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.'"
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
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..
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
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"...
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
I do like sunset provisions. I'd like to see mandatory sunset provisions, at least in first-run laws. Let the law run for five years, and then get a report of how often it was enforced. If it wasn't enforced, or if it's decided that it was a bad idea, then let it lapse. If an extension is desired, then allow another five year block, after which it could be made permanent. This almost ensures that alternate viewpoints will come into place as at least the leadership of Congress will have changed.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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.
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 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.
An excellent point. Tom Clancy wrote about this in Rainbow Six (briefly). He called it "Potomac Fever."
BDR Gear
Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
(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.
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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
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.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison
Isn't Madison the guy who deliberately provoked the war of 1812 with Britain over some fairly flimsy rationale? Resulted in the burning of the White House, loss of Detroit, etc? Most historians look at the formation of Canada only out of opposition to early American Imperialism.
Given this background I think you have to consider the quote in a larger context...
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
The RealID thing isn't the collapse of Western Civilization in and of itself, no. However, it is yet another bump on a rather disturbing road of ineffectual post-9/11 laws curtailing our freedoms for not much of a tangible benefit to national security. I think you have to look at the big picture here and the overall political climate, which I find to be more disturbing than any single new law getting passed. Sadly, it seems that the terrorists were more effective than they knew. Four years later, and we're still slowly chipping away at personal freedom and privacy. Where's the fine line? When will it end? How much more freedom and privacy will we continue to give up over 9/11, and how much of it is actually effective in preventing future attacks? Too much, and very little, I fear.
Well, I know that the Texas Legislature invoked the USA PAT RIOT act so that they could try to find those pesky Democrats who were hiding out so that there wouldn't be a quorum to rubberstamp the Republican's gerrymandering plan.
Disclaimer, I don't live in Texas, and I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"The Constitution prohibits treason ("aid and comfort to the enemy")."
Section 805 is an abomination dripping with the potential for abuse. If you're not concerned about the abuse, read this latest article. 16 year-old girls detained for 6 weeks. No real cause. Released without charges. But the defense lawyer is still under a gag order and can't even discuss the freakin' case.
The problem is when "The Enemy" becomes such a slapdash label that grouping anyone who opposes you into "The Bad Guys" becomes almost an afterthought.
"People and entities that want to harm or destroy the US are the enemy."
Except that the current powers-that-be in Washington D.C. seem not to have much problem extending that to mean "anyone wanting to harm the interests of those in power". If DeLay and crew were so eager to falsely report a "missing plane" to the Dept. of Homeland Security and exploit those assets during a mere political tiff, doesn't that raise the hair on the back of your neck? Because it should.
What if Doctors Without Borders treat a series of casualties somewhere in Africa, and it later turns out some of the patients happened to be with some "officially designated terrorist group".
What if you take on a perl project that someone on the Web has offered up on a contract basis? Quick little contract job. Later turns out the person paying you was with a charity group linked to Hamas?
Far-fetched? Hard to say. But the fact is that there should not even be the potential for such a situation. If the U.S. gov't wants to put you away, they've now got an arsenal of laws in PATRIOT that can do so on the most tenuous of connections.
Once again, if that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck, maybe you need to reexamine what's been going on.
1812 is one of those wars that's tough to assess since it was poorly conceived and fought half heartedly by both sides. Arguably both sides won given the poor rationale and lack of predefined victory conditions.
Militarily the US 'lost' since they could not defeat 2nd line garrison troops and irregular militia, while Britain was busy w/ Napoleon in Europe. Politically, however, the US could claim a victory since they were able to stop impressment and dealt a serious blow to the Native threat with the death of Tecumseh. But Britain could also claim political victory as Upper & Lower Canada were preserved, and a sense of national identitiy was instilled in the local populace that established a permanent alliance with Britain. Here's the short truth: no war of 1812, Upper Canada (Ontario) voluntarily joins the United States by 1850.
Madison may have been a good political mind, but the war was ill conceived. Impressement wasn't the only reason for the war, its just one of the more easily justifiable -- just like the common reason used to explain the civil war is 'slavery', even though 'slavery' was barely an issue till 2 years into the campaign. Realisitcally the US wanted to continue western exapnsion, and the French, English, and Native presence on the continent was a undesireable to the warhawks of the day.
I find this quote by Madison circumspect, because I see him responsible for manufacturing a case for war with Britain out of specious reasons. He's guily of what he's preaching against. For comparison's sake, his predecessor Jefferson would not have done so under similar circumstances.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Agreed, but the question is how?
You can demand anything you want. That doesn't mean you'll get it. You'll get it only if you can somehow coerce your "representatives" (who are no such thing anymore) to see things your way.
The problem is that they no longer answer to you, or to any of their "constituents". The people they answer to are the people that made their election possible: the people who run large corporations, and especially the people who run the corporations that own the media.
And this is exactly why it's time for a revolution. Bloodless preferably, but if necessary then blood will be spilt.
I know it sounds extreme, but I really think we are quickly heading down a road that has two possible outcomes. 1: that we become the 'evil' country we've always fought against or 2: we revolt and put in place an actual democratic government, by the people, for the people etc. We now have the technology to implement a true direct democracy. It's time to do so.
Ender-
Nothing to see here
That's fantastic. I am sure you know better, so I should believe everything you post. Your grammar assures me that in some university somewhere there is some joker handing out a degree in "Nazi Germany".
All sarcasm aside; I have an opinion and my opinion is that both the Patriot Act and the Reichstagsbrandverordnung were passed to accomplish the same thing - legal capacity of the State to get around the constitutional provisions protecting its enemies. Communists for Germany, terrorists for the USA. I simply draw the parallel to emphasize what negative implications surround the limitation and suspension of civil liberties.
Now pull your head in.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
And this is exactly why it's time for a revolution. Bloodless preferably, but if necessary then blood will be spilt.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
THomas Jefferson, 1787
Bloodless revolution would be good, but unfortunately those with the power won't give it up peacefully
I know it sounds extreme, but I really think we are quickly heading down a road that has two possible outcomes. 1: that we become the 'evil' country we've always fought against or 2: we revolt and put in place an actual democratic government, by the people, for the people etc. We now have the technology to implement a true direct democracy. It's time to do so.
On being "evil", it's part of the history of the US unfortunately and the US hasn't always fought against it. As for your second point I'm not sure how far you want to go but I'm almost ready to say the citizens should be the ones to vote on passing most bills or laws. But more than that I'm a strong proponent or supporter of Jury Nullification
FalconShould there be a Law?
The platitude that victors write the history books is obnoxious in almost every case it is used. It discounts the fact that we have historians whose job it is to find the truth and learn from it. Contrary to the so-called revisionists, History occurred exactly one way. You can debate the meaning, debate the motives, but you can't debate the event if enough documentation exists.
Okay, let's play. Richard J Evan's "The Coming of The Third Reich" is one of the best and most contemporary works on this subject. He tracks Marius van der Lubbe thru the anarchist stage and into his communistic indoctrination. He had already been convicted several times of vandalism and had tried to burn down the Welfare office, the palace and the district town hall before the Reichstag. He bought the tools needed to lite the building earlier in the morning. We also have a good account him trying to light many many other things on fire before the curtains in the main chamber. He confessed to it when he was caught.
Was there a conspiracy? No serious evidence has ever surfaced to him being in the service. For that matter, while the Communists had tried several times to overthrow the government, van der Lubbe was clearly a lone arsonist. Remember that Anarchists also triggered the start of WWI and had bombed wall street during the previous thirty years. They caused trouble wherever they went.
Finally you must bear in mind that Weimar was fatally damaged well before the Reichstag fire. Hitler was already in power, and the majority of seats in the Reichstag itself were parties that did not believe that the Weimar republic should even exist. (ie, Nazi's, communists, monarchists).
You may think whatever you wish, but there is no solid evidence that the Nazi's had anything to do with the Reichstag fire at the start. If it wasn't the fire, Hitler would have gained the exact same authority soon enough.
I also disagree with your second opinion. The main provision of the patriot act is the dissolution of the FISA wall. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that allowed for that wall in the first place. The wall was clearly established during the Clinton administration, not during the establishment of the constitution.
In fact, at the end of the day, the only thing that does worry me about the Patriot act is sections that require administrative warrants rather then judicial ones. However, even this is inline with major legislation over the last 40 years. RICO has them.
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.
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.
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!