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.'"
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.
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.)
(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.
"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?"
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?"