Slashdot Mirror
Congress to Revisit the Patriot Act
BlakeCaldwell writes "CNet is reporting that both the House and Senate are planning to review the 16 portions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the year, several dealing with computer and Internet surveillance. They're trying to avoid the criticism they received after rushing this bill through in 2001 by holding hearings to review the bill's worth. FTA: 'One hearing disclosed police invoked the Patriot Act 108 times in a 22-month period when surreptitiously entering and searching a home or office without notifying the owner.'"
The following provisions of the USA Patriot Act will expire on Jan. 1, 2006 if not renewed by Congress:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
None of us can deny the fact they put an expiration date on this law. This feature was great forsight and will allow us to (more easily) modify or delete the Patriot Act.
So if the people really do hate the Patriot Act it will be known when it gets modified/deleted.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I guess Republicans must be looking beyond Bush now, and thinking about how they're going to justify the post-911 decisions they made.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's rather hard to believe that we have Senator Fiengold (of all people) to thank for this review. It's always good when cooler heads prevail, but only one cooler head from way out in left field? Amazing. Kudos to Mr. Fiengold.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"CNet is reporting that both the House and Senate are planning to review the 16 portions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the year"
How can they review something they didn't even read in the first place!?
Wasn't this what the Patriot II Act was supposed to do?
In a disused lavatory, in the basement, with the sign "Beware the leopard" on the door.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What is funny is that the Democrats could give a shit about your freedoms either.
Feingold and the rest are driven by "opposite of Bush" regardless of the content.
She voted for it initially, right? Please.
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
~Z
review Audio pronunciation of "review" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-vy)
v. reviewed, reviewing, reviews
v. tr.
1. To look over, study, or examine again.
2. To consider retrospectively; look back on.
3. To examine with an eye to criticism or correction: reviewed the research findings.
4. To write or give a critical report on (a new work or performance, for example).
5. Law. To reexamine (an action or determination) judicially, especially in a higher court, in order to correct possible errors.
6. To subject to a formal inspection, especially a military inspection.
If any of these provisions do actually expire, I'm sure they will turn up again attached to some military spending bill that MUST pass without discussion.
"I don't need drugs to enjoy this, just to enhance it" - Otto
Therefore, this act gives all the flex power to law enforcement they could ever want. Wouldn't surprise me if 10 yr. old kids downloading CDs could be lumped in as "hackers"...
Blow them off entirely.
Put the book under your pillow for osmotic comfort.
Flip through the pages. Sometimes a used book will have a cool movie in the margin.
Give it a breezy, topic-sentence read.
Read it.
Study it, pondering the actual meaning.
--in congress--
Have your staff read, at one of the above levels, and tell you how to vote.
Have your staff wined, dined, and opined by lobbyists, and tell you how to vote.
I don't think the US Constitution really anticipates the modern complexity and bandwidth requirements of Congressional reading, and the mess we 'enjoy' is probably the least-worst way it could be done, though the Information Age might, eventually, improve the situation...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I view this as mere huff & puff. Any items that are not renewed, or are softened, will reappear in the coming months or years as riders on "necessary" bills that will be approved unanimously. These "new" provisions will not have expiration dates, and will not be so widely discussed & lambasted in the public/mainstream media.
The USA PATRIOT Act is merely the USA Act and a money-capturing act. The USA Act is a slight upgrade to the FISA. It does not eliminate the FISA. The USA PATRIOT Act does not eliminate the USA Act. So, when parts of the USA PATRIOT Act expire, do they retroactively expire in the USA Act and then on the FISA? The article doesn't mention any of this at all. It just reinforces the common myth that the USA PATRIOT Act is an original set of provisions instead of the easy to discover fact (visit the Congress' website) that it is a conglomeration of provisions that have been around since 1978.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
They have to update those provisions to get ready for RealID implementation within three years! Now they can invoke PATRIOT when they start scanning your ID's RFID tag without your consent.
Or maybe I'm just paranoid...
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
.. this is all due to be replace with the more concise:
Section 1.0 -- Government good, citizen bad.
Starsucks
Section 226 -- Makes it unlawful to speak of the PATRIOT Act
vodka, straight up, thank you!
I'd just like to relate what my best friend, who is a sergeant on the ground in Iraq, said to me in a recent email. (I posted it in an earlier subject, but I think it's even more relevant here.)
"I'm not sure people understand that we are a much greater threat to ourselves and our way of life than any terrorist could represent, even with the most heinous plans and horrific weapons. The freedoms we curtail, and the unchecked empowerment we grant our government, has the potential to do real harm to the foundation of our nation, whereas terrorists can only damage buildings and kill people. This may sound callous, but at some point you have to decide that there are ideals that are bigger than any personal loss."
This comes from someone who is shot at daily, and who came within inches of death when his humvee was decimated by a VIED. (And to respond to someone's complaint before - I didn't include my buddies name because I haven't been able to ask him if he'd be alright with it. He only gets access to email every couple of weeks.)
Ed Wilson. This guy was a genuine American member of the CIA. As planned, he was negotiating with foreign terrorists "undercover" by providing them with a fake supply of U.S provided firearms.
Then the CIA turned the program around, claiming he was NOT undercover. Framed him, and send him to jail for 20 years.
A dozen government agents got their promotion of a life time for screwing this guy over. Many are still serving in the U.S judicial system today.
Any acts or laws that yield to benefiting any intelligence program is danger. The U.S has a disgusting history of it. Who knows how many innocent people are being contained by the Patriot Act.
Why, does the Patriot Act mention God or something?
The Real ID act just passed in the Senate 100-0. The Patriot Act also passed by an overwhelming majority. No Democrat or Republican is going to stand up for you or your freedom. 100-0 for Real ID! Wake up, America. Stop electing totalitarian corporate puppets.
What they ought to do is get rid of the Patriot Act completely, but hide the exact same language in a bill on, say, the sale of lettuce. Then, they can keep doing all this invasive stuff without people talking about it nonstop.
Who are they trying to kid here? They pushed that Reael ID thing though last night and it was headlines on CNN and Fox News this morning. I'm not sure who said this, but I saw a saying that I think fits right in here:
"Only a Government afraid of its citizens tries to control them."
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
How will the people's hatred of the Act be known, when Congress will do whatever it wants? How will the people even know they hate "the Act", when the news media don't report its hateful provisions, its abuses, its failures? With a few more Republicans in Congress since the one that created and passed the Act, who owe their offices to the Republican machine that funded and organized their campaigns, why should they change any of the Act that they all like so much?
As Bush said, Republicans see the 2004 election as an "accountability moment", which has now passed. There's 3/4 of an election cycle to come before the next one, in 11/2006 - plenty of time to spin up some positive accountability, like sending another $300 "tax cut" check to people, while increasing their share of the Federal debt by many times that amount.
People do hate the kind of unaccountable, unfettered government intrusion that the Patriot Act authorizes. That's why Republicans constantly invoke fear of that kind of "big government" intrusion when running for office, which people then vote for. But the electoral system, including the parties and the media, is badly broken. When the Patriot Act survives this nominal "extension" review, all we'll really know is that the people's hatred of it doesn't matter. Those of us paying attention will know, anyway - me, and the politicians making their living off the broken machine.
--
make install -not war
I guess Democrats must be looking beyond trying to get Kerry elected now, and thinking about how they're going to justify the post-911 decisions they made.
You can't "protect us from terrorists." It isn't possible. Ever.
The tenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing just passed. A single white man used diesel fuel and fertilizer, two of the most common things in America, to blow up a building.
You just *cannot* stop that, you cannot prevent it, you cannot catch such a person ahead except through extraordinary luck. A neighbour has to notice what the guy is making in his shed.
Terrorism is like murder. It's so easy, there's no point trying to catch murderers and terrorists before their first offense. All you can do is try to reduce the factors that motivate the crime and punish the perpetrators after, should they survive.
None of these powers will protect you. Even if every man woman and child in America were tracked by GPS twenty four hours a day, you would still have nutjobs buying the ordinary chemicals to build bombs and then exploding them, or stealing girls from shopping malls, or whatever. Hell, you'd have more, because everyone would be so crazy from being watched all the time.
America needs to heal its society, not crush all opposition.
Mod the parent up man!
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Check the voting record, the democrats supported it by an overwhelming majority as well. This will not be a campaign issue for Republicans.
A lot of this 100% that "remains in effect" is actually expiring shortly. The act of reviewing it may well have the result of more of it being amended or removed. I fail to see how a handful of nasty riders on a bill for a national standard for identification constitutes "totalitarian corporate puppets."
...but is it art?
Haw haw, so much for revisiting the Patriot Act!
I don't know if has something to do with the religious culture in the US but too many citizens feel that if they just give some $ to a charity it will absolve them of guilt due to inaction.
Max Cleland.
The Republicans destroyed that dude because he only went so far as to delay the passage of the Patriot Act originally. Cleland, due to losing 3 limbs in Vietnam(not due to heroics, but from dropping a grenade and trying to pick it up instead of kick it away, like you are trained to do) was considered untouchable and a lock for re-election to the Senate.
No one in Congress is going to become the next Max Cleland, just for your precious Civil Rights, so get used to it. Congress is made up of people who do nothing but protect themselves for their next election, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING for you.
Interesting...full story can be found here.
Odd how just when the Patriot Act comes up for review, a small plane flying off course happens by to remind us all that we must FEAR and OBEY...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
"Most people don't get past a knee jerk reaction and bother to look at what is really in Patriot beyond the FUD."
And this is just the summary of items scheduled to be repealed automatically. Some of the items that are NOT in the "sunset" clause are equally onerous.
Like the combination of Sections 201 and 805 which creates a net so ridiculously broad that every self-claimed conservative American should be jumping all over it as the gateway to a potential police state.
But no, instead many of these "conservatives" bend over like sheep under the false shiny label of "patriotism".
To which I would remind them all of the following:
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison
What we are seeing here is the system at work. Bad laws get passed, but sooner or later they are amended or taken off the books.
...but is it art?
And he constantly gets reelected year after year. He is the only person out of 600+ that has the backbone to stand up for our rights. Sadly, he is one out of the many who care about our freedoms and preserving them.
I didn't include my buddies name because I haven't been able to ask him if he'd be alright with it. He only gets access to email every couple of weeks.)
In other words, you made it up.
The ACLU is on record AGAINST an individual's right to bear arms. They claim to support a "collective right" which means we can arm the national guard.
What? Me? Sig?
Every law should have an expiration date. This would keep the important laws on the books (since they'd be easily renewed) and let the stupid or unpopular ones lapse. Also, it would take up a lot of Congress' time renewing old laws and they'd have less time to shove their stupid new laws down our gullets..
The slashcode needs a special "6" score just for incredibly insightful comments like this. Seriously, there's so many old laws on the books that need to be retired.
Now, how to get this into law...?
I have no tag line
(who ran as a Rep) And very good guy, one of the few politicians that stands up for his principles and individual freedoms. That's why there will never be a unanimous passage of bills like this in the House -- just the Senate. Unfortunately, Rep. Ron Paul is only one man. My Democrat friends think it's incredibly sad that only a Libertarian these days will stand up against Republicans. If you do a thomas.loc.gov search, you'll see Ron Paul has authored a number of bills to rescind laws and restore rights to Americans. Unfortunately, most of these never get anywhere. Because neither Democrat nor Republican will stand with the lone Libertarian in restoring freedoms to Americans. Flamebait? Look at the voting record and the bill history before you're so quick to judge. It's all there and well documented.
> How can they review something they didn't even read in the first place!?
It is utterly unbelievable that these cretins are allowed to make laws and regulations for all, and they can't even be bothered to read what they are voting on....
It is more unbelievable that the "rules" allow them to attach "riders" to other bills, so they can get things passed without any discussion.
But the worst thing is that this is accepted behaviour by everyone and there isn't a huge public outcry about it!
I mean COME ON!!!! Why are you so pro-terrorist?!!!
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Back when the patriot act was first passed, I went out of my way to give money to the ACLU under the belief that they would be the one organization with the balls and legal firepower needed to fight this.
Imagine my surprise when the ACLU decided instead to involve itself in California's recall election. Imagine my shock and disappointment when I discovered that they were over there filing frivilous motions with little or no legal merit in order to disrupt the recall process. All because those who now run the once great organization are so politically polarized and zealous that they're willing to sell out the organization in order to prevent a popular candidate from being elected when that candidate is a Republican.
Once upon a time the ACLU was known for fighting the good fight, for taking up unpopular causes because it was the right thing to do and because doing so helped to strengthen and protect the values of personal individual freedom that make America the greatest country on earth.
It would seem that those days are now long past. It is truly tragic to see an organization that was once one of our most staunch defenders of liberty become little more than a subversive tool of the far left.
If you want to fight the patriot act, give money to the EFF, but don't waste it on the ACLU because they're just going to waste the money trying to shove far left nonsense down the throat of a nation that finds it increasingly unpalatable.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Ahh Yes, the American Civil Liberals Union.
I somehow keep getting unsolicited memership notifications from them. No wonder they have so many members... They sign everyone up themselves.
Abstract:
This article was the last straw for me. I've just been seeing more and more infuriating political articles that I wish I could take action against. So my idea is that for every article on a subject worth protesting, a reader makes a post with a special designated subject line such as "WAYS YOU CAN HELP". Then he/she lists the various ways you can take action to actually protest the thing. I propose we order the ways of taking action by how much you have to care about the issue to take the action. I have an example for this article at the end of this post.
Proposed Solution:
The basics are presented in the abstract, but some more details are that people comment on this post and reccomend additions, and corrections. Finally when everyone has had their say, someone compiles the official "take action" document and posts it on a permanment webpage as the start of a wiki for the issue.
Example for this article:
Subject line: "WAYS YOU CAN HELP"
Comment:
How you can help based on how much you care:
1. The fate of the world depends on fixing this:
Start a website and non-profit devoted to fixing this issue. Collect donations and hire lobbyists to buy a fix.
2. I worry about this issue all day!
Option A. Pay a visit to the relevant lawmaker.
Option B. Plan a protest.
Option C. Start a petition (but make sure it's the kind that matters)
3. This is a big problem:
Call the relevant lawmaker, explain your concerns.
4. This is a medium problem:
Write a handwritten letter to your lawmaker (email s and faxes don't work!)
5. This is a minor problem:
Donate money
6. I think I care but I don't really:
Complain about it on Slashdot and don't do anything.
Section 202 -- Gives federal officials the authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.
Seems that national security interests are already covered by Section 201. Section 202 smells like something totally irrelevant to counterterrorism at all.
Think about it - depending on how they interpret "computer abuse", Section 201 is practially a ticket to arbitrary wiretap.
...is a happy citizen.
Congratulations on letting the B's of today turn your country into Oceania.
when noone would speak up against obviously unconstitutional things because they were all scared of someone who distorted things for personal gain.
Same time, same fear, same response.
You're either sheep or you're being fleeced. Wake up and smell the sheep dip.
Will in Seattle
if only.
At least then liberals (as they are painted, not as they are) would be up in arms over it.
The truth about Led Zep should never be told on
These need to be modded up...it's no coincidence that this scare happened this week.
How fucking stupid do they think we are, anyway?
I recommend reading the actual sections since most of the "summaries" of the sections that I have seen are translations, usually leaning to one way or another.
Not pointing any fingers here, just recommending you read the actual text yourself. A lot of folks went ballistic over the massive new erosion of our rights when those rights were aleady in jeopardy if you were a drug dealer or traficker. They've simply extended the power they already to terrorism suspects.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
Does anyone plan to read it this time?
Most of congress didn't even read the bloody thing 4 years ago, all they are going to do is use this schedule as an excuse to actually take some time to study a copy of the act to make sure they didn't sign anything stupid, in fact they will most likely end up using it as a coffee-mat. There should be a list of which politicians have actually read which bills and to get on the list you should have to pass a short test.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The Constitution obviously has failed to protect the posterity of the framers. Its time to revisit the whole idea of the United States.
Seastead this.
For instance, "terrorism" was recently extended to include a meth lab in Virginia. Bad? sure. Terrorism? not hardly. Prosecutors will use anything available - they're forced to do so.
I forget what 8 was for.
Just like the "new" Bin Laden tape that appeared mere days before the presidential election.. I'm not saying the whole terrorism thing was an inside job, but the legislature is certainly milking it for all it's worth.
What a load of crap.... If somone wrote that in the military that would NEVER get passed their censors and that person would be diciplined.
The "Patriot" Act has more to do with Despotism than Patriotism. Powers that the Act give are more in line what dictators would want than what a so called "free and democratic" society would strive for.
I thought we had a democracy in the US and representatives that represent thir citizens. The vast majority of US citizens is opposed to the controversial patriot act. How can our "representatives" even consider renewing it. Something does not add up here. Are we being lied to?
The section has already been abused.
When a lawyer is charged with committing a crime by speaking to the media we have a problem....
I'm not saying I agree with her, but come on!
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Like you, I once became a card carrying member of the ACLU. In fact, though my membership has expired, I believe I still have the card in my wallet... yep, I do.
I joined on July 4th, 2002. In the wake of September 11th, joining both the ACLU and the National Guard seemed like the responsible thing to do.
I have never had an organization sell my name and contact info to more idiot organizations than the ACLU did. Within two weeks I was getting snail mail spam from every lunatic organization in America that is somehow considered "Left-wing."
Increase Farm Subsidies. Legalize Drugs. Contribute To The Democratic Party. Bush Is Evil. Bush Is Really Evil. You Live In A Facist Theocracy And Don't Know It. Did We Mention Bush Is Evil? You Didn't Vote For Bush, Right?
I considered the ACLU a good organization who existed to defend my civil liberties in the courts. They seem to consider me a sucker and a Democrat, neither one of which (I hope) apply.
If you ever watch Fox News and think, "There sure are a lot of wacko Republicans, where are all the wacko Democrats?" be warned: you are about to find out.
Well yes i can see the foresight in putting a time limit to review the legaslature. But then again did they not already do this in Clinton's time with the Assult rifle bill (sorry i don't have the name to hand and have spent too long on google today to find out). This bill banned the sale of assult rifles; automatic weapons; large magasines etc to ordinary americans.
Every american can still get (provided they meet whatever criterion the state they are in specify) all types of firearm. This bill had a 10 year expiry, after which time it could be reviewed (this was the only way to get the bill through both houses; which at the time were, and still are, controlled by the republicans). It was however expected to be renewed as, well, automatic assult rifles really don't have a use for legal purposes.
However as Bush was in power at the time (and preoccupied with his "War on terror") and the expiry date was missed. This bill lapsed and you can now buy automatic assult rifles in america oh what foresight.
So my point is don't rely on the politicians to always do what is sensible, especially with Bush still in power and the republicans controling both houses. Hey they could still remove more of the freedoms from the land of the free....
Don't count on the act being repealed this is politics not common sense.
Was the RealID bill actually passed?
I was looking for the text of the actual bill that passed, and although the version that passed the House included the RealID bill, the version that passed the Senate does not appear to. (from thomas.loc.gov, searching for bill HR1268)
Apparently they think we are really fucking stupid, dumber than a sack of shit. After trying to talk to my family about politics and what-not, I am hesitant to contest that conclusion, which is utterly depressing. I fear that by the time they finally realize what's happening that it will be too late for us all. $DIETY help us indeed.
WTF FTA?
On august 6th 2001 PDB( Presidential Daily Breefing) With the heading of 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States.'
What does the president do?
Well nothing.
A month before 9/11 Moussaoui (Supposed 20th hijacker) is arrested by the FBI on immigration charges but was drawn to the attention of FBI when he wanted to learn to fly 747's on the flight simmulators.
What does the FBI do?
Well nothing because Counterterrorism officials at F.B.I. headquarters were aware of Mr. Moussaoui's case, partly because they had evaluated and rejected requests by agents in Minnesota to examine Mr. Moussaoui's computer. Law enforcement officials said FBI counterterrorism analysts discussed the case in at least two secure conference calls that included their counterparts at the CIA. They also consulted with the NSA, which eavesdrops on communications around the world.
Well based on these two points alone one could say see thats why we need Patriot Act, to protect us from future atacks!
Well if you look deeper into these one can also say that even with out Patriot Act We knew enough and FBI Director Could have authorized the search of his computer. Which in turn would have shed more light on 9/11.
And Maybe Just Maybe Prevented it from happening!
But could it be, that perhaps with preasure from above(the white house) They did not want to prevent 9/11 for they were the ones that planed the whole thing where they can in turn achive what Communist Stallinist had all along from days after the WWII and that is a Police State and total control over us, the slaves of the Ruling Elite.
Those that think no way man you are full of shit our gov. is here to protect us!!!
I tell you this look look into how the Vietnam war got started.
Look into The Operation Northwood documents
And tell me if Democrats or Republicans are the right choice for the USA.
Now I am not an expert on the politcs and netiher is any of us geeks on /. but from reading http://www.wsws.org/ I have come to terms that both Democrats and Republicans (The Ruling Elite) is thinking only of their big bussiness intrests and not for us the slaves of the system which was after all was built on our backs.
Given that two of those three publicly favor the Republican Party, and the third is owned by a British parent company, and that there is practically zero accountability in regard to fairness and accuracy of their products, is there any wonder that people are getting just a little bit cynical?
"This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
A good example is the article here. "One hearing disclosed police invoked the Patriot Act 108 times in a 22-month period" would be a much more useful piece of information if we got a chance to see whether the cases in question did, in fact, involve terrorism.
Actually, the quote is misleading and irrelevant. Sec. 213 "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant" does not expire. Ever. I've posted this before, but I think it bears repeating...
The US government has been trying to slip this one by us since well before 9/11. It was shot down at least three times in recent history. First it was the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act (CESA). Then the Clinton administration tried to push it through with a meth bill. When that failed, they tried to sneak in through as an amendment to a bankruptcy bill. All the while, the DOJ, led by Reno, was claiming to already have this power without any need for additional legislation in the Nicodemo Scarfo case.
Well, with the PATRIOT ACT, they finally got it. Your only hope now is to have it shot down in the Supreme Court. Both parties have been pushing for this for some time. The People had already spoken. We consistently and emphatically told them 'hell no'. It's clear that Congress has stopped representing the people.
If only we had a Congress and Senate with more of his ilk!
Sadly, "Dr. NO" seems to be one of a kind.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
before Congress approved it and the President signed it into law? That Congress was bullied into signing it without getting to read it?
Is you DO NOT TALK about the PATRIOT Act!
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Join this instead.
The left and right coming together against tyranny.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
it should be obvious that we'll have to give up a few civil liberties in the interest of safety. When the threat of terrorism is gone, and we're back at 'green', then sure, we can get our freedoms back.
Until then, well, this is a different world, after all.
I'm sure the Departement of Homeland Security wil let us know when it's safe to be free again.
Until then, we should all keep our mouths shut and thank our DHS overlords for doing so much to keep our beloved Democracy Free! Er, um, Free once the Evildoers are caught and brough to Justice! Well, not exactly Justice, but a secret military tribunal.
THEN we'll have Freedom!!!
I thought we had a democracy in the US and representatives that represent thir citizens.
The US is a republic, not a democracy.
The vast majority of US citizens is opposed to the controversial patriot act.
You and I may be, but sadly, the vast majority is in favor of this.
This is not good for a country that claims to represent the free world.
As a member of the rest of "the free world", can I ask America, colletively, to stop claiming to represent us? No one asked you to. Yet Americans repeatedly claim to be the leader of the free world. This more than a little threatening to the rest of us, who never said we wanted you in charge.
Self-appointed "leaders of the free world" are little better than any other self-appointed dicator. I don't welcome U.S. military rule: I lived through the cold-war. The US and Russia went back and forth like a couple of global terrorists: constantly threatening to blow everyone on the planet up if their latest set of demands weren't met.
Frankly, the rest of the world could care less at this point if the US had to endure a government it didn't like: unlike you, we think the continued existance of the human race is more important than American chest-thumping nationalism. Call us crazy for wanting to live!
So, just stop pretending you represent us, and our interests, when it's patently clear that the people of the US care only for themselves. You were ready to kill us all to serve your ideology: and we won't forget it. Ever.
--
AC
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since the Ballot box seems broken,
what about other ideas?
A Petition for Redress?
Or perhaps a Jury Strike?
I.E. as a Juror I would vote innocent on ALL non-violent federal crimes.
I wonder what the federal reaction would be?
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Damn, but i used up all my points yesterday...
We must keep the focus of our rage for 9/11 against the real enemy, ourselves.
Yeah, I'm really panicking at the thought of great squadrons of Piper Cubs obliterating American cities. This incident has scared me straight.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
What the fuck kind of drugs are you on?
In 1993 Islamist terrorists put a 600 kg bomb under the World Trade Center. It made a few papers... Hell, they even made a movie of it in 1997.
After that, I never went anywhere near the place. If terrorists tried to destroy the towers once, and failed, they're not going to simply give up. I couldn't comprehend why anybody would want to work there after that. It was a marked building -- it may as well have had a big target painted on the side. They planted a bomb under it, intending to take down both towers; how much clearer a message do they need to send for you to get it?
In the 1997 movie about it, Yousef said "Next time, we will bring them BOTH down". Yup...
What rock were you living under, exactly, that made you think it wouldn't happen?
If so, you must have been ignoring the foreign terrorists setting off bombs underneath New York's tallest skyscrapers.
What kind of message would have gotten through to you? A postcard from Osama to Dubya saying "Hello from sunny Afghanistan! We're going to blow up some skyscrapers in New York on the 11th..."?
It boggles my mind that some people really didn't see this coming.
like saying "my client is withdrawing his support for a moratorium on violence" is really
a terrorist act?
It is BS plain and simple. It sends a message to lawyers willing to defend the accused. That was its purpose.
If she had passed along CONCRETE orders saying "commit terrorist act X" then I'd agree with you. Notice they did not charge her with any such thing. Only that she spoke to the media about the "sheiks" moratorium, and made "noise" during visits.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
I'll trade Detroit for Toronto, not for toast though, Detroit can be a part of Canada while Toronto will be part of the US. Montreal as well, they've got a fantastic jazz festival.
FalconShould there be a Law?
(Apologies for using X as my separator character. Stupid lameness filter!)
I did look at his legislative record. He's not a Libertarian. If he were, he would be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. He would not support government intrusion into individual liberties in an unconstitutional manner.
Ron Paul is fiscally conservative AND socially conservative (including supporting federal gov't intrusion into your life). That makes him a Republican -- or at least, it makes him what the Republicans USED to be. (They're now fiscally liberal and socially conservative.)
Here are some gems from his record. These are bills he AUTHORED, not just voted "yes" on. I'm not going to build all the links, but this comes from a simple "bill sponsor" search on http://thomas.loc.gov/ -- see for yourself!
xxxxxxxxxxxx
20. H.R.776 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
A bill to define abortion as murder. No fiscal component at all. Does nothing to encourage small government. It's just social conservatism at the expense of individual rights. Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
21. H.R.777 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Fiscally conservative, yes. Also very socially conservative -- not a hallmark of Libertarianism. It outlaws federal funding of ANY family planning activity. What if we want to educate poor people not to have children they can't afford to support? Not permitted under this bill.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
23. H.R.1017 : To prohibit United States voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/1/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Abridges individual liberties by PROHIBITING private citizens of the Unites States from giving their OWN money to the U.N. to fund its efforts.
NOT Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
24. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/8/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Socially conservative. Unrelated to smaller government. Directly opposes the Libertarian ideal of a Constitutional government. Conducting international diplomacy (say, via the U.N.) is EXACTLY what the federal government is supposed to do.
Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
27. H.R.1657 : To ensure financial regulations do not harm economic competitiveness, nor deprive Americans of due process of law, by repealing provisions of Federal law that hold corporate chief executive officers criminally liable for the content and quality of their companies' financial report... [ed. note: Repeals Sarbanes-Oxley]
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Again, runs against Libertarian ideals. Regulating interstate trade (including national equity markets) IS what the federal gov't is supposed to be doing.
Removing the requirement that CEOs be responsible for the reports they issue to the public is bad for the free market. A Libertarian would support accuracy and accountability of information supplied to the market.
Not Libertarian.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
28. H.R.1658 : To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Translation: To ensure the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that *I* want the Framers to have intended.
Sorry, sir. You're a Congressman, not a Jus
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Public schools, man. All of this stupidity is the work of public schools. They've killed critical thinking and instilled a doglike sence of obedience in the masses. These are the fodder of tyrants.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"FTA:..." I hope the letters FTA don't stand for the same words they do in RTFA. I guess if you print it out and roll up the paper, add a little lube...I mean we all get lonely every now and then, right?
I agree, fuck the public schools and let MTV educate our kids.
There were very very few protections in the Weimar constitution before the fire, and after the even the pretense (which is all it was) that Germany was some sort of republic was abandoned.
Are you confusing a democracy with a republic? Whereas in a democracy where all, er at least all voters, have a voice in government a republic is any form of government other than a monarchy. So while a democracy is a republic a republic doesn't need to be a democracy, Stalin's Soviet Union was a republic as was Penochet's Chile or Hitler's Germany but Jordan is a monarchy.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I should be being redundant here...
Why can't we fire these bastards!?
We pay them ALOT, least they can do is pretend to try the first time. Hopefully I'm being rudundant by pointing out that they've failed that horribly.
Yeah. From senate.gov:
I still believe, as I said when the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act was passed in October of 2002, that the Act contains many provisions that are needed to help protect our nation against terrorism. But I was the only Senator to vote against the bill because, like a growing number of Americans, I believe that the bill went too far in allowing the government to obtain personal information about law-abiding Americans.
I welcome the administration's desire to clarify misunderstandings about the PATRIOT Act. But I also believe that the administration has a duty to speak frankly and honestly with the American people about the law's potential to lead to violations of the rights of law-abiding citizens. I am disappointed that Attorney General Ashcroft, in his national tour to defend the Act, is only addressing hand-picked audiences in settings that are closed to the public. I am even more disappointed by the administration's reluctance to discuss serious concerns about some of the Act's more troubling provisions.
As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have a responsibility to exercise oversight over the
Department of Justice. I have serious concerns about the powers granted to the federal government by the PATRIOT Act, and I will continue to seek straight and honest answers from the administration about these powers.
Sounds admirable and all, but strangely enough, here's what he has to say about national security... from the same site...
The events of September 11, 2001, galvanized our country and our allies in a global fight against terrorism and those who would shelter, support, and finance the terrorist network that carried out these heinous acts.
Our first national security priority must be the fight against the terrorist networks that attacked our country on September 11. I am concerned that some of the Administration's actions have led the United States to shift critical military, intelligence, and other resources away from combating al Qaeda and related networks. I believe that our security interests would be better served by devoting these resources to tracking down and destroying the terrorist networks that attacked and continue to threaten this country.
I will continue to work to ensure that Congress provides the resources necessary to win the fight against terrorism and protect our national security.
Dude, pick a side.
Check out the link under my nick. The website's author is a celebrated public school teacher and his manifesto is available for free online. It's a real eye-opener.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Here's something I've been doing all day with regards to the Real ID act and something you might be able to do with regards to this news on the Patriot Act: email the media and get them to cover the issue. Basic format of the email I've been trying to send out follows...
R .418:) This act was attached to the recently passed emergency spending bill approved by the President. However, there are some scary details about this act, besides the intended effect of creating a national ID system. For instance, check out Section 102, which allows the Secretary of Homeland Security "the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." It also prevents any oversight or judicial review of those actions.
6 .html
o u/2100-1028_3-5697111.html
-To -media organiztaion here-,
First off, thank you for taking the time to read this email. While I realize that it is not in good taste for any news organization to take any political stance on matters, I do feel that it is in the best interests of both the media and for the nation if the media would do more to cover the less known topics that happen in Washington.
Case in point is the recent passge of the Real ID act. (H.R. 418, it can be found here: http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.
There are several other topics on this bill that I think people would find rather enlightening. Here are a few links to other websites with articles over it:
ArsTechnica Article about a Potential part of the RealID act breaking the Constition:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050509-488
CNet Article Overview:
http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+y
At any rate, thank you again for taking the time to read this email. I hope that you will at least take the time to consider the impliciations of such an issue, and the rather underhanded means of having it been acheived.
Yours,
-name-
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
Sweet! Pants are tools of the bourgeois! Cast off thy bonds of oppression and run free!
Here, Here!
I try to wear as little as I can get away with ;-)
FalconNo really, even with a pile of snow outside I may go out with shorts and a short sleeve shirt on.
Should there be a Law?
unfortunatly most congressmen/women didn't bother to look at what is really in the patriot act when they passed it...
Unfortunately this is all too true. When congress was "debating" it Ralph Nader made an offer that if any congress critter could pass a test on what the PATRIOT Act contained he would donate to the charity of the person's choice I think it was $10,000. Not one of them took him up on it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Please enlighten me as to how slavery would have been ended without violence.
Unfortunately I don't have the reference readily available but I read an economic study on the economics of slavery and it's conclusion was that if the Civil War didn't happen slavery would of died out within something like 20 years from the civil war because slavery it's economically feasible. Over the long run slavery costs more than it would be to pay a freeman a decent living wage.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Nothing to see here, please move along...
A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
You do know that a judge has to give the okay for them to do this? Just as any other search warrant, a judge decides if it is to be granted and in the case of search warrants without the person's knowledge, the judge also decides how long it can be kept secret. The police don't do anything on their own.
And just who are the judges accountable to? Not to me, I've never gotten info on what warrants etc a judge has approved or the circumstances behind it. Are these record even public? I doubt it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's nothing you should tell jokes about. You could poke out someone's eye with one of those.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Section 202: The second rule of the PATRIOT act is you do not talk about the PATRIOT act.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night.
A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
Shhh! The black helicopters will hear you!
Good the sooner these expire the sooner I can get some of my rights back that are promised to me by the constitution. What direction is this country truely headed in? Jeremy Whittaker MCSE MCSA CCNA http://www.n2networksolutions.com/ Arizona Computer Consulting
They just slipped a National ID Card through the military appropriations bill, plus a law allowing the Department of Homeland Security to be completely FREE OF ANY LAW OR JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT in constructing a barrier on the border near San Diego. In other words, if DHS wants to murder you while constructing this barrier, they are entirely free to do so as there is no Federal or state jurisdiction to prevent them by order of Congress.
Apparently, this is due to an "interpretation" of one of the Constitution's clauses that allows Congress to do this.
This is a precedent for allowing DHS to be allowed the same freedom in ALL cases - thus nullifying the Constitution.
Don't believe me? Google it.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow, I hadn't heard of any of that before. I've never had jury duty yet. I was called once but had already moved out of that state. I will certainly keep that in mind if I am ever called. It's so sad how the government has been slowly eroding all the things that our founding fathers put in place to keep this a free country.
Yeap, when it comes to choosing juries many judges and most if not all prosecutors try to make sure no one on a jury knows about or agrees with jury nullification when at one tyme it was understood juries had the responsibility to not only decide guilt or innocence but also whether a law was constitutional. Both Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Hamilton used it in defending defendents. TJ used it to defend British soldiers against murder charges and Hamilton used it defending William Penn against the charge of preaching the Quaker religious doctrine which was illegal.
For a long tyme I'd hoped to be about to use jury nullification against a bad law but though I was called twice for jury duty I was never even questioned before being selected. All I did was sit around for two days waiting both tymes. At least I was able to use the tyme to read and study for my classes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I am a Libertarian, and I want the USA out of the UN. If we need treaties then negotiate them with individual GOVERNMENTS not the U.N.
:
As for your other points
"21. H.R.777 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
"
The Federal Government has no constitutional role for such funding PERIOD. Nor alot of other funding it does. It ALL needs to go! Thus it is Libertarian.
"23. H.R.1017 : To prohibit United States voluntary and assessed contributions to the United Nations if the United Nations imposes any tax or fee on any United States person or continues to develop or promote proposals for such a tax or fee.
Abridges individual liberties by PROHIBITING private citizens of the Unites States from giving their OWN money to the U.N. to fund its efforts.
"
Bullshit. It does not prohibit you donating money to the UN. It prohibts the U.S.A. from collecting and giving moneis for an INTERNATIONAL U.N. Tax upon US citizens.
"24. H.R.1146 : To end membership of the United States in the United Nations.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 3/8/2005)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Socially conservative. Unrelated to smaller government. Directly opposes the Libertarian ideal of a Constitutional government. Conducting international diplomacy (say, via the U.N.) is EXACTLY what the federal government is supposed to do."
Obviously you are not looking at the U.N. and its attempts to usurp our soveriegnty. I already have an overload of government with federal, state,and local. I dont need global added to the list. I'd also like to keep my guns which the U.N. would like to take away as well.
"28. H.R.1658 : To ensure that the courts interpret the Constitution in the manner that the Framers intended.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/14/2005)
"
From the Bill itself:
Neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor any lower Federal court shall, in the purported exercise of judicial power to interpret and apply the Constitution of the United States, employ the constitution, laws, administrative rules, executive orders, directives, policies, or judicial decisions of any international organization or foreign state, except for the English constitutional and common law or other sources of law relied upon by the Framers of the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, that is what the framers intended. I do not care what other governments or other nations courts do. I did not VOTE for them nor do they represent me. Thus using their courts to reinterperet OUR Constitution is not what our judges are supposed to do.
"20. H.R.776 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/10/2005)"
This is the one area I disagree with Paul on.
However it is a contentious issue within the Libertarian Party. So much so that abortion has been left out of the parties plank.
So yeah, I'd say he is a Libertarian.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We now have the technology to implement a true direct democracy. It's time to do so.
Only if you scale the federal government's powers way, way back--otherwise you'll end up with people on the east and west coasts declaring the central states a nuclear waste dump site . . .
Direct democracy only works within reasonably small, relatively homogeneous groups. There's a good reason why the Senate is two senators per state regardless of population.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
At least somebody is doing their job. I find it strange that the flight crew seemed to have no idea that they may be in restricted airspace. I mean, three miles would seem like a safe distance based on pre-911 common sense, but these guys should've known that getting anywhere near the White House could be nothing but trouble. I'm just glad to see that the Secret Service took this "threat" seriously and acted accordingly. I just wish they would use that same diligence in response to threats to our nuclear and chemical plants. Sure, I don't want to see anyone in the White House die, but an attack on our nuclear or chemical plants would kill a lot more people.
Health Insurance Quotes
I'm sure that your unsourced assertion that slavery probably would have ended by itself 20 years after the Civil War would have been of great comfort to the people that were then currently held in slavery.
In case you took me wrong, I am totally against slavery and would support war, fighting, to end it. I don't think it's right to deny freedom, liberty, and rights to anyone unless it can be proven they are a threat to others. The reason I brought up the economic study was to show slavery probably would of ended without violence, ergo I included that part of the post I was replying to stating the only way to end slavery was through violence, that in fact it wasn't the only way to end it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Left wing Global Research has interesting view of same.
From the newsmax link: "In [Cigar Aficionado]'s December edition, the former commander of the military's Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government."
Gee, if we're only going count the voices of our soldiers when considering the question of war, maybe we should listen when our top soldiers warn us of impending governmental doom. Or is that too obvious? (PS: articles complement each other)
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
For an opposing opinion on this, here's the Journal's take. Biased? Yes. Worth taking into consideration? Yes. YMMV.
Patriot Act Posturing
How desperate is the ACLU?
Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Several provisions of the Patriot Act come up for renewal this year and debate is already under way in Congress. Today the Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the FBI's subpoena power in terrorism cases, which the Administration wants Congress to expand. It's a closed-door session so that Senators can weigh classified information.
Enter the ACLU. The civil liberties organization is so desperate to derail the Patriot Act that it has gone to the extreme of protesting the closed-door nature of the meeting, saying that "lawmakers are trying to keep legislation to reauthorize the Patriot Act secret." Oh, really? The reason the hearing is closed is because Senators "will discuss actual intelligence operations and how the Patriot Act applies to those operations," a spokesman says.
The subject under discussion is the "administrative subpoena," which would allow the FBI to subpoena documents without first going to a judge in emergency situations involving national security. Congress long ago gave the FBI administrative subpoena power for cases involving narcotics, health-care fraud, child pornography, and a host of other areas in which fast action can make a difference. A party served with an administrative subpoena can challenge it in court if it believes it is unwarranted.
As the ACLU surely knows, one of the reasons the FBI is asking for administrative subpoenas for terrorism cases is customer demand. Since 9/11, hotels, Internet service providers and other businesses have voluntarily cooperated when the FBI has asked for emergency information on terrorist suspects. But in this lawsuit-crazed age, they want the legal cover of being able to say they were complying with a subpoena; it's a way of protecting themselves against liability suits from organizations like the ACLU. Now there's a subject for a Congressional hearing.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams