military force is not terrorism, whether or not it professes to be a liberating force) and neither are the majority of them supporters of the old regeime, if this is synonomous with terrorist in your eyes. Get your facts straight.


They want Americans to either A) criticize these democrats for criticizing the war, and thus damage our right to free speech, or B) exert enough stress that the American people elect Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Clark, and the new president pull the troops out of Iraq. That is why they are attacking us, at least in Iraq. There are of course, other goals, such as spreading their radical Islam. (Note: I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion. I will not abide though, anyone who kills innocents in the name of whatever god they believe in.)
Nope, they (terrorists in general) want American troops out of the Middle East. They don't give a damn about how much freedom of speech you have, and I doubt all that many of them really care which God(s) you choose to believe in.

rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?) Anti-war people are not suggesting we go on as before; rather, this is what pro-war people are suggesting. America is attacked by crazy fundamentalists with marginally legitimate greivances. Does it (a) attempt to bring the criminals in question to trial, and (through other means) settle the greivances, or (b) invade a few more countries and piss off a few more million people?

How is it unconstitutional?

[isa-kuruption]

OK, so maybe there are sections of the Patriot Act that are truly unconstitutional, but I do not think this is one of them.

What part of the Constitution gives someone the right to assist any other person/group/organization? The freedom of speech? I think that's stretching it. But OK, but what if you were to give them something? That's not protected under the freedom of speech.

And if it's unconstitutional, then why is it OK to give them "good" advise and not "bad" advise. What determines what is "good" and what is "bad"... wouldn't the first ammendment be the first ammendment no matter whether it's good or bad?

But of course, this was the 9th District Court, and they haven't made a constitutional law decision that was actually based on the constitution in some time. Basically, the 9th just gave the OK for rogue organizations within the U.S. to give Al Qaida strategic information about oh... nuclear plants or chemical plants... without the risk of penalty.

Good job 9th!

Re:Canada approved of the deportation!

[expro]

The US government was not the only party complicit in Maher Arar's deportation. The Canadian government allowed Arar to be deported after US government officials consulted with Canadians.

I believe you are wrong. According to every news report I have seen, Canada was neither consulted nor informed about his deportation, a statement made both by the US and Canada. Picking a random one from Google:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVN ews/1074772060027_197/?hub=Canada

While the US may have previously received information from Canada, there was no permission, encouragement, excuse for deporting a Canadian Citizen to a place known for torture. If they had a provable case against him, they should have made it or deported him to his own country.

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[UserGoogol]

They're different guys. The Iraqi Resistance is an entirely different kettle of fish from Al-Qaeda. The Iraqi Resistance is fighting for various reasons like loyalty to Sadaam or distake towards an American government, which are different from Al-Qaeda's reasoning.

Anyway, sometimes people die. Sometimes in large quanities. Yes, we should punish Al-Qaeda and put them in jail, no question about it, but geez, people overreacted to September 11th. You can't get too emotional about how deal out punishment. You have to look at it calmly.

Nice fantasy you live in.

[khasim]

#1. Those "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" or "resistance". They are fighting against our occupation of their country. If we weren't there, then they wouldn't be attacking us.

#2. Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.

#3. Bush is ALREADY planning on pulling the troops out. He's advanced his "schedule" for turning the government over to the Iraqis. That doesn't require any new president be elected.

#4. Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam". But more and more Muslims are seeing the current "War on Terror" as a war on Islam. You don't hate me yet, but if I started setting fire to your house and shooting at you, you'd quickly learn to hate me. That's what the US is doing in Iraq.

#5. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack. Why even bring it up if they had nothing to do with it? Unless you can't tell the difference between Osama and Saddam. Which supports #4's war on Islam.

"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches."
-and-
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion."

Hmmm, seems you're a little bit confused as to what your beliefs are.

Re:Nice fantasy you live in.

[johnjay]

Bullet points are easy to respond to!

1 - In a way, you're right. Some of the terrorists are people who are resisting our occupation of their country. They used to rule the country and their angry that they don't any longer. The rests of the terrorists are fundamentalist Islamic jihadis who hope to intimidate the U.S. into leaving. Recently, Al Qaeda put out a message telling jihadis to not go fight in Iraq because they were taking too many casualties.

2 - Too early to say. We did go in without laying a groundwork for democracy. Something of a mistake. Also, Saddam didn't want a democracy, so it was sort of difficult to lay the groundwork before getting rid of him. In the U.S., it took 10 years from the Declaration of Independance (1776) to the Constitution (1787). The U.S. and Iraq face(d)different advantages and disadvantages in becoming democracies. The U.S. had the disadvantage that it was the pioneer of this particular form of representative democracy. Iraq has the disadvantage that it is surrounded by failed states that are actively trying to make this attempt at Arabic democracy fail lest it foment unrest in their own territories.

3 - Turning the government over to the Iraqis and pulling out the troops are two different things. I don't have the numbers on troop movement on hand, but there isn't any way that Americans are going to leave Iraq completely in the forseeable future. If only to man bases for pressure/attacks on Syria and Iran, there will be a U.S. presence in Iraq for quite some time. Also, U.S. troops will be there to defend Iraq's democracy for quite some time after the country is ruled by the Iraqi people. Eventually Iraq's own army and police force will be strong enough, but that will take longer than 6 months.

4 - Iraq was a secular state. Iraq was not spreading "their radical Islam". These are not equivalent thoughts. Iraq was a secular state, but when he ran out of allies, Saddam did turn to radical Islam as his only defense against the U.S.. He had the Koran written in his own blood for a little Islamic street cred. Countless connections between Saddam and terrorists have been uncovered since the U.S. rolled into Bagdad. There are also countless connections between terrorists and radical Islam. There isn't a one-to-one-to-one connection between all three groups, but there's a whole lot of overlap all around.

4a - The radical wing of Islam is constantly threatening: "If you do this [random offense] you will turn the entire Muslim people against you." This is false. It would only be true if the Muslim people were sheep, which their not. The ones with hope see the islamic fundamentalists as horrible aberations.
4a.1 - Another way of looking at it is, we tried not to offend the Muslim fundamentalists, and they killed us anyways. Now we're going to kill them, which they may find offensive.

5 - It is still unclear whether Iraq had anything to do with the WTC attack. More evidence has been unearthed since the fall of Saddam to indicate that his government did have dealings with WTC-related terrorists. It is unlikely that Saddam planned or ordered the attacks, but it is likely that he, or his generals, supported some of the terrorists at one point or another. Is this damning? Not terribly, except that the WTC attack was an act of war, Saddam and Co. knew it was being planned, and they condoned it.

5a - Also, there is a general connection between Saddam and WTC, namely, the harboring of terrorists. The more places terrorists can live and train the more likely we are to be attacked again. So, the best way to defend against the next WTC attack is to take away the hiding places.

"Kill every damned one of those sons of bitches" - an abbrieviation of the conclusion of the Just War theory, believed by many Christians.
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion." - not a contradiction of the above sentiment. He doesn't hate Muslims just because they're Muslims. He wa

Re:Nice fantasy you live in.

[overunderunderdone]

I agree with a lot of your points but let me play the devil's advocate here.

#1. Those "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" or "resistance".

You have a point that U.S. troops are legitimate military targets - but the bombings of the Red Cross, the UN offices and Iraqi police are in fact terrorist.

Also, the groups attacking us aren't "freedom fighters" they are on one hand Baathists dead-enders and foreign Islamists - neither group is fighting for freedom, they have no problem with violent oppression per se, they just want to be the ones doing the oppressing. If we totally botch the occupation and transition to Iraqi self-government we may in fact see a popular uprising and genuine freedom fighters, but the current bunch aren't.

Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.

You may be right - but I have to say it will probably be somewhat more democratic than the last regime. The fact that each faction is heavily armed is probably better than the alternative - that one side would be heavily armed and the others defenseless. I think the only hope of any kind of just peace between the different groups is federalism - democracy is somewhat less important. The Sunni's, Kurds, Chaldeans etc. are very aware that a lynch mob is a perfectly democratic - the majority is in enthusiastic agreement and the dissenter is about to cease his dissent.

Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam"

True, but after the first gulf war Saadam wrapped himself in the Koran as a way of solidifying his support and casting his conflict with America as being the U.S. against Islam rather than against Iraq. His own rhetoric became very religious, he added "God is Great" to the flag, began mandatory religious instruction to the schools, increased religious programing on state media, opened new mosques etc. To a large extent this was a defensive measure to forestall Wahabbi and Shia fundamentalist incursions into Iraq but it was also a way of rallying broader Arab and Muslim support.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack.

True, but I think the WTC is the ultimate rationale of the war (I find the "blood for oil" argument unconvincing - at least by itself). After 9/11 the doctrine has been that not only terrorists but their state sponsors are fair game. To some degree this goes for ALL state sponsors not just ones that sponsored Al Quaeda specifically. Of all the state sponsors of terrorism there are good arguments to be made that Iraq was the most immediately threatening. Unlike the others Iraq was in direct conflict with the U.S. - we were imposing the embargo, the no-fly zone, occasional cruise missile attacks by the Clinton administration. I think it is reasonable to assume that Saadams main interest in pursuing relationships with terrorists was to use them as a weapon against his immediate enemy - the U.S. rather than against Israel as is the case with Syria, or as a way to promote a religious doctrine throughout the middle east as is the case with Iran. And I think it is still likely that Iraq's support for terrorism included at least a nascent relationship with Al Queada. It was the Clinton administration that first alleged direct ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda. And such ties make sense - Saadam's preferred secular arab nationalist groups like Abu Nidal seem to have become less effective just as he was wrapping himself in the new Islamic flag of Iraq. He had started to support Islamist groups like Hamas so Al Quaeda's religious nature was no barrier to him. For Bin Laden's part he has always been more than willing to use "infidel" allies against his enemy of the moment - hell, he allied with US against the soviets and was pretty tight with Pakistan until very recently (I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during Armitiges first conversation with Musharef right after 9/11).

Re:Nice fantasy you live in.

[Draknor]

Just War theory, huh? Oh yeah, I remember - that was Jesus's Sermon on the Mound, wasn't it? Something about how the righteous will rise up & kick the collective asses of those "sons of bitches"?

Oh, wait, no, that wasn't it? Well, at least Jesus didn't let that filthy whore get awa... er, wait, he *did* keep her from being stoned to death, didn't he? At least those Romans soldiers got what they deserved! Paul took off a terrorist's ear with his mighty sword! Oh, but, er, Jesus put it back on, didn't He?

I'll stop damning Christians when the damned stop pretending to be them.

Re:Nice fantasy you live in.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

If you wanna know how it really is, then go look at what the iraqilinux guys are saying for example and read some stuff on their website. after all they are there. most people were not hurt by our military and they all have food.

There is a mistake you are making. The guys at IraqiLinux or whatever are most likely upper class or upper middle class. People who own computers in Iraq right now are certainly not working class (especially given that most Iraqis lost some of their wealth with the breakdown of the banking system). These guys most likely had food even during a tyranny likes Saddam's. You may not realize it but in most of these poor or developing countries, the people you come into contact on the internet are the upper end of the economic class. This class generally does ok even during a war or some catastrophe. Even people you see being interviewed on tv are the upper end. They are the elites. The poor, working class, and lower middle class* do not get the same treatment. I mean, just watch a tv interview where some guy from say Kuwait is being interviewed. Do you think this guy is working class? Most likely not. How about China? How many tv reports have you seen from the interior of the country? Do you know that most of the Chinese you see on tv are from the wealthier areas?

When someone setups a website from say Colombia, that person is doing ok. The vast majority of the population won't waste their money and time on things like websites. All the issues you read from these websites are skewed towards the upper end.

It's same with media from foreign countries. If you go and read print media (this is available online; just check out Google News or something), what you read is totally different from what the general population reads. What you read is generally the English-speaking newspapers which are geared towards foreigners and the elites. The issues the elites deal with are not the same as faced by the general population.

What I say applies to the vast majority of poor or developing countries on earth. When you meet some guy in a chat, or a message board, or in a game, these guys are actually the upper end of the spectrum. You hardly ever meet the "regular" people. Most of the time, these people don't have the money or time for computers/etc. Also, most of the general population does not speak English (assuming English isn't a major official language). The people who DO speak English, are the elites.

So the next time you meet someone from China, or Iraq, or Kuwait, or Bolivia, or Pakistan, or Bulgaria, or Tanzania, or whatever, keep that in mind. Is someone representative of the population, or are they part of the elite clique in these poor countries?

(* Most poorer countries have a TINY middle class (relative to richer countries). So most are either working class, poor, or upper class. This means that the people you meet online are actually have a good job, good house, etc) Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Nice fantasy you live in.

[johnjay]

No disagreements with that--being Christian is a tough job for those who are honest about it. I'm sure there are theologians on both sides of the argument of whether Jesus would support the War On Terror. I can't contribute more to that discussion than the noises I've already made about the Just War Theory. I know that the Vatican has made statements about the invasion of Iraq being wrong. I don't think it will be possible to jail or kill all the terrorists; there are too many potential terrorists and it's too hard to distinguish between disgruntled Arabic youth and actual terrorists. Jailing is preferable to killing when possible. Regardless, we have to try to change the minds of the youth. A daunting and seemingly impossible task, but there's no other choice that I can see.

The reason these laws exist.

[RobinH]

If I may offer something to think about:

The reason that the U.S. has the patriot act (and the reason Canada has a similar law now) is because people demanded that the government do something about the threat of terrorism. They wanted security, and they couldn't understand why the laws weren't protecting them.

However, none of the hijackers (as I understand it) ever committed a crime, until the morning of 9/11/2001. Our basic values say that it's a persons actions, not their thoughts, that are punishable. If our laws reflect those values, there's nothing we can do to prevent this type of terrorist attack (short of getting fewer enemies).

Therefore, while these laws run directly against our most cherished values, they are the only defence against the threat.

For that reason, there is no real defence. It's a no-win situation. If we continue to play by these rules, we've already lost.

How do you fix it? Step 1: learn about the history of the middle east, and specifically what the west has done in the last 50 years to really piss off the people there. Step 2: admit we were wrong. Step 3: apologize. Step 4: sign a final deal, compensating the Palestinians for their loss. Step 5: try not to get ourselves into this mess again.

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[demachina]

"I am a God fearing Christian" ...
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches"

I hate to point this out to you but you are a case study in what is wrong with modern, institutionalized Christianity, especially in the U.S.

If you were really a follower of the teachings of Christ and really understood his teachings you would realize Christ was the ultimate "pussy" to use your derogatory term. He was most certainly the most committed pacifist you could ever find.

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5.38-41

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26.51-52

If Christ were alive to see people like our President or the officers in our military, tell you about what devoted Christians they are and then rush out to kill people in his name he would be devastated. No matter how justified they think they are, they are committing a hypocrisy of immense proportions.

There are only two paths, you are truly Christian in which case you would be a pacifist, a pussy to use your term, and you wouldn't kill people, no matter how much you were provoked.

Or you are using Christ's name out of political and social convenience because you have to be a good Christian to be elected President or rise in the ranks of the military or in many respects to be an accepted member of yout community especially in the U.S., one of the most fanaticly "Christian" countries. I'm pretty sure the later is the case for 90+% of the Christians in this country. People like the Quakers seem to be the only people who really understand Christ's teachings. Most of the supposedly Christian churches are institutions Christ would have abhored. They are social institutions worshiping him as an idol, regurgatating his teachings but never really listening to them, and certainly not understanding the most basic tenents of his teachings.

Most of our politicians and military officers should admit it. They are Machiavellians or Nietscheans to whom power is the true religion. Christianity is a badly worn facade of social convenience. Deep in their hearts they don't subscribe to it because it is a "pussy's" religion. George W. Bush no doubt found Christ about the same time he realized he and his family wanted him to be President.

Re: Osama and the WTC

[some guy I know]

Then why did they destroy the twin towers and kill 4000+ American civilians before we arrived in Afghanistan and Iraq?

The WTC destruction was initiated by a Saudi Arabian (OBL) who was opposed to the "occupation" of Saudi Arabia by US troops (the presence of whom was managed with the cooperation of the Saudi government).

If the US wasn't dependent upon foreign oil, we wouldn't have been over there in the first place, and there would have been no reason (however twisted) for attacking us.
You don't see many Africans bombing buildings over here.
Why?
We aren't occupying any African countries, that's why.
(And before you bring up the Lockerbie bombing, note that that occured after Reagan bombed Libya.)

If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have.
George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements."

Re: Osama and the WTC

[Draknor]

If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have. George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements." Why don't Americans understand this??? This country (US) has such an aversion to taking responsibility for its actions it is sickening! <mode=whine>It can't be my fault, I'm a victim! He/she/it/they/the dog MADE me do it!</mode> Hmmm, let's see, we mettle in the affairs of the Middle East for a couple of decades, support coups and terrorists in the "war" on Communism, and then look around and wonder why we just got slapped by the pawns we've been manipulating? 9/11 was a terrible event - I don't argue that, and I pray for the people who lost their lives. But the US has displayed nothing but cowardice-in-bully's-clothing, feigning ignorance & innocence, in its handling of the aftermath. We (Americans) all just need to grow up!

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[geminidomino]

Then praytell me why are there terrorists attacking our troops in Iraq? During a presidential election year? With a host of democrats saying we should pull out of the country

As is elsewhere pointed out, that's not Al Quaeda, just like anyone with two neurons to rub together realizes that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are two different people. (Funny).

I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.

Wooo, where to start. Ignoring the republican-puppets' trademark inappropriate use of the "liberals" label for the moment, let me ask you this. How is treating AMERICANS (You know, the VICTIMS of 9/11) like criminals and raping their rights supposed to be "Fighting Back" against Al Quaeda? Doesn't that seem a bit bass-ackwards to you? Opening up the borders even more after removing the privacy rights of actual citizens is "Fighting Back?" Making our "Leadership" a laughingstock so that no one takes them seriously enough to help hunt down those scumbags (note: those who do pay lip service to shrub's "With us or against us" BS are in it for the U.S. money, not any confidence) is "fighting back?" Tying up our troops in Iraq so that Al Quaeda can mobilize in the countries where they actually ARE is "Fighting back?"

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[ssstraub]

ince when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.

Since when has Osama Bin Laden been hiding in Iraq?

Maybe you'd rather hear it from the President himself:
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[Dr. GeneMachine]

I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?)

Obviously a follower of the old testament...

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[meadowsp]

"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches"

You do realise that they did all die in the planes that they'd hijacked?

Re:Go ahead, mod me down.

[bamberg]

I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

How wonderful that there are morons who don't learn from history. You'd make a great fascist if you had enough influence to matter at all.

If you're stupid enough to think we attacked Iraq because of their (complete lack of any) role in 9/11 you are beyond help. Just go back to listening to Rush and watching Fox News and yelling "Sieg Heil!" whenever they show a photo of GWB.

Better that 100 times as many people die in future terrorist attacks (and if I'm one of them, so be it) than that we lose the freedoms that make America great. Of course, I expect the reality will be somewhere in the middle. More people will die, and some freedoms will be lost, but we won't hit either extreme.