USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt

crem_d_genes writes "A bill to modify the USA PATRIOT Act that would have blocked part of the legislation's provisions that allow for the investigation of people's reading habits was defeated by a 210-210 vote in the U.S House of Representives. The House leaders kept the roll call open for 23 minutes past the 15 minute deadline to persuade 10 Representatives to change votes. According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'"

Comments

The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[foidulus]

but I don't see anyone moving to block them. Seriously, how will this stop terrorists? You can go to walmart.com and get a computer that is quite capable of decent encryption for $200, and maybe an extra $150 or so tops for a monitor. Internet access $20 a month. You can also get a ton of books(in pdf) off of limewire/kazaa/whatever. The terrorists of 9/11 were well financed, I'm sure the billionaire Bin Laden could afford a few thousand worth of computer equipment. All this provision does is help the FBI spy on average people, not terrorists.
*begin rant
Also, what is this BS of people breaking house rules just because they want their law passed. The abuse of procedure here pales in comparison to what happened in the medicare bill. Why do we even have congress anymore? With the rise of political parties(which Washington warned against in his farewell speech), pretty much all the votes are predictable. With a few notable exceptions most congressmen are sheep, toeing the party line..... Maybe if we had some more original thought in congress, stuff like this wouldn't happen end rant

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[JPelorat]

It's a bit late to start getting upset about procedural anomalies in Congress, that's been happening since the beginning. Let's talk about non-germane amendments and riders to bills... and a thousand other things.

And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'? And can you come up with any particular reason why they might give a crap about what the 'average person' is reading?

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[arivanov]

Money is not enough. You have to have knowledge and intelligence. These do not mix well with religious fundamentalism.

It is true that the general computer usability has been brought to the level of intelligence of an average religious fanatic. It is also true that the encryption and computer security are not there yet.

While on the subject an average MSc or Phd would not have needed the library in first place. After all synthesis, purification and properties of TNT, hexogen and cellulose nitrates are a part of the standard university level organic chemistry curriculum. Same as the properties of phosporoorganic compounds (zarin, tabun, and friends) which are part of any toxicochemistry course, so on so fourth.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[foidulus]

Please read:
this
this
this
this
and this
Then we will talk.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Tassach]

Also, what is this BS of people breaking house rules just because they want their law passed?

Congress's procedural rules are just that -- rules, not regulations or laws. Acticle I Section 5 of the Constitution expicitly grants Congress the power to govern it's own procedures:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[halohell]

Maybe if we started electing people into office that are not afraid to do their job? I'm tired of watching the 5 people in senate and house who can effectively argue a bipartisan issue that makes sense and then get the cold sholder from everyone else.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Dashing Leech]

And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'? And can you come up with any particular reason why they might give a crap about what the 'average person' is reading?

That is irrelevant. It's saying a police state is acceptable if it doesn't inconvenience law abiding citizens. By this argument, the government should be allowed to put cameras in everyone's houses. They won't watch or record most cameras since they won't be interested in viewing the activities of 'average' people.

Freedom isn't just a word, it has meaning. The government cannot "spy" on anyone with out just cause and independent oversight (e.g., judicial review). That's the whole point of keeping the divisions of government separate. It doesn't matter if they intend, or even remotely desire, to spy on 'average' people, the point is that under the PATRIOT act they are legally allowed to. (They alway could do it before, but they could be sued/fired/punished for doing so because it would be illegal.)

Plus, not everything out of 'average' is illegal.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[konekoniku]

"The whole idea behind a representative gov't is that those who are sent should vote the way those that they represent would." You speak this as fact, but in fact this isn't universally agreed upon by political scientists.

You presented the viewpoint of pure popular democracy, in which representatives are supposed to merely carry out the wishes of their constituents.

However, there's also the idea of a responsible democracy, in which representatives are supposed to use their judgement to do what is best for their constituency - they owe it to their constituents to do what is best, not merely what is popular. In fact, a responsible democracy - not a popular one, as you seem to ascribe to -was what the Founders intended (look at the original system for electing the President, for example).

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Tassach]

Money is not enough. You have to have knowledge and intelligence. These do not mix well with religious fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests that this is false. While I'll admit that many (even most) fundimentalists you'll meet are drooling morons, there are plenty of ones who are very intelligent and well educated (other than their obviously deficient bullshit detection skills).

Studying theology (or mythology) requires genuine scholarship (which in turn requires intelligence), regardless of the validity of the religion being studied or if the person believes in the tenants of the religion they are studying. Remember that many of the 9/11 hijackers were college-educated, holding degrees in engineering and science.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[NearlyHeadless]

Seriously, how will this stop terrorists? You can go to walmart.com and get a computer that is quite capable of decent encryption for $200, and maybe an extra $150 or so tops for a monitor. Internet access $20 a month.

You are seriously wrong about this. Encryption can keep people from reading the content of messages, but it doesn't protect the routing information, which is very important. It also doesn't protect the contents if either end point is compromised, which is very likely. Also, we know for a fact that terrorists have used internet cafés and libraries to communicate, so evidently they don't agree with you.

Here in the U.S., the spy Brian Regan used library computers to shop around secrets to Libya and Iraq. Evidently he didn't agree with you, either.

I would find it objectionable if the PATRIOT act created a "Library Awareness Program" that monitored the reading habits of all patrons, but it doesn't do that. Agents still have to get a warrant for specific records. Are libraries really such sacred places that they shouldn't answer to warrants?

Would it be better if librarians said "Sorry, Brian Regan was communicating with Libya in our library and it's a holy place. Get thee hence, sinner!"

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[macdaddy]

I'm a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and NRA. I don't agree with either all of the time but at least both seem to do something every so often to protect my interests.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Edwards struck me as slightly more honest than most politicians. This coming from someone that generally hates democrats more than he hates republicans. Kerry though, is the worst kind of candidate there is.

Election reform, though? Like a Republocrat congress will ever vote that into effect.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[KarmaMB84]

You forgot to mention that before procedures were put in place to prevent any and all monitoring under the "national security" excuse, the FBI used to monitor anybody that didn't agree with the sitting administration. There was at least one large protest group that was wiretapped and monitored before they changed the rules.

Those rules are the very ones that PATRIOT loosened to make it easier for exactly that kind of monitoring.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[JesterXXV]

The whole idea behind a representative gov't is that those who are sent should vote the way those that they represent would.

Then what's the point of having representatives? If all they are is a voting proxy, they could just be replaced by a computer, or a bunch of interns with clipboards. Besides, we citizens don't have time to make informed decisions on every single bill that goes through Congress, so we elect people to make those decisions for us. The idea, at least in my mind, is that we elect someone who we believe has the same values and sensibilities as ourselves and would make roughly the same decisions we would given access to the same information. We elect someone we trust to see the bigger picture that we average joes may not be aware of or have the time to care about, and vote according to our best interests.

I would much rather that my congressman/woman actually found out how I (and those around me) feel about the issues...instead of assuming that we support the party line just because they got elected.

That's exactly what getting elected means! They tell you what their stance is on the issues, and you elect them based off of that. If their stance is along party lines, why are you suprised when they vote along them?

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[stealth.c]

And where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'? And can you come up with any particular reason why they might give a crap about what the 'average person' is reading?

In other words, the only way to be worry-free about the FBI making your life miserable is to lay low, never do anything controversial, and don't let your aspirations or convictions lead you to do anything that might get you noticed. If the President stands up and publicly tears apart a copy of the Bill of Rights and reinstates slavery, don't protest in any way. It would get you noticed, and that would be awful.

Not that I'm surprised at Congress' decision. People, especially those running a government, instinctively respond to things of this nature with fear. Fear is what got the PATRIOT Act written in the first place; fear is what passed it. And once its powers are solidified, if I may modify a line from one Grand Moff Tarkin, fear--fear of an investigative enema from the FBI--will keep the citizens in line. Perhaps one day we can live in a perfect reproduction of Orwell's 1984.

In a world like that, the libraries are perfectly safe. All the potentially controversial books have already been burned.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[mat catastrophe]

"This power infringes on the freedom to think. Do you want to research Vietnam's alternate theories, the ones that Uncle Sam says are bogus? Would you still do so under public scrutiny?"

Are you suggesting that the freedom to think must exist in a vacuum without anyone else knowing about it? What about the authors of these books you want to read under yr blankets at night? It doesn't look like they were bothered one bit by the thought of being seen as "crazies," "perverts," or "anarchists hell-bent on destroying our way of life."

The notion of anonymity in one's reading habits reeks of someone who is too afraid of their peer group, and not the government. For my part, I want my peers, my community, and the government to know what I read, and what I think. Only then can they know how strong the opposition to their criminal power really is.

Private thinking is what becomes the basis of one's public thinking. And most citizens are smart enough to know that just because a candidate read "Das Kapital," or "Mein Kampf," it does not logically follow that they are going to become the next Stalin or Hitler once in office.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Dyolf Knip]

Except that with few exceptions, more people have been killed at the hands of their own governments than have ever died from foreign or even domestic terrorist networks.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Des Herriott]

They've even been able to swing an election in a Western European nation, and have won over most of that continent to agreeing with their major policy positions.

Pardon my language, but: what a load of fucking bullshit.

Just because most European people don't like current White House policy, and don't like Ariel Sharon doesn't mean for one moment that we believe Al Qaeda is anything but a bunch of murderous terrorists. It didn't take Al Qaeda to make Europe dislike the Neo-conservative/Zionists alliance.

What really lost the election for the conservatives in Spain was not the Madrid bombing itself, but the incumbents botched efforts at blaming the attack on ETA. Their lies were shown for what they were, and they lost the election. Maybe this should be a lesson to governments in other nations.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[H0NGK0NGPH00EY]

What is the link to McCarthy supposed to prove? I read it, and it said this:

Vindicated

In 1995, when Venona transcripts were declassified, it was learned that regardless of the specific number, McCarthy consistently underestimated the extent of Soviet espionage. Venona specifically references at least 349 people in the United States--including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents--who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies. It is generally believed that McCarthy had no access to Venona intelligence, deriving his information from other sources. Venona does confirm that some individuals investigated by McCarthy were indeed Soviet agents. For example, Mary Jane Keeney was identified by McCarthy simply as "a communist"; in fact she and her husband were both Soviet agents. Another individual named by McCarthy was Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt. He was confirmed by Venona to be a Soviet Agent. Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were also proven to be Soviet spies, contrary to the popular belief that they were innocent victims of what has come to be known as "McCarthyism."

So, McCarthy was right. What is that supposed to prove, exactly?

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[DeusExMalex]

it does mean that if you're the paranoid american government. and you have to admit, our government sure is paranoid anymore...

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Martin Blank]

For my part, I want my peers, my community, and the government to know what I read, and what I think. Only then can they know how strong the opposition to their criminal power really is.

That's fine, so long as it's just you, by your choice, and on your terms. But I don't see the reason that the government needs to know what I read. If they want to see how strong opposition is on the basis of who is reading what, they can always consult something like Nielsen Bookscan for a more or less raw sales number count from the point of sale (rather than from the publisher, which counts can be grossly inflated).

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[cHiphead]

No doubt, Kerry is the worst kind of candidate there is, but Bush is still the worst kind of President there is.

I'd rather give Kerry a chance to f-k it up in his own special way than let Bush to CONTINUE f-king it up in his spectacularly inept, lack of statesmanship, idiotic, 3 year old finger pointing way.

cheers.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[k98sven]

Some fundamentalists are certainly intelligent in many respects. However, one common trait for all of them is the lack of critical thinking and/or imparired jugement.
So while not all of them are unintelligent, all of them do have some 'blind spots' to their intelligence, since most of us would include critical capabilities and sound judgement to be important parts of what we call 'intelligence'.

Studying theology (or mythology) requires genuine scholarship (which in turn requires intelligence), regardless of the validity of the religion being studied or if the person believes in the tenants of the religion they are studying

While I don't disagree with this, the implication that fundamentalists are scholars is wrong. Genuine scholarship implies a critical distance and deep understanding of one's subject, not just a lot of knowledge. Indeed, if you look around at religious fanatics around the world, most of them are laymen, and have not studied theology at an academic level.
(Whereas most of those preists who have do not advocate literal interpretations)

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are comfortable with everyone knowing your reading choices that is perfectly fine, and even admirable, but if someone is not brave enough to want others to know what they read that is their choice.

It is my right to be an anonymous coward!

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[barneyfoo]

I think your sentiment of wanting everyone to know what you read and vice-versa is well-intentioned. It doesn't address the many thousands, maybe millions, who actually fear the power of surveillance that our government will hold and keep the details secret from the american public.

If you've read a bit of Noam Chomsky you can see how the common american is played for the pawn of major corporate and media interests serving hand-in-hand with our governing representatives. It's in their interest to keep us dumbed downed consumers, and as such they will abuse their power in order to maintain such power. The aristocracy seems alive and weel in the country.

But idealisticly I agree with you, and with RMS, who said in an interview that he views passworded computers accounts as a kind of necessary evil, and actually in college (and I assume beyond) never used a password on his computer accounts. This could lead to another problem however, that of plausable deniability: "It wasn't me it was someone else". If ever single moment of our lives is open to review by every other member of society then once can not plausibly claim to have unique knowledge or be in operation, solely, of certain information.

Anyway. What you bring up is a future utopia. Maybe when mass-conciousness through human-human interfaces arises, we can implement universal right to all knowledge. But that's extremely post human and one could envision mechanical entities like silicon neural networks having the same features.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[mdielmann]

Do you think any religious person with any intelligence at all thinks that God created dashhounds? Or sheepdogs? Clearly, evolution works. Yet we still haven't seen the artificial means for creating a living cell (protien coat, mechanisms for powering the cell, nucleus, etc.) or the environment that would put it all together into a living cell without outside intervention.

And, yes, if you define design as predetermined by an outside source, then your computer was designed. Sure, that design evolved, just like humans have evolved over the last 5 thousand years (certainly as a proponent of evolution, you don't think it stopped, do you?). But that doesn't mean that IBM didn't publish a manual which describes the basic outline of your system. How many times do you think you have to plug a SCSI hard drive into an IDE bus before it will magically work? It's not designed to work like that. And what do you think will have to occur before your x86-compatible applications will work on a PPC platform? Do you think it might require a design change of either the hardware, the software, or both?

It's nice to see that ignorance can fall on both sides of the evolution debate.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Tassach]

Here in the U.S., the spy Brian Regan used library computers to shop around secrets to Libya and Iraq

And yet somehow the FBI was able to catch computer-savvy spies like Regan and Robert Hanssen WITHOUT needing the additional unconstitutional powers granted by the PATRIOT Act.

If you want to be scared, just imagine what Joe McCarthy or J Edgar Hoover would have been able with the PATRIOT act. Time and again the government has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with the powers it already has, and requires MORE oversight and controls, not less.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[moof1138]

If you are in a fight and every time you get punched somewhere, that's the place you block, you will get your ass kicked. Monitoring net access in libraries and net cafes is the same type of approach. You will always be a step behind. Once libraries are recognized as being monitored the bad guys will move on to open 802.11 access points, univerity campuses that have ethernet ports open all over the place, and so on. There is no end until we have complete monitoring of every node on the internet. And then the bad guys will figure out how to hide communications in postcards, junk mail, or some other method.

Taking away the right to privacy gains us nothing in the war on terror but helps erode the limits on power that help prevent abuses of power by our government. I am a lot more concerned about keeping the government in check (no matter which party is in office) than I am about terrorist attacks. Far more people have been murdered by their governments than terrorists.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[H0NGK0NGPH00EY]

Of course, what you fail to mention is that perhaps the most notable of these "few" exceptions has been and is still the United States of America. Which, in fact, has been instrumental in bringing such murderous governments to an end throughout its history.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd have to argue that those previous attacks weren't thwarted because they couldn't get a subpoena. they could have gotten this same information through channels that allow oversight.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be fucking kidding me.

Number of Americans killed by foreign terrorists in American history, what's the total.. 4000, 5000 tops.

Number of Americans killed by US government through execution. Since 1930 its 4300, they didnt keep records before then, but its almost certainly over 10000. Number of people shot extrajudically by members of federal govt.. dunno, but not none.

But then, if one includes native americans, total comes to something closer to 20,000,000

Murderous regimes opposed by US: 1940s germany, japan, soviet russia, er.. iraq, but saddam was US's man before Kuwait, Afghanistan I guess, but current regime is about as odious as taliban. On the other hand there's shah's iran, saudi, chile, nicaragua, indonesia.

Also, no other country on earth imprisons a larger proportion of its population. Shove your shining beacon of democracy up your ass and take a good look at what you see. I know you think America is the most wonderful country ever, but think about where you learnt that fact. Do you imagine for a second that most French people [to take a not quite random example] dont think that their country is the best on earth too. If you were black, native american, mexican, or capable of breaking through the propoganda that has swaddled you since birth, you would see things a little differently.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[scanner_darkly]

I really wish this whole argument would just die. From nearly the beginning of American involvement in other nations' politics there has been one driving goal: self interest. And really, that's how it should be. A nation in the climate of the last several hundred years needs to look out for its own interests because no one else will. Even in situations where we pride ourselves on going for the greater good, an actual looking at history finds our involvement lacking. Take World War II. We liberated many from tyrrany, and we are justifiably proud of it. But we left millions more in tyrrany with the dropping of the Iron Curtain, and there's another very important note to remember: By 1936, it was pretty apparent that Hitler's dictatorship was aggressively going to attack its neighbors and would be a threat to the entire world. The United States did not join the war in '36. It waited until 1942...when it was attacked by Japan to do anything. That's SIX YEARS of sitting around being neutral. Six years of watching people get gassed, watching country after country get conquered. Ignoring the Rape of Nanking, et cetera. World War II was about liberating millions from tyrrany, but it was not why we entered the war. Yet all we hear is self-congratulations about what a great job we did liberating those poor bastards. Post cold-war, the US put a lot of effort into curbing aggression from the Soviet Union and its allies - which is IMHO extremely admirable, and should be lauded. But in doing it, they propped up any number of vicious, destructive dictatorships all over the world, and it is that reason that began the worldwide distrust of the United States today. This is just one example of how divided this country is right now. Conservatives wrap themselves in the flag and casually 'forget' that their one-sided philosophies don't match up to, erm, actual history, while Liberals seem to desperately want things like freedom and are too quick to point out every situation where the US acted in its own self-interests and avoided those said one-sided philosophies and ideals out of national pragmatism. It does tell us that we are a nation of idealists at heart, and that conservatives and liberals are surprisingly similar. They just go about dealing with their ideals in a different way.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[llefler]

Simply put:

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin

The possibility of catching a few terrorists is not worth the guaranteed loss of liberty. A government is like an attack dog on a leash; it MAY do what you want it to, but it is NEVER your friend. You should be particularly concerned when a democratic government claims it need secrecy to monitor its citizens.

We should dump the PATRIOT Act and find another way. Like not supporting dictators in the first place. Sneak and peek is what a burglar does, right before he robs you.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[dvdeug]

So, McCarthy was right.

So I can go out and beat up all the arabs I want, because if I beat enough of them, I'm sure to beat up a terrorist? He destroyed the lives and freedom of innocent American citizens; does it make him right just because a few of his guesses were correct?

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Bimo_Dude]

1. A little comparison:
2. Favors PATRIOT act - Bush:Y Kerry:Y
3. Favors no child left behind - Bush:Y Kerry:Y
4. Went to Yale - Bush:Y Kerry:Y
5. Belongs to Skull and Bones - Bush:Y Kerry:Y
6. Can pronounce nuclear - Bush:N Kerry:Y

Kerry's got my vote!

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[Melantha_Bacchae]

An AC wrote:

If you live in the USA, you are completely full of crap. If the USA is so bad, why don't you either leave or take up arms against this government that is so terribly evil?

Maybe because we are patriotic citizens who love what our country is supposed to stand for, and take peaceful action to change our government so it is more in line with those ideals?

9/11 and the corruption in our government are not two separate things, they are the two sides of the same coin. US foreign policy has done great harm in the Middle East, especially its policy regarding Israel, and the economic sanctions against Iraq (which killed a half a million children). Mounting anger in the Middle East fuels terrorism, and our government uses this to justify the Patriot Act, the rights violations perpetrated in the name of the "War on Terror", and to excuse the invasion of Iraq and torture of Iraqi (and probably other) prisoners. Which fuels more anger, more terrorism, and more excuses to turn the US into a fascist nightmare (complete with happy corporations raking in the gold). And the nightmare spreads outward, with repressive governments (like Egypt) using the name and techniques of Abu Graibe to terrorize their own citizenry. This is just another version of your garden variety cycle of violence, just like you get in cases of child abuse where abused children grow up to abuse their own. The only difference is the greed and power lust of Mongol King George, and maybe that isn't that much of a difference.

On the path that it is on, our government can never hope to end terrorism. It will only learn how to effectively terrorize its own citizens. Our founders offered a different path: with checks and balances to keep our government in line, and the kind of respect for the independence of other countries that would allow us to make peace with all the peoples of the Middle East, thereby depriving the terrorists of the hatred and anger that fuels them. Without popular support, terrorists become unpopular criminals that anyone would turn in.

On a practical note: if you are a US citizen, check out who waffled and who firmly supported the Patriot Act. This vote conveniently happened right before an election. Take advantage of that, and vote these people out of office. The veto they should be worried about is yours, not the President's.

Here is a favorite quote of mine. It is part of a wiser president's speech to the House of Representatives. Why is he wiser? His dad invented the first set of laws that we now call the "Patriot Act". The son learned how to really be president from one Thomas Jefferson:

She [America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

President John Quincy Adams' speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821.

Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars

[neema]

I was talking about this to some people today, actually. Recently, there was a poll where voters preferred the idea of having Bush flipping burgers at their barbecue, and having Kerry teach their children. Which is microcosmic of what the differences between Bush and Kerry are in fact. Bush seems like he would be a funny guy to have over for lunch, despite the fact that he could be an asshole at times and generally was close-minded, uneducated, loud and obnoxious. Kerry, on the other hand, would be a stuck-up prick of a guest, with his nose high in the air, subtly critcizing your choice in wine. There is no doubt about it, Kerry is a jerk-off (which is of course why websites like this were made).

But as far as job qualification goes, he's got it in spades over Bush. And what is ultimately more important (seeing on how our presidents of the last few decades have been nothing more than symbols, like the Queen of England), the people Kerry would surround himself with and would be making the policies would be infinitely better than Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice and the bunch.

Great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

...but somehow I don't *feel* any safer...

And They Are Us

[treehouse]

How ironic it is that a law which allows the government to keep track of reading habits (let alone our surfing habits), is called a Patriot Act. Not long ago, countries such as Communist Russia were considered un-American because they practiced such invasion of privacy. Now the right wing, who fought so vigorously in the past against such "Communist" practices are their strongest defenders in this country today.

Re:And They Are Us

[southpolesammy]

Now come on. You know very well that there's a huge difference between what is happening in America today and what the Soviets did. I don't know about you, but I do not have any fear of being woken up in the middle of the night, thrown into a van, and being shipped off to some Siberian gulag just because I surfed the wrong website last night.

The Soviets lived in constant fear of Big Brother because unlike our government, who I'll admit has a penchant for snooping, they chose to act on the information they gathered to actively suppress any non-state sponsored viewpoints. And, unlike our government, the Russian people could not approach their Soviet leaders for the same fear of reprisal.

I've said it a million times before here -- if you don't like the way things are going, do one of two things -- vote, or run for office. But putting on the tin foil hats for things that are easily obtainable by the governemtn through other sources, just reeks of knee jerk reactions.

Re:And They Are Us

[arudloff]

We've been able to monitor our citizens long enough for it not to be an issue. Why this continually surprises people in our country is beyond me.

What should anger you is now we're able to do it without judicial oversight. That's the primary difference between the "patriot" act and similar legislation in our past (i.e. FISA in 1978ish). Remember, no matter how much we love privacy, it's an entirely "made up" right enforced solely by the courts.. Remove that pesky judicial branch and viola!

I only mention this becuase I think we're fighting the wrong fight. We'll never get rid of the patriot act or big brother oversight. The fight we can probably win, is the fight to put judicial oversight back into its priority seating..

Checks and balances baby, checks and balances.

Re:And They Are Us

[JDevers]

Maybe not today you don't, but what is to prevent this from happening in the future. Ever hear of a slippery slope? Given the opportunity ALL forms of government eventually form totalitarian regimes. I agree with your solutions though, more people SHOULD vote and more people qualified to vote but aren't registered should register.

Re:And They Are Us

[4of12]

who fought so vigorously in the past against such "Communist" practices

Right wing ideologues are seduced by authoritarianism just as much as the old Stalinist left ever was.

What the right really feared about "Communism" was the attack on property rights of people who owned a lot of property; the concern for civils rights was a facade.

Now, with the Republicans abandoning fiscal conservatism (cf. latest budget deficit numbers), it's hard to find much of anything left to like about them anymore.

Re:And They Are Us

[gowen]

I don't know about you, but I do not have any fear of being woken up in the middle of the night, thrown into a van, and being shipped off to some Siberian gulag

And you're right. Because the US doesn't have gulags in cold Siberia. They have temporary detention facilities in sunny Cuba.

But don't worry, they still don't have to give you a trial, or legal representation, or follow the Geneva convention. Not to mention the lovely treatment you might expect at Abu Ghraib...

Re:And They Are Us

[4lex]

and being shipped off to some Siberian gulag just because I surfed the wrong website last night.

I think you just misspelled "Guantanamo" and "for being of arabic origin".

Re:And They Are Us

[Des Herriott]

And these prisoners were decreed to be "Enemy Combatants" by whom, exactly? Which court of law has found them guilty, and of what? What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Look, many or most of these people may well be terrorists, but they've had no access to a lawyer, and not a single opportunity to protest their innocence. If the US government believes them to be criminals, why haven't they been charged with a crime?

Re:And They Are Us

[horza]

Now come on. You know very well that there's a huge difference between what is happening in America today and what the Soviets did. I don't know about you, but I do not have any fear of being woken up in the middle of the night, thrown into a van, and being shipped off to some Siberian gulag just because I surfed the wrong website last night.

If you are Dimitri Skylarov, you are a Soviet that is woken up in the middle of the night and thrown into an American jail for putting the wrong stuff up on your web site. It's amazing the gulf that has now grown between the rights of a European and an American. A simple phrase "Land of the free" that used to be said with pride even just a decade or two ago is now used more and more with cynicism. And that's sad.

I've said it a million times before here -- if you don't like the way things are going, do one of two things -- vote, or run for office.

Well that was one useless piece of advice said a million times too many. Your vote is one of millions that goes towards just one for the 420 politicians that voted, and they are listening more to their lobby groups than individual voters. The only hope is to form your own lobby group and get enough support behind it. And running for office simply isn't practical for most people.

Phillip.

Re:And They Are Us

[ratamacue]

The right to private property *is* a civil right (I prefer the term "natural right" or "human right"). However, I'd be the first to agree that the republicans (and politicians in general) are motivated by self-interest. Government is nothing but a collection of individuals, after all, and by the laws of human nature, individuals are motivated by self-interest.

Now, there's nothing wrong with being motivated by self-interest as long as you conduct your business on a voluntary basis, interacting through others on the principle of free association. What's wrong is conducting your business on the principle of force (as government does), in order to achieve your goals of self-interest.

Re:And They Are Us

[demachina]

Excellent point. You need look no further than China. Certainly their government isn't as repressive as it was when U.S politicians considered them to be sitting on the right hand of the devil.

But since then they've mostly just adjusted their economic policies to respect private property and business. Now wealthy Americans and multinationals can own capitol there, and can make a killing on the cheap labor and artificially undervalued currency and... what ... suddenly they seem to have no problem with China. Though China still has no "Freedom and Democracy", they spy on their people, they repress dissidents and religious groups, now the Republicans are as happy as can be with them now and get furious if anyone criticizes them.

It probably hasn't occurred to them that China, having deduced they couldn't beat the U.S. militarily or idealogically are exploiting America's greatest weakness in their new war, that weakness being greed. They are luring wealthy American's and multinationals in to transferring all of America's manufacturing base, capitol, jobs and intellectual property to China, voluntarily, with the lure of making a nice profit next quarter.

One day America will wake up and realize the U.S. can no longer function without Chinese container ships pulling in to its harbor, all of its wealth has migrated their thanks to trade and budget deficits, and the U.S. lost a war it didn't know it was fighting until it was to late.

Old Ben said it best

[garver]

Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
- Benjamin Franklin

Re:Old Ben said it best

[kyle_b_gorman]

i don't think the patriot act provisions on library records are what old ben had in mind when he founded the first public library.

Re:Old Ben said it best

[Walrus99]

Except that in Ben's time people weren't flying airplanes into skyscrapers...

No they were just shelling towns with cannons, killing prisoners (both the Americans and British did this in the Revolutionary war), committing genocide on the native population, etc.

You can't use one act of violence as an excuse to suspend civil rights. Violence has been part of life throughout history. Hitler suspended civil rights when the Reichstag was burned and look what it led to.

Even if the amendment didn't pass at least it shows that some people in congress are actually reading the so called Patriot Act and may eventually change it or repeal it.

Re:Old Ben said it best

[csguy314]

they criticize us for doing stuff like taking sadam hussein out of power.

And they also criticize the US for putting him into power and giving him weapons of mass destruction in the first place. Talk about flip-flopping! First there's criticism for supporting terrorists like Bin Laden, and then more criticism when trying to stop him by invading the privacy of all Americans. Make up your minds people!

Re:Old Ben said it best

[Daengbo]

and you're telling me that it's not worth giving the government a little more leeway if it could possibly help stop terrorists???

Yeah, I'd say that. Govenment is not to be trusted. That a well known and historically supported truth. Just because it's easier to hand your life over to the gov't and then forgo responsibility, doesn't mean it's the better thing to do.

We are still fighting for our rights, and will be until the human race ceases to exist. Those in power want continued power over those who aren't, and will abridge the latter's rights wholly as much as they see feasible. This is also historically well shown.

I think you need to take some history courses. I'm not talking about America to the Civil War, either. You need look no further than post-WWII America to find numerous examples of it. You have your head in the sand, and believe what the gov't tells you just because the US has had over a hundred years without a coup. Don't.

Re:Old Ben said it best

[TamMan2000]

My question to liberals: How many [al Queda] terrorist attacks have been successfully carried out on US soil since 9/11? Pardon, say that again? "None"

You are correct, there have been none in the last ~3 years. How many years went by between WTC attack #1, and 9/11?

What's that? Oh... 8 years huh...

Al Queda doesn't attack often, they never have... They prefer to attack in a grand fasion infrequently. So I don't think that keeping al al queda from attacking for ~3 years can be awarded as a bush accomplishment anymore than keeping them from attacking for ~7 can be seen as a clinton sucess.

This is Al Queda'a MO, not bushes policies.

Re:Old Ben said it best

[CarrionBird]

Odd. Both of you seem to assume that everyone against these new powers are liberals or raving Moore types.

Myself, I actually support most of what Bush has done. But, I still don't see where they need new powers. We need to make better use of the powers they already had, and Bush seems to be doing so.

You don't have to be a liberal to be wary of giving new powers to the government.

Back to the issue at hand, I don't think logging what books everyone reads is a good idea. But, I think that anyone using something like a public library computer should not expect thier activities to be completely private. They're using a public terminal.

Re:Old Ben said it best

[bwalling]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

If sexual acts can be so defined as to not include fellatio, then surely reasonable can defined however is desired.

Re:Old Ben said it best

[Fear the Clam]

Now that Bush is actively stopping these attacks--not just preventing, STOPPING them in the act--people, er, I mean liberals, are up in arms about their civil liberties being "violated".

You're failed to prove that Bush is actually stopping anyone.

If nothing happens it could be because Bush & Co. are stopping it. On the other hand, it could be because al Queda is merely planning the Next Big Thing and hasn't acted. Considering the lack of press conferences by Ashcroft in an election year when he needs something to show an increasingly skeptical country, I suspect the latter.

There's nothing wrong with failing to exercise your own civil rights. Don't deny me mine just because you suck at logic.

Re:Old Ben said it best

[thpdg]

They used to have to prove that you were a bad person first. Now they can do it after. After you've had your equipment seized, after you've spent 6 months in a holding cell.

Now everybody make a big deal

[Mork29]

I honestly don't care if the government checks on my reading habits. Who cares? Yes, I read alot of computer books and go to libraries, I don't think they're going to stop me from getting onto a plain because of this. It reminds me of when people were complaining that G-mail was dangerous, because everythings is archived and the government could subpeona(sp?) it. Once again, who cares? I honestly don't believe I'm important enough and/or interesting enough to have anybody read my e-mail. Besides, if your plotting to destroy some building somewhere, why don't you download a good ol' fashioned version of PGP and protect yourself (or if you just really paranoid). So now everybody take off your tinfoil hat and take a deep breath. Your not interesting enough to worry about the government reading your e-mail. If you are doing something that requires you to hide it from the government, your breaking the law, and deserve to be caught.

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[leonardluen]

there is a reason that red tape is there. that red tape was originally put there in the constitution in the form of requiring them to get a warrant so that the police, fbi, cia couldn't just harass their citizens like the british could do at the time.

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[spellraiser]

I honestly don't believe I'm important enough and/or interesting enough to have anybody read my e-mail.

Now here's an interesting bit of apathy. Yes, quite true - most of us are not worthy of being scrutinized like this by the federal government. But what if you're, say, a 'dangerous subversive' who is critical of the government? Certain powerful people would be quite interested in doing a little research on you then, wouldn't you agree? And should they be allowed to? Think about it ...

Besides, if your plotting to destroy some building somewhere, why don't you download a good ol' fashioned version of PGP and protect yourself

Yes, if you really are plotting something evil and doing it over the net, you would use something like that, wouldn't you? So doesn't that fact rather defeat the alleged purpose (i.e. combating terrorism) of allowing the government to spy on average people?

If you are doing something that requires you to hide it from the government, your breaking the law, and deserve to be caught.

RED ALERT! RED ALERT! Tell that to the subversives in Soviet Russia or other Ex-Communist countries. Remember, the government is not automatically benevolent. This is why democracies have things like Constitutions and division of power. And they certainly do not have laws that allow indescriminate monitoring of regular people.

Yes, yes, I know all about 9/11 and the horrible tragedy that was inflicted on American then. I am not American myself, so I cannot begin to imagine what it must feel like. But this also gives me the luxury of objectivity. Every American today needs to ask himself: Just who are we protecting ourselves against? And how do we do it? And just how much of what we have gained in the past 200 years are we willing to sacrifice for it?

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[afidel]

Look at how amuck the FBI ran in the 50's amd 60's when they had little oversite. The "enemies" lists, the invasions of personal lives of people who were NOT a threat to the country, etc. I LIKE the fact that the executive branch is beholdent to the judicial for warrants. Some people far smarter than you and I setup the systems of checks and balances and I wish people wouldn't try to muck with it every time there is a small threat to the country, their meddling is FAR more dangerous to republic over the long run.

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[Noksagt]

I honestly don't believe I'm important enough and/or interesting enough to have anybody read my e-mail.

If I had a .mil address, I'd just assume that my email was up for grabs.

The fact that some (such as your self) in our armed forces aren't fighting tooth-and-nail for our freedoms is somewhat depressing.

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

That red tape is there for a reason. The Police and other Law enforcement agencies have enormous power, and in a free society that power must be restrained.

Take a look through history, even recent US history. Law enforcement can and do abuse their power. From bashing Vietnam war protestors, to beating up innocent people to extract confessions, Law enforcers are not angels. They are people like everyone else. You consider yourself innocent and that this law will not effect you. You fail to realise that this law and laws like are the exact kinds of restrictions placed on liberties that lead to dictatorships, and that ultimatly will affect you.

If you are one of those people that believe that a dictatorship could never,ever happen in their country, then you should reevaluate your views. Democracies should always remain vigilante against those that would seek to undermine them. Nowhere is immune to the threat of an authoritarian state.

Terrorism presents a threat, only to life and limb. It presents no threat to our freedoms. We have reactionaries and politicians to do that.

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[macdaddy]

es, I do things that I don't want people to know about, but nothing the government would care about.

I'll say it again, no one will care about your dirty little secrets until you run for office! Then your secrets aren't secret any longer. Do you think your life so far will stand public scrutiny? What about if your reading habits are public? Video rentals? Website browsing habits? Personal thoughts? I didn't think so.

Re:Now everybody make a big deal

[Xyrus]

I hope I'm not the only person who is sick of hearing 9/11 this and terrorism that. It's as bad as "we must do in the name of the children" arguments.

9/11. It happened, it sucked, GET THE FUCK OVER IT ALREADY! Our continued pre-occupation with it and terrorism is destructive to the fabric of this nation. One doesn't need much more than the patriot act for proof, although plenty more exists where that came from.

I've read the beast known as the Patriot Act. It's a great document if you like the executive branch wiping it's collective ass with the constitution.

The thing that is both sad and funny about it is it won't stop terrorism. It won't even slow it down. All it really does is grant unchecked powers or rubber-stamped powers.

The language is vague at best. It's loaded with subjective terms like "reasonable", with no further limits or description on what reasonable is.

You can be searched, monitored, investigated, and arrested WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. The best part is that they don't have to tell you. And they can hold you for an INDISCRIMINATE AMOUNT of time, without a lawyer or trial if the circumstances are "sufficient" (another term that is used without further explanation). And, as many of us know, if you do bring anything related to the Patriot act to trial, you can't even say anything about it without incurring a heavy penalty. It's a federal offense, go directly to jail for 5 years. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not attempt to invoke any constitutional rights.

And to anyone who says "we'll if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to fear", here's a big fuck you. What does the government declare wrong. Is my writing this on slashdot wrong? Is me saying the Patriot Act reflects the sesspool our system is becoming wrong? I don't know about everyone else but after all the lies, half-truths, and outright deceit that has come out of the government in the last 3 years I really don't want THEM deciding what is right and wrong.

The Patriot Act WILL NOT give anyone any security. It will not make you safe from terrorist. And it will not make the US a better place.

Why? Let's think of of it in computer terms. Terrorism is like P2P. P2P has no central server. There is no centralized location. In order to take down a P2P network you would have to take down all the "peers". This, as I'm sure many know, is practically impossible, as the peer could be anywhere at anytime.

Need more examples? Look at Israel and Chechenya. Those countries are practically under martial law and terrorists STILL ATTACK SUCCESFULLY. This should tell congress, and Americans in general something. No matter how many freedoms are stripped away and no matter how many insane powers are granted, you will not stop a dedicated terrorist, foriegn or domestic.

The only thing the Patriot Act ensures is that our constitutional rights have been compromised. Bush and co. also want to eliminate the sunset clause and extend/add more abilities for the government to trounce the constitution with. You thought Patriot 2 was dead? It's being passed piecemeal, under the radar by having sections added to other bills in congress.

I'm tired of all this stealth crap. Why don't they just repeal ammendments and get it over with. The government should just stop pretending that the great document known as the Constitution even has any meaning anymore.

Write letters and vote. I do both. Despite my lack of faith now, I still hang on to a glimmer of hope that we can make difference. We have to try something before we end up like the sheeple in 1984.

~X~

Question To Ponder:
"Why did Jeb Bush declare a state of emergency for two years on September 7,2001?"

Of course

[sielwolf]

being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.' On the other hand, 'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'"

Who wants to get a subpoena or search warrant? That requires talking to a judge and getting him to sign a piece of paper.

Who wants a papertrail when they steal you away in the night to an undisclosed location? Let's just call it a 'Cuban Beachfront Resort'.

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[Anonymous Coward]

who determins what is considered "suspicious"?

"that guy kind of looks middle eastern, he must be doing something wrong! let's arrest him!"

Arrrrghhhh!!

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article 'Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.'

When will they understand that computers are simply tools? Would they be up in arms if they found out that terrorists use public transport to meet each other? Would there be draconian restrictions on who can board the subway?

Re:Arrrrghhhh!!

[Demogoblin]

When will they understand that computers are simply tools?

When will they understand firearms are simply tools? Now you know how peace loving gun owners have been feeling for years.

Re:Arrrrghhhh!!

[Demogoblin]

Was the American Revolution won with a computer? Will the 2nd? (possibly)

Don't get me wrong, computers are a very versatile tool but fireamrs are just as important.

Re:Arrrrghhhh!!

[Ieshan]

Damn.

Firearms aren't tools useful for any other purpose than killing. Since we don't kill our own food now (except .000000001% of the population), we've got little excuse for killing. Before you say that there are people who want to kill us, and *thats* why we need guns, remember your 1st grade logic fallacies - two wrongs don't make a right. Acting in "self-defense" doesn't make an action morally defensible.

Your point seems to justify killing and therefore justify guns (so long as it's in the name of Revolution, cheers!). Firearms are used every day to subjugate, murder, and maim. Computers are used every day to heal, educate, and communicate. I fail to see the confusion of importance.

Re:Arrrrghhhh!!

[Steve B]

The whole fucking point of this discussion is that some of us don't want lethal weaponry to be available.

Yes, and while we're making a wish list, I don't want it to rain when I have things to do outside, I don't want the grass to keep growing after my lawn gets to its proper height, and I don't want the sun to be near the horizon in the direction I'm facing.

I was talking about defending yourself with weapons that aren't designed to kill, or retreating.

The bottom-line fact is that there just isn't any nonlethal weapon that can reliably stop a reasonably tough and determined attacker (especially when the person being attacked is small and/or weak).

As for retreating, that's not a relevant consideration -- if we're talking about a situation where the use of lethal force is justified, we've already stipulated that retreat is not an option.

Simpsons...

[bje2]

Reminds me of the episode of the simpsons where lisa buys al gore's book, and al gore is immediately alerted by the secret service or FBI or something...then he "celebrates"...good stuff...

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[mattbot 5000]

how has the patriot act directly affected you?

Oh come on. How has any piece of legislation "directly affected" you? Sure, no one's come to my door to arrest me citing the Patriot Act, but then again, they sure could if they wanted to go through my library records and think I'm a national security threat.

It's not about whether the Patriot Act has "directly affected" you, it's about the gradual erosion of your civil liberties this Act affords.

And do you think there would be big front page stories if there were cases of abuse of the Act? Of course not. Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't going on.

A Call to all Fellow Terrorists

[Noksagt]

Please check out "The Little Engine that Could" from your local library. It will have the infidels guessing as to what we are up to, when we could be up to what we already know how to do.

Legislation like this part of the the PATRIOT Act is a waste of paper. Why would a terrorist now check out "Bomb Building For Dummies" from a US library after knowing his reading habits could be watched? Instead, they can browse material inside the library--taking notes & photocopying particularly relevant bits. Or they could buy said books from a bookstore, paying cash. Or they could read it on the net. Or they could just rely on other terrorist communication and training channels.

It effectively wastes the time and effort of librarians and law enforcement officials who have to search for these idiots. It also strips away privacy from all of us. I hope that if your representative voted to keep this sucker, you will write letters & protest with your vote!

Re:A Call to all Fellow Terrorists

[csguy314]

This just in: Terrorists are planning a train bombing. Thanks to our library surveillance we have tracked down the suspects. Unfortunately, our alienated youth seem to be among them including several young radicals 3 to 5 years of age. Fortunately, we'll have their trials moved to Texas so we can still use the death penalty.
Please continue buying clothing and SUVs.
--Homeland Security Chief, Tom Ridge

America beware

[imogthe]

I suppose this is just an indication of things to come. From my strongly euro-centric point of view the United States of America is about to become either a dictatorship or a police state... that is unless the American people wake up and smell the corruption and blatant abuse of power by their elected(?) leaders.
Best of luck to you. You're going to need it.

And no, at the moment the European Union is just as bad, if not worse. We're doomed :)

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[gl4ss]

how is it going to help? that should be the question to ask.

go read some eastern europe history(of past ww2 era). do you want that?

You've got to be kidding.....

[speclj]

I think the phrase "You've got to be kidding me..." has run through my brain more times in the last 4 years than any other time I can remember. From dumbass Atkins, MPAA, RIAA, decency on television gestapo FCC tactics, and this McCarthy in reverse Patriot Act....the list just keeps on. How can anyone say so what if they know what I'm reading? I don't do anything illegal. What about when they decide that you are now going to be investigated beause of all of the technical txts that you read, now that the administration, sheep that we call Congress (take your pick) etc.. have decided to enact into law your powerful rig and amount of knowledge make you a weapon and therefore a potential terrorist.

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is, who decides what merits investigation?

You say "don't do suspicious things," but who's to say what is and is not suspicious? Maybe some guy on the street is a suspect for reading some potentially subversive book (or maybe just one that's offensive to some conservative fringe represented in Congress). Maybe my friend is a suspect for being a Muslim and speaking out against the war. Maybe I'm a suspect for growing a beard instead of conforming to the clean-shaven All-American male image.

Anything is suspicious when cast in the right light. Even posting on Slashdot.

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[PalmerEldritch42]

there haven't been any cases of abuse

You've got to be kidding me. Just because you haven't heard of any abuse of the PATRIOT act hardly means that it hasn't happened.

Also, in order to see what the repercusions of a law are, you have to think it through to the extremes. It is easily possible to abuse this rule. When I was younger, I was interested in all sorts of things. Like the Anarchist's Cookbook and others that contained recipes for bombs and other lethal items. Now, I am a good person who doesn't blow people up. But I wouldn't want to be hauled into jail without a trial and without even a search warrant because I had something that Ashcroft doesn't like. And since I was a minor at the time, my parents would have had to face all sorts of legal repercusions as well.

I mean is it really that hard to get a warrant? A phone call to a judge and they can do whatever they want legally. That is part of the checks and balances that this country is founded on. No part of the government can be prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. At least that is how I was lead to understand it in civics class.

if you don't want to be spied upon, then don't do suspicious things

I don't want to be spied on and I don't do suspicios things. I do attend the local library. That hardly makes me a terrorist, but apparently it is enough to flag the PATRIOT boys into thinking that I am more worthy of attention than my illiterate friends.

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[roystgnr]

how has the patriot act directly affected you?

By making it impossible for me to answer this question, since it is now illegal for my librarian to tell me if the PATRIOT Act is affecting me.

It would have failed even if it had passed..

[cOdEgUru]

in the senate, as GW had blatantly professed his undying devotion to the Patriot Act as well as he had decided to Veto this bill if it had cleared the Senate.

So its not enough there are 210 people out there who think this law stinks, we need to get GW out of his chair so as to salvage what little freedom this country still possess.

GW doesnt scare me, he makes me laugh, but he doesnt scare me. Cheney and Ashcroft scares me. The indifference of half the country scares me. People who are willing to send other people's kids in to war, in to a hail of bullets, scare me. People who will stomp all over the rules of the land so as to feel powerful, to win their own private dirty war scares me. The Presidents dependence on the religious right scares me.

I am not an american and neither have I the right to vote. I am helpless in what I can do, despite the immense respect to the people around me as well as the country that I live in. I believe America can be a whole lot better than what it is, its standing among other nations, its perspective. I believe this country and its people are being held back, day by day, kept on check, from being a true leader of the free world. I believe, if we do not turn back this course, come November, the road ahead for America is bleak and fraught with peril.

House rules were not broken

[konekoniku]

Actually, house rules were not broken. As I noted below, 15 minutes was originally scheduled for the vote, but the floor rules of the House permit such a period of time to be extended. What was done was fully within house rules. It's a simple lesson: don't trust slashdot writeups for all your information - look up the house rules yourself, or at least find a more reputable source.

Re:House rules were not broken

[micromoog]

You're right; the true blame should be placed on the 10 wet-noodle Republicans that were bullied into changing their votes.

Re:House rules were not broken

[demachina]

I'll trust you on the rules but its become a disturbing trend on the part of the Republicans that when they really want something to pass they just hold open the vote until they can threaten or bribe enough people in to supporting their position. The second they have it they hold the vote before they lose someone.

Believe it or not we elect representatives to vote their conscience, intellect and judgement, which suggests they should vote the way they see fit and not they way the party in power pressures them to vote. It is a leading indicator of totalitarian government when elected representatives become rubber stamps for whatever the people in power want. By holding open the vote until they get the answer they want that is what the Republican's are doing, totalitarianism.

In this case and not having RTFA it sounds as though perhaps they should have separated the issues. I can see anonymous use of public computers, in a library or anywhere being a concern, so are pay phones. But that issue should have nothing to do with giving the government power to secretly monitor what you read. The government simply shouldn't have that power nor should they be placing book store owners and librarians in the position that they have to rat out their patrons or and to be at resk that they are breaking the law if they violate the gag and don't keep this intrusion secret from everyone.

This law creates a disturbing pressure that you shouldn't read anything that the government might find subversive, criminal or obscene and what's worse you don't know what the government's standards are. The obvious best example, is anyone who reads the Koran going to be instantly placed on a watch list. That is a violation of the most basic right to religious freedom in this country.

Re:House rules were not broken

[demachina]

Well I'm just remembering the comments of various Congressman, over the last couple of years, who have served in the house for extended periods. Within their long tenure they've seen Congress deteriorate dramatically, in their view. Some of these comments were from people retiring from Congress because they didn't like working there anymore. Obviously it might have been worse during other periods in American history that live only in the history books and this is subjective.

The comment I've heard most often was that even though there were sharp political divides congressman could still treat one another cordially and with respect after hours. Now the hatred is so sharp that the two parties seem to revile each other on a personal level. You don't have to look much further than the Dick Cheney hurling profanity at a Democratic Senator, on the Senate floor, and then telling Fox later he felt good about saying it.

Re:House rules were not broken

[demachina]

If you look at the track record you will find both parties block judicial nominations. The Republicans were just as bad about it under Clinton though they had the luxury to use different tactics during the times they controlled the Senate.

These two examples are from opposite polls. One is the minority party in the Senate using Senate rules that are designed to let the minority restrain unwise action on the part of the majority. They other is the majority abusing its power to insure it always wins.

The Senate is designed to restrain the executive from making extremist appointments. The filibuster or the threat of it is there precisely for this reason, to prevent a party from gaining a thin majority and being able to run rough shod over the minority or the people they represent. If you want the Republicans to have the ability to rule by dictate, and appoint any extremist they want, you need to either get 60+ seats in the senate or they need to change the Senate rules and basically throw out the underpinnings of restraint on American Democracy. I'm willing to bet one or the other will happen within a year. Either the Republicans will win landslides in a bunch of senate races with the help of electronic voting in November or concoct a rational for neutering the Senate filibuster soon thereafter. They've already been threatening it this year everytime the blocked judicial appointments have been debated.

Re:All we can tell about this is...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go so far as to say at least 225 of them should be replaced. 210 times 2 equals 420. WTF were the others doing? Abstaining? Talk about a time when ONE vote could really make a difference!

Let me guess . . . maybe they were absent because they were campaigning for re-election to the House?

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act?

[raznorw]

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."

--Martin Niemöller

it doesn't matter how it has directly affected me yet, it is the potential contained therein and how it affects everybody.

What Göring had to say about this

[October_30th]

Hermann Göring: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Göring: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, 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 danger. It works the same way in any country.

Re:What Göring had to say about this

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Yes, only congress can declare wars. And I can vote them out of office, if they go declaring war left and right. Thank god, or Dubya might have dragged us into a mess in Iraq.

Re:What Göring had to say about this

[Anonymous Coward]

Goering's statement also breaks down for 9/11 - we ACTUALLY WERE attacked

But not by Iraq. Goering's statement is remarkably apt for what actually occurred. The administration implied that we were attacked by Iraq, and the public went along.

Re:What Göring had to say about this

[meadowsp]

As well as the whole fact that it was a criminal act by terrorists, not an act of war.

Re:What Göring had to say about this

[LordLucless]

Goering's statement also breaks down for 9/11 - we ACTUALLY WERE attacked.

Yes...but not necessarily by the people the US is now invading.

Re:All we can tell about this is...

[LostCluster]

There are 435 seats in the house. Given the 210+210=420 result, I'd say there are 15 members in serious need of immediate replacement that both sides of the debate can agree on. Where were they?

Re:Ultimately...

[reboot246]

I don't want the government to know anything about me. Of course, they have to know a little about me, like my Social Security number and whether or not I've paid my taxes, but beyond that I don't see any need for them to know anything. And, no, I don't have anything to hide.

Buying habits? Travel habits? Books I've read? Internet sites I've visited? No, no, no, and Hell no!

AAARRRGGGGHHH...

[cOdEgUru]

You are a moron!

Now that its out of the way, let me take this further..

No matter what the Govt, or Fox News tells you, Saddam Hussein was not the gravest threat ever to walk the earth. He was neither the baddest dude alive. Do you have any fucking idea as to whats happening in Africa?? Sudan?? Ethiopia?? Nigeria?? Are you fucking insane or just clueless, like half this country?

Even if you round up the total number of Iraq's citizen this murderous villain had slaughtered, it would still pale in comparison to the number of people who are dying in Africa in the last year. Sudan can easily be compared to Hell, considering the number of men and children who are slaughtered like cattle, women who are raped and killed. Can you even compare the atrocities that happen there every day to what did happen in Iraq?? Ofcourse not.

Then why is it that Bush turns a blind eye to Africa, why is it that Powell after his recent visit to Sudan proudly proclaims that it still hasnt achieved the so called status "Genocide" when we actually care a fuck!! Can you justify their tears, kids with out limbs, with out parents, without shelter and food. Can you justify this travesty in Iraq when a greater threat looms in Sudan threatening to wipe out a country, snuff out a million lives in less than an year??? Where is Bush's God amidst all this? Or does the President listen to his God only when the response meets his needs?? Why proclaim the fact that you are a devoted christian when you turn a blind eye to Africa?

So dont you fucking say that you step in and regulate every now and then..not when it doesnt serve your needs.

Thomas Jefferson said:

[mi]

I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.

Thomas Jefferson

Re:Getting "taken" by agents

[LittleGuy]

After taking one or two pictures of monuments and such, I went to a cafe where I spoke to someone who had been "picked up" by men in black suits off the street after taking pictures of some buildings he thought looked cool. It turns out one of them was a secret government facility of some sort. The FBI raided his apartment, and took EVERYTHING photo related, held him for 48 hours in jail before deciding he was harmless. When letting him go, they warned him to "be careful" because they "can do this anytime they want"

I am just waiting.... waiting.... for a tourist from Russia go to Washington, take a few innocuous pictures, and get picked up by Homeland Security.

Just rewind to the 1970's, have the US play the Soviets and the Russians play the Americans, and the dialog will be one and the same....

OK

[Anonymous Coward]

The Founding Fathers rocked and all, but I'm tired of hearing their quotes tossed out into the middle of a situation they could not have imagined over 200 years ago. They are wise words in the abstract, but the world has other ideas. If you think a completely free and open society can survive in the face of an enemy that is dedicated to spreading their fairy tales across the world and will murder billions to sccomplish that, well, you are naive beyond human comprehension.

And, no, I do *not* support the Patriot Act or any other attempt at abridgement of freedom, but I would like to hear some *fresh* ideas that date from a time after the biggest threat to ordinary citizens was a musket. It was tricky to smuggle a 6 pound artillery piece through customs, ya know?

See how your Rep voted!

[krysith]

Your representatives' votes are here!

Check out how they voted and let your representative know how you feel about this issue: find yours here (requires knowlege of where you live)

My sentiments exactly

[truthsearch]

My sentiments exactly. Prove probable cause to a judge and have everyone sign it, which is the way it's been for many years. When my friends investigate my disappearance they can see who was looking for me and what they thought they'd find. When we go to trial the government can show that my civil rights were or were not violated.

Since when are we supposed to not hold the government accountable for their actions?

Re:Democracy is a myth

[THotze]

Sometimes, all too often, you're right. But there are some issues I have with your post.

For one thing, the Patriot Act, in a way, shows democracy in action. The American people wanted a swift and comprehensive law to fight terrorism, and they got it. The fact that it takes away people's liberties is a side effect. Now, IMHO, I think that the real danger to America isn't people blowing up buildings - we can rebuild those, but rather the threat to free speech and a nation where people of different backgrounds and beliefs - policitical, social, whatever, I think that its the threat to free speech as presented by the Patriot Act that most threatens America.

Still, despite stories circulating for years about all the scary powers of the Patriot Act, there are still many people in the general populas who support the law. You can argue - and correctly - that they only support it because they don't fully understand its consequences, but that misses the point. In a democracy, its not right and wrong that matter, but what people BELIEVE is right or wrong.

And yes, most recent Presidents HAVE been multi millionaires. On the other hand, I think you could argue that we want our Presidents to be proven successful, capable people, and that in the US today, realistically, most people that we'd consider to be 'successful' are millionaires.

The important thing to note is that they didn't start out that way - Clinton started out every bit the Southern country boy, for example.

If you think that over the course of him bing a Rhodes scholar, Attorney General for Arkansas, Governer for Arkansas and later President of the United States, that he didn't deserve to accumulate a fair bit of wealth (a lot of it has been since his Presidency ended, where he can make $50k speaking or several million for an advance on a book), then you don't understand how most of America characterizes (for better or for worse) 'success'.

Tim

Ask those poor guys getting shot at...

[codepunk]

I spent 10 years in the military suposedly protecting your freedom. Thats right you have
thousands of men dodging bullets so that you may
enjoy liberty. I don't have a problem with the govt
doing what they have to for intelligence reasons. The patriot act and all bills like it serve only one purpose, to unconstitutionally short circuit the judicial branch of the govt, now that I have a problem with.

Re:Ask those poor guys getting shot at...

[Sarhosh Amiral]

Sorry but who told you to go there in the first place? USA was the one who started the war, and getting shot is part of war. Did you really think a country would give up their own freedom without a fight? Don't tell me you were freeing Iraq or that BS. Currently more Iraqes die on Iraq than a year before. All it changed in Iraq is now US companies can work there safer and earn money. Just open your eyes, read other world newspapers not US media, watch something other than CNN or FOX you will see what I mean.

Re:Ask those poor guys getting shot at...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because the USA was in imminent danger of being invaded by Iraq and Afganistan.

Don't bother bringing up the twin towers. More people die in car accidents each year - where's the War On Cars?

Re:Ask those poor guys getting shot at...

[Jason Ford]

Thank you very much for defending my freedom. If I may be so bold as to ask, though, how does 'thousands of men dodging bullets' preserve my freedom?

move along

[Anonymous Coward]

'Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants.'

So then, what are they so upset about here?

(Score:-5, Conservative)

Enemies of freedom

[amightywind]

The enemies of freedom are alive and well. The same disfunctional government agencies (FBI, CIA, State Department) who dropped the ball on 9/11 are now using that tragedy to seize more power than they merit. 9/11 would have been prevented if the movements and activities of visitors on student VISA's, particularly islamists from the middle east, had been given even cursory scutany. The gross harassment of ordinary citizens allowed by the Patriot Act is an absurd overreaction.

Stop ruining our country!

[58797A7A79]

We keep allowing the government to slowly transform us into what our founding fathers started the country to get away from, and it needs to stop! Those of you who somehow believe that giving up our rights in the name of fighting terrorism, please go find another country to live in that better suits you, but don't ruin this one!

No Libtertarians for Bush allowed anymore!

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

It's official, Democrats are the new "least of two evils" for Libertarians. I mean, it should have been obvious to you guys for quite some time that Republicans really hated your guts, but there's been a few holdouts, and hopefully this vote ends that. The Dems voted to roll it back, the Repubs voted to keep it as it is. Really cut and dry.

I disagree..as well

[cOdEgUru]

Everything that you just wrote, each word applies to the situation in Iraq as well..

It is a civil war in Iraq right now. Fox might call them "tewwowists", but they are Insurgents, nonetheless. And its a civil war because the insurgents are mainly of the Shiite population who oppose being ruled by the Sunni. Also there are Sunni's as well who are opposed to the coalition being there in Iraq.

Every Govt might turn a blind eye to Africa, but then not every govt were so eager to go to war at the drop of a hat. This administration has shown that willingness. About Africa not being of strategic importance, now thats cruel as well as asinine. The trouble in middle east would not have bothered us a bit, if (a) Israel wasnt in the midst of all of it and (b) Oil, billions and billions of gallons of it. You know when Africa will get back on the world map? When a bunch of Sudanese commandeer planes or what not and ram them in to the heart of a few cities. Then, I assure you, they would take notice. The world would take notice.

Also you blame culture and corruption as the core of all evils in Sudan and the rest of Africa, I am surprised these two evils are only found in that subcontinent and nowhere else. Ofcourse, Culture and Corruption had nothing to do with in the Middle East and the quagmire in Iraq

And finally, Iraq is fixable now???? Which newspapers do you read? Where do you get information from? Cause the rest of the world definitely do not subscribe to that view. Even when the US transferred power to the Iraqi Govt, two days in advance, despite how Bush wanted it to be portrayed (as a show of eagerness to transfer power back to the people), it came off as an act of weakness and cowardice, of a super power who once again had its fingers burned 30 years later..

Re:I disagree..as well

[comedian23]

>Fox might call them "tewwowists", but they are Insurgents, nonetheless.

Terrorism(from dictionary.com, bolds added for effect): The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

You may agree or disagree with what they are doing, but it is clearly terrorism. It is also insurgency.

>The trouble in middle east would not have bothered us a bit, if (a) Israel wasnt in the midst of all of it and (b) Oil, billions and billions of gallons of it.

The real trouble is that people see oil fields and can't think beyond that point. Superpowers, especially in the last 100 years have tried to fight by proxy, rather than fighting head to head. Proxies were used by the Soviets in Vietnam, and by the U.S. in places like Afghanistan. There are many reasons for that.

Some, such as not wanting their own troops killed, are purely selfish reasons.

Another would be the desire to not escalate a conflict to the nuclear point. The Cold War is a great example. What would have happened if the U.S. had gone head to head with USSR? For the two countries, certainly massive death and destruction. For the rest of the world, at the very least economic meltdown. At the worst, nukes would start flying with casualties in the hundreds of millions.

Was Iraq itself a dire threat to the U.S. by itself? Of course not. Their one and only hope of harming us was to purchase black market nukes or a delivery system for their old WMDs. Iraq was another proxy war. Who is the real enemy? I can make a few guesses here, and you are welcome to join in the speculation. Iran is clearly sending fighters and money to Iraq. Our friends the Saudis(some anyway) financially support terrorist groups fighting in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east. Then you have the people in Europe who were getting rich off of the Oil for Weapons, oops, I mean Oil for Food program in Europe such as France, Germany and Russia. In the end the "real" enemy is probably Mr. and Mrs. Islamofascist all over the middle east and the world, and our weapon of choice is democracy in Iraq. We spread democracy and capitalism, people can do what they want, get a job, get educated, raise a family, and be happy. Happy people don't bomb places and kill people. And worst yet(for Islamofascists) democracy spreads.

I actually do agree with part of your post regarding the Sudan. The U.N. needs to step in immediately and try to help if they can. Genocide on any people, any where in the world should not be tolerated. However your view of the Iraq War is very short sighted.

College .not.= smart

[nonameisgood]

You imply that getting a college degree demands being smart when it's all said and done. If you look at the number of stupid people with degrees, you'll find that just isn't so.

I also take inssue with the contention that all morons are dumb; the word "moron" comes from the Greek for "foolish". Religious fundamentalism is by design moronic.
--

The Republicans Did This

[HangingChad]

Okay, anyone want to step up and say the Republicans didn't pull out all their legislative tricks to defeat this amendment? Anyone still want to argue that the Republicans haven't gone completely over to the extreme right? Can anyone really reasonably say that the FBI having access to your library reading without a warrant really makes us safer?

Can't pin this one on the Dems, only four Democrats voted for this amendment vs 194 against.

Combined with their fiscal irresponsibility it seems pretty obvious the Republican party has abandoned most of the positions usually identified as conservative. It's hard to find a label for what they've turned into. Fascism is really the word that comes closest. Whatever it is it's angry, dogmatic, nationalistic, conformist, intrusive and they're spending this country into the ground.

If this represents half of America then we are truly pathetic. We have elevated greed to a religion and sunk to a mental level one step above a third world country.

Okay okay you're right, you're right!!!

[Travoltus]

We should wait until AFTER the Government has seriously abused the USAPATRIOT Act before we start complaining.

After all this is GW Bush and John Ashcroft, everyone knows these two won't abuse our civil liberties. Nor would any future leader, either!

Re:Okay okay you're right, you're right!!!

[Schmendr1ck]

I catch the sarcasm here, but you're making a REALLY good point. The biggest single problem with the PATRIOT Act is that we have almost no way of knowing when or if our government is abusing it. Because of the gag provisions riddled through the law, your librarian could get arrested for telling you that the FBI stopped by and asked for a list of books you have read recently.

The judicial subpoena system is a good balance of investigative power and accountability by law enforcement, and "investigation of terrorism" is no justification for bypassing this proven system.

Re:Okay okay you're right, you're right!!!

[dthable]

You also forgot the balance that has always been given to the people - the right to remove the government when it no longer represents them (Thank god for the second amendment).

The patriot act is nothing more than a collection of unconstitutional provisions that those with the power have wanted to pass for a long time. 9/11 just happened to be a catalyst to make dumb Americans give up their rights....I'd rather die than give the government more control over my life.

Re:Okay okay you're right, you're right!!!

[mosb1000]

"The patriot act is nothing more than a collection of unconstitutional provisions that those with the power have wanted to pass for a long time."

That's a good point. Why is it that so many of the people who run for elected office seem to want the government to be all powerful? It seems to me that if the past is any indicator, the government just plain does a horrible job whenever it tries to do anything. I wish more Americans would realize this so that the government would stop getting bigger and more intrusive.

Re:Okay okay you're right, you're right!!!

[susano_otter]

OK, I'm game, please point to too all the succesful rebellions where non-military Americans with guns stopped the federal government from abusing the population.

Trivial. We have a regime change every four years. We toss the bums out of Congress every two years. We hand our Senators their marching papers every six years.

We remove sheriffs, mayors, and school board superintendents from power on a regular basis. Some of us even got a rare and exciting opportunity to throw a state governor out on his sorry ass for no other reason than that we suddenly decided we didn't like him.

We overthrow our government all the time. We even have a schedule for it! And it happens without shooting, violence, coups d'etat...

How many nations throughout history can boast the same power we Americans take for granted? The power to overthrow our government on a regular basis, without violence, without guns, without military might?

How many nations, even today, don't grant their citizens this much power? The Tibetans don't have it. Their conquerors, the Chinese, don't have it. The Iranians don't have it. The Sudanese don't have it. The Iraqis are only beginning to wake up to the idea that for the first time in their history, they do have this power: the power to play politics, instead of waging war.

You say you want a revolution? Vote against the incumbent in your home town's mayoral election. It's free, it's easy, and you don't even need to shoot anybody. Welcome to civilization!

Re:If you don't vote Libertarian, you ASKED FOR TH

[pclminion]

Then don't make me swallow the whole fucking package at once. Give me a few Libertanian candidates that aren't as, well, insane, as most of you seem to be, and I might vote for them.

As it stands now, yes, Libertarians would probably be quick to fix many things I think are wrong in the US, but I also think they'd break quite a few things that I like quite a bit.

I'd rather support the party that has the most overlap possible with my own interests, then do what I can to help push that party in the direction I want. For me the Libertarian party just isn't that party. At least at the moment.

It doesn't mean I "asked for this." It means government is complicated.

The FBI and Bookstores

[The Angry Mick]

where is the FBI actually using this to spy on 'average people'?

You know it is a little difficult finding examples of this, what with the gag order and all (see Section 215). Still though, here's the primary example offered up by most media outlets, and here's another, more obscure example from my home city.

There is no judge

[TamMan2000]

What it does is prevent them from informing you that a judge has approved that you can be monitored.

Don't you get it? If there was a judge in the loop, it would be OK. The problem it that the searches are entirely at the discretion of the FBI, no warrent needed! That is what is scary...

All unchecked powers are scary, that is why the founding fathers require the judicial branch to be involved in determining what reasonable search and seizure is.

No one asked me if they could protect my freedoms

[I'm Spartacus!]

Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that the military is protecting my liberties by killing people in a foreign country. If my freedom is truly in danger from some foreign threat, I'll grab a gun and defend myself or die trying, thank you very much!

This fallacy that you are serving your country by joining the military needs to stop right now. You're not serving your country; you're serving politicians who use you as their pawn to advance their agendas.

Logic test failed: see "straw man"

[TofuDog]

Try using an apt analogy if you choose to refute an argument with one. I don't think you'll find legislation that specifically calls upon the government to keep secret your space alien friends. This is explicityly part of the PA. Perhaps try this one: Premiss: The government specifically authorized warrants to be issued without a magistrate and in complete secrecy, both before and after their excercise (e.g., PA). Argument: The lack of public evidence for the use of this power FOLLOWS FROM THE NATURE OF THE POWER. Lesson for the logically challenged: This is a TAUTOLOGY. Surely only an idiot would claim it hasn't been used because the records of it's use are not available... Surely...

US is no exception

[TamMan2000]

Do you honestly believe that the US government has not been the killer of more than 3000 inocent americans?

Thousands of blacks were put to death all over the south either at the hands of the government, or under conditions where it could easily be argued that the government shirked it's duty to protect it's citizens to the extent that it was criminally neglegent. Some of these black men were guilty of crimes for which a white man would have been put to death, but many, if not most of them were put to death for the "crimes" of registering to vote, or wistling at a white woman, or (gasp) persuing a relationship with a white woman...

And that is just the civil rights strugle... What about the students at Kent state? What about Amadu Dialo? What about all of the people being released from death row recently due to evidence that they were wrongly convicted exposed with new technology, do you propose that we did not execute many innocents accidentaly?

The USA is better than most in regards to this topic, but we are certainly no exception.

Re:US is no exception

[Moofie]

Intercepting THEIR messages and blocking THEIR actions is fine.

However, since THEY don't wear signs, there is no way to impede them without unacceptable restrictions being placed on ordinary citizens.

So. You get the terrorists to wear signs, and I'll let you do whatever you want to to them. Until then, we'll extend Constitutionally protected liberties to absolutely everyone. If you read it carefully, you'll note that it does not give rights to citizens, but enjoins the government from restricting the rights of People. Yes, that means that even people who aren't citizens are entitled to due process of law.

Revolutions are healthy

[Sirwar]

All the people who know and want their rights are close enough to marching outside the whitehouse. Our freedom is our identity to the world...but we're slowly becoming exactly what we think is a crime elsewhere.

Problem is, if you watch/read story on the PATRIOT act, its always a divided issue. They interview random people, and about half are willing to give up certain rights or freedoms for 'our protection'. But these people don't even know what it means, or the potential reprocussions of doing so, however they still get to vote. Is it even possible to really make a statement to our government or even bring about the changes we need without the support of the large herd of ignorant/brainwashed sheep(or maybe lemmings is more appropriate?)?

Which really brings up the question: Which is the bigger crime? Having your congress represent you 100%, even if you don't know whats best for yourself; or having congress think for you when you don't agree?

Re:The Police State didn't come all at once...

[Bob_Robertson]

Yet taxes are the least efficient method of funding a beneficial program, since that funding must go through three different bureaucracies before it gets to the program itself: Collection, allocation, and disbursement.

The program then wastes resources complying with regulatory and reporting requirements by those bureaucracies.

There is also the ill will generated by taxing people who do not agree with the various programs, such as Catholics taxed to pay for sex education, home schoolers taxed to pay for government schools they do not use, people against the death penalty taxed to pay for the murder of their fellow people, etc.

The base immorality of taxation is impossible to avoid, without deliberately trying to do so.

Interested individual people, coming together for common interests, will each put forth effort toward efficiency in the operation. That is why such private charitable efforts as Goodwill and The Salvation Army operate on rediculously small ammounts of money, while every government program is constantly wasting vast sums.

Oh yes, let us address the "monopoly" argument. I love that one!

Remember ITT? They, along with AT&T and a handful of other multinationals was going to rule the world. Go read "Roller Ball Murder" if you can find a copy of it, that is the atmosphere in which it was written.

ITT still exists, it publishes foreign language phone books. Its "monopoly" status didn't save if from the whims of the consumer.

Microsoft? This is Slashdot, you might have noticed. There are a great many alternatives, and Microsoft is not a monopoly, because there is no penalty for not using their product. The only monopolies are those that have government backing. One of the reasons that Microsoft became the huge corporation it is is because it was easier to write "IBM compatible", then "Windows compatible" on the GOVERNMENT procurement forms than to try to specify the swath of standards that were required. This too is changing, as most days news headlines on Slashdot or LinuxToday.com will inform you.

The myth of "natural" monopolies is based upon the theory of static economic conditions. That theory is false, there is always change. If there is only one supplier in a market, it is only because they have priced their product such that no other competitor could come in and undercut them and still make a profit.

Efficient managers are continually looking for something to give them the upper hand, and with the tool of Government force available, some of them will attempt to use that power to enforce their position to keep competition at bay.

For instance, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is nothing but a paid-for attempt to maintain dominant market positions of established businesses. It is even possible to identify individual Senators and Congressmen who are in the pocket of the very wealthy entertainment industry, just do a search for "The Senator From Disney".

It is government assistance that keeps such monopolies in power.

Lastly, it is the very power of government interference in peoples lives which attracts corruption. If there were no power to take property "legally" by force and give it do another, what is politely called "redevelopment", companies would have to pay an owner what the owner thought the property was worth. It is much cheaper to buy the double edged sword of eminent domain and zoning laws.

It is the very power of government that corrupts, it is the fact that the power is available and for sale that causes it to be purchased. It is pointless to pay me a bribe, for instance, because I cannot do anything in return. By advocating government, you advocate corruption.

A corrupt business is inefficient compared to a cleanly run one. Time is spent covering up operations. Money is wasted on bribes and payoffs that a clean operation would not be paying.

If you really want to do something about corruption, remove the temptation. Eliminate the power, and there will be no abuse of power.

Remember, only a government can get away with murder on a large scale. Even the most successful serial killer doesn't match one day of the war in Iraq. (yes, i am speaking in general terms).

Bob-

Some people beleive everything they read, but...

[IBitOBear]

... For my part, I want my peers, my community, and the government to know what I read, and what I think...

The part where you completely fail in your argument is that there is (presumably) some difference between "what you read" and "what you think"; but the aggressive archival for investigative, legal and prosecutorial purposes, of "what you read" and the certianty of guilt-by-association (whereby the state decides that what you have read is an functional indicator of what you think) is the touchstone of a colapse of liberty.

I, for one, read all sorts of descenting opinions.

I also do not suffer from the "beleives everything he reads" syndrome.

But let's be more concrete. Suppose I went down to the library and read a bunch on terrorisim, terrorist tactics, and the tretises of various "radical muslim clerics" in an effort to learn the difference between what is presented on the evening news, what I know of "real muslims", and the social relaities of those raised to the Taliban dogma.

Not being an "approved personage" for that information (e.g. not being a member of our government actively persuing intellegence for the prupose of overthrowing someone else's way of life) I would be flagged as a potential terrorist or sympathizer. Or at least there would probably be some sort of investigation launched where-in even the most tenuous of connections would secretly tar me with a dirty brush. Goodness me, that IBitOBear has, on three occasions bought gas from the Texaco insted of his normal Shell station. The proprietor of that Texico franchise once attended a movie in the company of another muslim who once found himself in the company of a cheritable orginazation that once gave money to the wrong Mosque. And within one week of each of these atypical purchases, we found it necessary to raise or lower the National Alertness Hue. We better pick that IBitOBear up for a quick overseas vacation.

Sound all far fetched? It isn't that much of a stretch. Remember that these same government people are talking about tracing associations to 32 (YES THIRTY TWO) degrees of separation.

Hell, I have less than six degrees of Kevin Bacon and I've never been in a movie. (My rommate was in "Pippy Longstocking" when he was a child. 8-). I've only got something like three or four degress to Bush, even though I have never been in politics (My Grandfather was somewhat influential in Annapolis MD politics. 8-)

How many degrees do *you* have to Bin Laden? What if he read Time Magazine every week and his neice is a Harry Potter fan? God forbid your highschool student son heard about the "Anarchist's Cookbook" and looked it up on a dare using the computer in your den.

The problem is that, with respect to terrorisim today, we are playing the newest version of "who's the Jew" that worked out so well for so many over the last 500 or so years.

And the reason that this is so dangerous, is that human beings are *NOTORIOUS* for their inability to tell the difference between "the appearance of improprietary" and "factual guilt."

So with the PATRIOT Act's abandonment of the primary requirements for liberty being lauded by people who beleive that "only terrorists need the protection of privacy", we are one good "purge" away from the next unworkable "final solution" to some vague and unstated problem.

All these "solutions" are like the number 42. Everybody has convinced themselves that 42 is *THE* *ANSWER* but nobody even remotely knows what the question might be.

You blew it

[foreverdisillusioned]

I'm trying to figure out what you're saying, I really am. At first, it sounds fairly reasonable and interesting and stuff.

Unfortunately, I cannot get past the implication that you are one of the many that believe that the universe/human race is only five thousand years old. For me, the discussion stops right there. If you are prepared to throw away all of geology, archeology, paleontology, quantum physics, astronomy, etc. in favor of questionable conclusions drawn from a heavily edited and (mis?)translated book written by unknown authors, then there's nothing left for me to say.

Re:Orwell is Better Still [Re:Old Ben said it best

[Malor]

What a truly amazing display of stereotyping and straw-manning.

I find the last line particularly telling... the implication is that one must always be in favor of war, or be a hypocrite. Apparently, we're not supposed to use our brains for ourselves and determine whether a given conflict is justified.

Orwell really understood part of human behavior, the desire for power; 1984 and Animal Farm are great classics. But I don't think he understood how to fight it, because the mindless jingoism he seems to be advocating will lead straight into those same scenarios. "My country, right or wrong" is a very dangerous attitude. If you'll support those in power no matter what, then eventually you will be used to do things that are wrong, because in the BEST case, leaders are still human and make mistakes. Most of the time, their competence is at least somewhat questionable, and occasionally they shade into outright incompetence. In the worst case, they are actively malignant.

Bush and team are, at least, rather fumbling and inept. What I fear is someone who is both highly competent and highly malignant. The mindless patriots that Orwell seems to be advocating here are exactly the tools this kind (his kind!) of despot needs.

"disorganized, anarchic"

[Bob_Robertson]

There three wonderful writers I can recommend to you: Smith, Kropotkin and Mises.

You might remember Adam Smith, even if you went to American public school. His name is usually mentioned in passing as having proven that government bureaucracy is less efficient than private enterprise. His investigation started by trying to figure out why England, relatively poor in natural resources, was beating the proverbial crap out of much larger countries economically speaking. His legacy lives on in places with tremendous wealth, like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, that has nothing to do with natural resources at all. Just comparatively little market regulation.

Kropotkin was a Russian aristocrat, who traveled in Siberia to study the people who lived there, far removed from any recognizable form of "government". Gee, how could people live? Wouldn't they need some governance to make sure they didn't starve? Let's just say he came back enlightened.

Luckily, Mises has had a wider audience. http://www.mises.org/ has most of his writings available, along with a large collection of ancillary writings by astounding intellects such as Murry Rothbard.

As far as my voting goes, your other suggested method is, how shall I put it, "suicidal"?

Maybe you thought you were referring to the many millions of eligible voters who choose to not vote specifically because they believe by doing so they are removing their consent from the corrupt, abusive thing we label "government". If so, then you're still confused because there are quite a number of different ways to register displeasure with the people in power. Not voting is one of them.

Less than half of the eligible voters register to vote. Less than half of those registered do vote. Getting 51% of that little number is hardly a mandate by any rational measure.

I gladly stand with the 87% who didn't vote for anyone presently in power.

Bob-