Slashdot Mirror
The Continuing Hunt for PATRIOT Act Abuses
Throtex writes "Orin Kerr, Associate Professor of Law at George Washington University writes at The Volokh Conspiracy that the Department of Justice is having trouble finding abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act. This follows from the fact that what the media originally aired as abuses were merely allegations of abuse at the time. Could it be that there has just been a lot of fuss over nothing?"
in soviet russia outside contact jokes you!
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
I know you understand that he meant "can and can get away with it." No one is dumb enough to not. Stop pretending to be.
Assume that an unknown poster on *Slashdot* means something they don't say? I think you'd have to be stupid to make such an assumption. You must be new here.
Closing gaping security holes in a law
Such as?
The power to arrest whoever you feel like is bad.
As the PATRIOT Act does not give authorities that power, you appear to be speaking dishonestly here. Though I welcome your taking the opportunity to clarify your remarks.
"National Security" [includes] "Anything that might lead to Civil Law"
Face it, America, you have lost control of your government, and it is running amok. PATRIOT Act was among the last 'acts' of a grand tragic play that may as well be called "The Death of America".
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
How come "ad hominim" and "straw man attacks"(basic logical flaws) are considered insightful? Oh, did I also detect alot of "slippery slope" theories as well?? You need to pull your head out of that "everyone is naturally good" pie in the sky dream of yours and go talk to the families of the people killed on that morning in 2001. Simply grow up and drop the "mightier than thou" routine.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
This IS a real issue, and the only clouding of real issues going on right now is
A) the fact that the Guantanamo issue is seperate but being spoken of in here (which is true, it is a seperate issue and doesn't have a relevant place here) B) the dismissal of the Patriot Act as being some kind of harmless bill. The revision of our core beliefs as a country is not harmless, and the only Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt that exists in my mind is the (quite valid) Fear that this shows a disdain for our basic rights, the very real uncertainty about the possibility of it being expanded (also valid, do a quick Google on the Patriot Act II and the pending vote to extend the original Patriot Act), and the honest and real doubt about the motives behind creating such a blatent violation of our founding principles.
You use FUD as if it's some kind of accusatory finger, as if you can throw a quick label on those who oppose it and they are suddenly wrong. Unfortunately for that appeal to ridicule, the fear, uncertainty, and doubt are not without justification. There are certain beliefs that this country was founded upon: to be a member of this country is to, implicitly (by birth) or explicitly (by immigration and citizenship) value those core beliefs.
When those beliefs are challenged or thrown into upheaval (even in theory only: even if they had never been put into actual practice and were only there for some theoretical future use), we have every right to doubt it, to challenge it, and to fight against it.
Why? Because the Government has broken its moral contract. Our continued stay in the United States implies a moral contract with our Government, one that is partly defined by our explicit contract known as the Constitution and its subsequent Amendments. When those are challenged, without our approval and against the basic beliefs that we hold in our implicit agreement, it gives us every right to question it. To say that we don't have that right is to imply that we do not have the freedom to dictate the terms of our contract: which is to imply that we are living in an Authoritarian society. I didn't sign up for that contract, and no American that believes in our core ideal of freedom would either (simply because they are Diametrically opposed).
So no, the Patriot Act is indeed a real problem, and to me those who raise questions about the Patriot Act are the real Patriots, and should not be dismissed so carelessly by you or anyone else.
-Vendal Thornheart
Content goes here
Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
Dude, only American citizens get due process. Only POWs get due process. You have to qualify as a POW...you don't get it automatically because you were fighting. You have to, like, be in uniform and stuff.
These are bad guys we're dealing with. They don't get the benefit of the doubt. They are not the people that the framers of the Geneva Convention had in mind when they wrote it (you can tell by the fact that the GC specifically excludes them on a number of criteria).
God almighty, when did the US Bill of Rights start applying to everyone? Did I miss that memo? We've even in our own history not applied it to people in this very country!!! Now we're giving it to terrorists that aren't fighting in uniform as part of an organized army in a declared war??? No, I think not.
[Cartman voice]: you hippies are really starting to piss me off!
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
This is the first I've heard of that. Link please.
Do you remember when the Abu Ghraib story broke? It was April 28, 2004. General Taguba finished his infamous report two months before that.
See the timeline.
I do not consider that situation was dealt with appropriately.
What would have been appropriate?
I would like to restate that to say that the wanted to act, regardless of evidence, and was willing to act unilaterally.
"Regardless of evidence" is opinion. We could talk for a long long time about the reasons why the U.S. went to war. As to willingness to act unilaterally: yes, of course. This is a given, in all situations. The U.S. is and should always be willing to act unilaterally when its own security interests are at stake.
Any President not willing to act unilaterally in defense of U.S. security interests is not fit to be President, because he would not be upholding the Constitution, which gives him the obligation to defend the nation. Clinton acted unilaterally when he bombed Baghdad in 1998; Bush never acted so unilaterally.
The question is not willingness to act unilaterally. The question is whether the war itself was justified, unilaterally or not.
You have been wrong because your brand of fundamentalist conservatism which you share with your alma matter teaches mythology contrary to the evidence that God has left for us, simply because it is inconsistent with someone's edition of "holy scripture."
Those of us who count ourselves as true conservatives do not squander precious resources to fight unwinnable wars designed to steal the same resources they squander.
Do you realize what would happen to OSDN if someone posted illegal porn on one of your servers, and the prosecution called you to the stand to state your views about the appropriate punnishment for explaining sex to children?
I demand that you resign.