Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I cannot say that I feel very comfortable about some of the broad-based stuff that the patriot act allows governmental agencies, but this country does have a history of curtailing civil rights during a wartime footing.
The question still remains, is this really helping? and are we hurting more people than helping?
The problem with the PATRIOT act is that it directly urinates on the fourth amendment.
Perhaps you should read it... Basically, anyone doing anything "criminal" can be treated as a "terrorist" -- sounds innocuous until you realize that speeding on the highway on your way to work is considered to be "criminal."
The thing is, that you don't have to be a "paranoid governmental conspiricy theorist" to now get spied upon or worse.
I went to Washington D.C. on some business, and I had shipped my suitcase via UPS to my hotel beforehand. Since I was only traveling with my laptop, a camera, and a single change of clothing in my backpack, I was searched and double searched for over an hour.
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"
If you stop to think for a minute, maybe there's a reason why there are no examples of secret warrants being excercised or library, etc. records being searched. Do you suppose it has anything to do with the unrestrained power the PA grants the executive to do these things SECRETLY?
"Maybe if we had some more original thought in congress, stuff like this wouldn't happen end rant"
It's not going to happen. The US system is a stable duopoly - even if a third party were to rise up, it would only displace one of the two current parties. Try looking at some basic duopoly theory - location theory with one product (i.e. the current policy) is an exact analogy between economics and politics.
Where would you place yourself? Both dead in the center. One side takes left, one side takes right. Sure, you're trying to differentiate yourself to squabble over the center, but it's all fluff. The US political system is not designed for original thought. If you want to truly change that, you need to change the election process, not either party.
Mind you, it has its strengths and weaknesses. Here we have more original thought, more parties, but also more compromises, more blameshifting, vague and shifting governments and parlamentary support. Everybody is trying to push their politics, even within their own coalition. (for you US guys: several parties working together)
However, it has also allowed you to choose a party closer to your own political view, as they differ in economic policy, social policy, district policy, crime policy, domestic and foreign policy and so on. Whereas in the US, you have the republican policy, and the democratic policy. That's it. Of course, we have the whole EU thing which complicates things a bit too...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Probably the greatest irony of the whole Terrorism War is the claim that we in the USA have never faced this type of situation before. Actually it is profoundly a normal condition for the world and our formation as a nation arose out of dealing properly with and essentially disposing of terrorism .
Short history:
The USA in its Revolutiary war faced this. It was much of the cause for the war was the state sponsored terrorism by England. To wit: " He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." ~ US Declaration of Independence In Congress July 4 1776.
This repeated itself in the War of 1812 known in Europe variously as the 7 years war. In Alabama where I live it is known as the "Creek Indian War" and in Indiana it is famous for other reasons. The English supported a confederacy of 5 Indian Tribes to MURDER and TERRORIZE on the US Western Frontier. The Battle at Tippicanoe was the result of this. In Alabama the action progressed from Huntsville, to Horseshoe Bend. The battle was to stop the Creeks from raiding Tennesse and was supported by the Cherokee Indians. I could continue but this British supported State Sponsored Terrorism agains the USA and even against its Indian Populations went on eventually peaking in the Plains Indian wars. (Second to the US Civil War the most serious US Military actions) and finally decreasing under Hudsons Bay Company support and stopping in Norther California and Oregon in the period just before 1915.
Some other supporters of terrorism penetrated the USA at intervals with most events coming to a halt with the US Nuclear development at the end of World War II. We have had a short period without terrorism being significant since. It appears we are back into it.
There is a profound point here: The USA is no Flebe in the dealing with Terrorism. We developed our Art of Citizenship which puzzles most foreigners as a result of the continual terror attacks. It is in fact the Federal effort to destroy this art that left us volunerable to the problem at this time. The Patriot Act further diminishes the role of citizens and further endangers our people.
Yesterday the head "Patriot Act" man himself Mr. Ridge went out to warn us of the danger but left us with nothing to look for and nothing to do but cower in fear. That is not accidental. These men want us cowering in fear. It was Yesterday that they cowed our US House into without amendment continuing the US Patriot Act! They would celebrate another Al Qaeda attack as it would empower them even more at the hands of ignorant masses who think this is a new problem.
As an acid test of the facts here I provide the following question. Where is the phone number I can call to promptly and properly have Illegal or Undesirable Aliens DEPORTED? The facts show that this should have been the highest priority of the US Government on September 12, 2001. Until this exists where such persons may be promptly and properly dealt with we in the USA shall cower in fear. When it exists we may dissolve the Department of Homeland Security and live in peace and safety. There is no denying this fact! It is not opinion or rant. It is simply the proved fact of our history! We dealt with all the terrorism of the past by cooperation and support of the citizens natural right to self defense. To continue on this current course of denying such is to progress streight into the tyranny of Adolph Hitler and his Gestapo and SS.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Allright, so I like "freedom of speech", and I also like "Information wants to be free".
Lets trade: The governement can know everything I do. AS long as -I- may know everything the governement knows. About everything. All.
No more dirty little secrets. No more "we cant tell for state security". Nothing. While we are at it, same goes for businesses.
Also no more privacy in the public space. But be reasonable, you dont have that already.
Remember kids; Information does not kill people. Information that -some people know and others do not- does.
Donny Rumsfelt said best: "There are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.." etc. Well! Lets get rid of it!
"/Dread"
How many of you have actually taken the time to write or call your local representative? You would be suprised how approachable and responsive they really are. Thier districts are relatively small, and they have by far the most sensitivity to thier constituents of any branch.
I recently wrote to my local rep. expressing my concerns about the DMCA, the proposed INDUCE act and copyright legislation in general. Within a week I received a nice, substantive letter with his position on the issue, a summary of all related bills currently in progress or under consideration, and his take on them. True, the letter was probably boiler-plate although considering it's substance, it's apparent he is at least informed on the issue, and cares enough about what I think to respond in a timely manner.
When the difference between getting elected or not can come down to hundreds, or sometimes dozens, of votes they tend to pay attention when people don't like what they are doing.
The President can have half the country hate him, and still get elected. A senator can have half of a state hate him (and the bigger the state, the less an individual matters), and still get elected. A rep can lose with a well-placed handful of people hating him, and they know it. And as the closeness of the vote in the article shows, getting one rep to shift closer to your ideal CAN potentially make a substantive difference in U.S. policy.
So if you have something to say about it, take the time to address it to them directly. It isn't much harder than commenting here on /., and is likely to be quite a bit more effective.
Is it a coincidence that Tom Ridge announced yesterday that terrorist are planning an attack?
Right in the middle of the vote?
I'm an American and I can tell you what it felt like to me:
So there you have it. Some may call me "unpatriotic". Others may even want to "detain" me so I don't "cause any harm". Thankfully, I'm not the only one in this country who feels the way I do. But it sure feels like it.
Nathan's blog
The Soviets lived in constant fear of Big Brother because unlike our government,
Not really.
You'd actually have to do something to get onto their shitlist. For most, who did not care, the led a boring but safe life.
My parents were communists in the early 60-ties, and my uncle married a girl from Eastern Germany. In fact, my mother was a Norwegian delegate to a big youth-conference in Bulgaria in 1968, but that became a big wake-up-call for her. Pretty much all the delegates were brain-dead droids, except the Czechoslovakians, who had a government heading in the right direction. That's how my parents viewed the possible future of communism, not authoratorian, more anarchistic. While they were there, the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia. To my parents, that's the straw that broke the camels' back, and they resigned.
They also made some moves towards their Eastern German friends, which made my parents enter the STASI shitlist. It didn't really matter to them, but it has been very interesting to look in the STASI archives now. They knew pretty much everything.
To those never entering the shitlist, what made a difference was the constant pounding of head against the beaurocratic brickwall, the humiliation of "sorry, you're not allowed to enter that flight", "you're not authorized by proper authorities", always have to submit to some greater authority. Always hearing "you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong". To most, that's something they could live with. And what it would take to change it had very little to do with leadership, it had to do with people getting off their asses.
My cousin (the son of the Eastern German), studied three years in Jacksonville. He happened to be just a couple of blocks away from Bush when the planes hit on 911. Because of family that was still in Eastern Germany, they had been there a lot, even though STASI made sure they were thoroughly examined on every visit. He knew what that was about. The privatized US beaurocracy (especially in banks and insurance companies) is not very different from the Eastern German beaurocracy according to him. The three months that he spent in the US after 911, he felt that the US had lost most of its lead on Soviet-era Eastern Germany.
That includes freedom from reprisal from government. Look here to know what happens if you try to say that abstinence only is wrong
Now, the hard part in Eastern Germany was to get on the shitlist. You would actually have to do something. They did in fact not have the resources to keep a tab on everyone.
With Echelon, they can.
Kudos to the bookstore owner Joyce Meskis, who not only refused, but took the case to the Colorado Supreme Court and won.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/0 6/1410206
I shop at that store and buy anything from cookbooks to leftist political works to sci-fi/fantasy. And I'll keep shopping there not only cause it's a great place, but b/c they are on the right side of the issue in my book
So there's your example for you. You can Google for a lot more examples of bookstores and libraries having to fight against these intrusions in your private reading habits. What you read is your business, and I'm d*mn happy there's a lot of bookstore owners and librarians willing to stand up for my (and your) 1st Ammendment rights.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Think a moment about the Constitution, and then since this is /. think about computer and network security.
The Constitution was written the way it was because the Founding Fathers didn't trust Governemt, including the one they were creating. Therefore they created a Government with three independent branches, each with checks and balances on the other two branches, in an attempt to create a trustworthy system. In security-speak, they attempted to create an open, trustworthy system so that it would function correctly even if some particular untrustworty components were incorporated. (elected or appointed)
It's ALL about trust, plain and simple.
The President is head of the Executive Branch, and Commander In Chief, but only Congress can declare War. Of course, leading up to the Gulf War II, Congress gave the President a blank check to make War. The only control they appeared to put on it was 'payable to Iraq', but the amount, date, and decision whether or not to exercise were not filled in.
The Legislative Branch makes laws, and the Executive Branch enforces them, but since enforcement of the law essentially deprives the accused/convicted of Constitutional Rights, the Judicial Branch is involved in the process, both in warrants and in judging and sentencing. The Patriot Act significantly weakens the Judicial Branch's participation in the warrant process. (This sentence keeps the post on-topic)
Back to transparency, for a moment. Transparency allows us to see the checks and balances in action, so that we can see that our government is functioning as designed.
OTOH, when the Government begins to operate in an opaque fashion, it doesn't matter whether or not we trust the Man at the Top. Opacity shrouds downward from the starting point, so it requires that you trust the start point, *and everyone from there on down*. This has particular relevance with respect to Abu Graib. Even if it were just 'a few bad eggs,' the cloak of secrecy gave them the space to operate. Keep in mind that Abu Graib techniques were imported from Guantanamo, another 'cloaked' installation, and we've heard next to *nothing* from there, other than they're being kept in what sounds like dog kennels. Eventually this will come out, too.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I don't think Slashdot has a unified conscience or intellect to reply to your challenge.
For myself I can say I don't care if they keep the vote open an extra 15 minutes. But I do care if they keep the vote open for as long as is necessary to coerce just enough people to get the outcome they want.
If I recall the Medicare vote was kept open half the night while lobbyists for the drug and healthcare industry worked the Capitol building lobby bribing and threatening representatives. A famous case was a politician who was retiring so he couldn't be easily pressured so instead they offered him big contributions for his son's campaign instead.
I can say for myself that if the Democrats did this same BS yes I would care just as much. Perhaps they did do it but I didn't have CSPAN when the Democrats had power. I've watched the Senate and House proceedings, off and on, in the last year or two and what is happening today is deeply, deeply disturbing to anyone who thinks the U.S. is a representative democracy, because it isn't. If you haven't watched CSPAN you should during debate on one of these especially controversial bills. It is an eye opener.
You can ask most of the people in Congress and they will tell you its turned in to a bitter, rancorous, partisan, uncivilized body, that is bending every rule to the breaking point, to an extent no one would have dreamed possible a few years ago.
@de_machina
I want others to know what I read and think when I choose to tell them. Anonymity has value.
Example: Take the DEA looking into purchases made at grocery stores with loyalty cards ( see story here ). Buy too many plastic bags, or too much cold medicine or too much engine starter fluid? Must be a dope dealer. What's too much? Who knows.
Now extend the example to any subject. Buy a book on urban gardening? Must be growing weed. Book on Islam? Terrorist. Book on Secular Humanism? Abortionist. Book by Pat Robertson? Christian anti-abortion sniper.
You point out that right acting people know that just because a person has read Mein Kampf that doesn't mean that person is a supporter of the books ideals. True as far as it goes, but we don't place limits on Governmental power to inconvenience right acting civil servants. We place limits on the Government to prevent abuses.
Give any group unlimited, unchecked authority and someone in that group will abuse that authority.
A Human Right