USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt

The 9/11 terrorists also used cars by foidulus · 2004-07-09 00:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by foidulus · 2004-07-09 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please read:
this
this
this
this
and this
Then we will talk.
Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars by macdaddy · 2004-07-09 01:14 · Score: 5, Informative

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?
The FBI has been used to abuse power before. Ever here of this really nice old man by then name of J.Edgar Hoover? Power like this is meant to ensure continued power. Ever check out a book on kama sutra at the local library for you and the Mrs? Better hope you don't run for public office if someone finds out about it. They'll call your wife a whore and you'll be a pedophile (simple leaks to the media get blown well out of proportion with their creative impulses). Ever check out any book that is critical of a sitting president or a party just because you were curious? Well your political opponent will say, once the info is leaked to the media, that you're an anarchist hell bent on destroying our way of life. 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? The moment we let our private thinking become legal fodder for our government is the day that we can no longer honestly ascend to the ranks of a government official. Slippery slope indeed.
Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars by schtum · 2004-07-09 01:31 · Score: 5, Funny

His argument:
Serious and frightening abuses of power have occurred in the past. Here is a ton of evidence. Let's try to avoid such things in the future.

Your argument:
LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA

Who's being unreasonable?
Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars by Dashing+Leech · 2004-07-09 01:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by cHiphead · 2004-07-09 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--

This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars by k98sven · 2004-07-09 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Morpeth · 2004-07-09 03:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

Actually there was a case locally in Denver, one of our best independent bookstores fought to keep patron records private after some gov't croonies came in demanding them based on Patriot [sic] Act authority.
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
Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars by grassy_knoll · 2004-07-09 04:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

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
Re:The 9/11 terrorists also used cars by Melantha_Bacchae · 2004-07-09 09:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

And They Are Us by treehouse · 2004-07-09 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Ex+Machina · 2004-07-09 00:57 · Score: 5, Funny

What are you talking about???? We have *always* been at war with Eurasia!
Re:And They Are Us by eldacan · 2004-07-09 01:25 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Sure. However:

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.

Well depending on your nationality, maybe you should... somewhat... See http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/
Re:And They Are Us by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-09 01:33 · Score: 5, Informative

>>>>some Siberian gulag

No, the Americans keep their gulag in Cuba.
Re:And They Are Us by 4of12 · 2004-07-09 01:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:And They Are Us by gowen · 2004-07-09 01:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...

--
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Re:And They Are Us by killjoe · 2004-07-09 02:56 · Score: 5, Informative

"Abu Ghraib prisoners were abused, not tortured like they were when Saddam was in power. Their abusers should and will be punished. Their is a fine line between abuse and torture."

THe following items qualify as torture.
Women were raped, Men were raped, men had broomsticks and lightsticks shoved up their asses. 11 people died at least 9 of those were declared to be murder by the military medical examiners. People's legs were ripped open by dogs. People were smeared with feces and held in crucifiction poses for long periods of time. People were crucified on metal beds and jail bar for several days with handcuffs.

All that is detailed in the report put out by the army itself. God only knows what they left out. There are still thousands of pictures which have not been released because we don't really have free press in this country but the politicians who have seen them have described them as sickening. Rumsfeld used the word "sadistic".

Please read the report that the army put out and then go check out some foreign news sources. You are clearny not getting the entire picture from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:And They Are Us by Dovregubbens+Hall · 2004-07-09 02:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Old Ben said it best by garver · 2004-07-09 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Queer+Boy · 2004-07-09 01:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Not to nitpick, but what he said was,
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security."

I think the "essential" and "temporary" parts are especially poignant in this case, as is this great quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

--
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.

Catcher in the Rye by vg30e · 2004-07-09 00:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Arrrrghhhh!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-09 00:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

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:whats the problem with the patriot act? by mattbot+5000 · 2004-07-09 00:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

America beware by imogthe · 2004-07-09 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 :)

Getting "taken" by agents by vg30e · 2004-07-09 01:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

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"

Re:Now everybody make a big deal by Deflagro · 2004-07-09 01:01 · Score: 5, Informative

The problem is, if i email you something saying how to create a virus and take out networks and they see it went to you. You are now suspicious and since that can be seen as 'terrorist' activity, you can be held without a lawyer, or charges, for an indefinite amount of time.
Does that sound like America to you? Sounds like the old Mother Russia or the 3rd Reich.
I'm not even from the US and am so totally against this "ACT". It's terrible that the terrorists have beaten the US of A and they don't even know it.
Our way of life has changed and we fear anything and everyone now.

--
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!

Re:whats the problem with the patriot act? by PalmerEldritch42 · 2004-07-09 01:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Ceci n'est pas une sig.

:wq!

House rules were not broken by konekoniku · 2004-07-09 01:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

What Göring had to say about this by October_30th · 2004-07-09 01:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
The owls are not what they seem

AAARRRGGGGHHH... by cOdEgUru · 2004-07-09 01:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Rapid Nirvana

Not going to happen by Kjella · 2004-07-09 01:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

"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

So do something about it... by TheBigBezona · 2004-07-09 02:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

There is so much focus on the Presidency, and so much hand-wringing about what the big bad government is doing, and in the midst of it so many people seem to forget that we, as individuals, CAN have some influence here.

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.

Re:Okay okay you're right, you're right!!! by Schmendr1ck · 2004-07-09 03:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!!! by dthable · 2004-07-09 04:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

USA PATRIOT Act Survives Amendment Attempt

34 of 1,128 comments (clear)