Slashdot Mirror
Patriot Act to be Expanded
m4dm4n writes "It seems that the patriot act is being expanded rather than scaled back after a vote late Tuesday by the Senate Intelligence committee. The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval, as well as the ability to designate subpoenas as secret and punish disclosure of their existence with up to one year in prison."
"...we fear that the designation of information as classified in some cases [brought forth by Sibel Edmonds] serves to protect the executive branch against embarrassing revelations and full accountability... Releasing declassified versions of these reports, or at least portions or summaries, would serve the public's interest, increase transparency, promote effectiveness and efficiency at the FBI, and facilitate Congressional oversight." U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) in a Letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft http://www.justacitizen.com/
Yes, it is a human rights violation, and not the first perpetrated by the american government against its own citizens either. Have a look at the latest Amnesty International yearly report http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/2am-index-eng before you go waving your flag the next time.
dude, you're sense of humour is broken
How do...
Why is it...
Well, it might be some sort of plan. See "The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism here. Interesting note:
"As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen points of fascism and all seven warning signs are present. But we're not alone. Israel also fulfills all fourteen points and all seven warning signs as well. Welcome to the new republic, redefined, revised and spun. It is not too late to reverse this in either country, but it will be soon. The first step is realizing it. The second step is getting involved. As the propaganda slogan disguising our current war goes, "Freedom isn't free." But our war for freedom isn't abroad; it's here at home."
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
I don't know what country you are talking about, or if you gathered several laws from different states. Anyway, in france (wich is certainly not the less policed state in europe) : ...) ... It is always a bad trend.
You have to register with you local town hall
Only if you want to obtain thinks offered to locals (such as the right to vote at local elections)
You are required to carry identification with you all the time, stopped without it, instant jail.
You have a delay to prove your identity. I don't think the proof has to be an id card, I guess a testimony from a member of your family can do it. And it cannot be asked without a reason (to be honnest, the police don't seem to care a lot about this part of the law
When you stay at a hotel your information and picture is send to the police.
You just have to give your ID to the hotel. The police can request the hotel to see it.
The police can already request all the information from local businesses and other state entities they want
It's a bit more complicated than this bold statement. Most of the time, a judge is necessary.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of other things the police can do in europe it can't in USA (and the opposite is probably true as well). The problem as I see it is more about already existing freedoms that are disappearing
Kirinyaga
Oh, really?
And yes, it worked well for two hunderd years, but so did the preceding systems.
The committee that proposed expansion of the Patriot Act was the Senate Intelligence Committee - their job (among others) is to facilitate intelligence gathering.
This is a pretty far cry from getting something all the way through Congress.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
From the article:
"I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president." What? Did George Bush really say that? Does the president imagine he has a divine mission?
Well, he was quoted to that effect by Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention. The full quote, however, does not quite sound as if Mr Bush is labouring to scrap the republic and replace it with a theocracy. "But if that doesn't happen, that's okay," the president continued, "I have seen the presidency up close and personal. I know it's a sacrifice, and I don't need it for personal validation."
He's socially conservative and fiscally incompentant, but still, he's not Tom DeLay or Bill First. Those are the scary ones.
As a former member of Tehran's expatriot community I can say the Iran was - about 6 years ago - a more liberal, tolerant place then the US is now.
Yeah. Sure. Liberal, tolerant place that puts women in prison and through lashing for not covering their hair. Liberal, tolerant place that sentences people to death and executes them for converting a Muslim to the Baha'i faith. Liberal and tolerant place, where people are stoned to death for having extramarital sex.
The average American really should be given lessons in International History
The average slashdotter should check the Human Rights Watch reports.
There is obviously a notable lack of understanding of senate procedure here.
The expanded Patriot act is "out of committee." Now the full senate has to vote on it, the house needs to get their similar bill out of committee and they need to vote on it, and the president has to sign it.
There is no question that if it goes to the president he will sign it, but the bill may not make it out of the senate.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
Well gee, let's think about this for a second. Usually when I make a post about something political it's with an intent to persuade people to open their eyes. But of course nobody reads slashdot or any other public forum and certainly nobody reads my comments, right? Apart from openly discussing my concerns about our government on the internet I also talk to people in real life. I inform people who are uninformed and try to tell them what is really going on. You wouldn't believe the number of people who had absolutely no idea what the Real ID Act was, or even the Patriot Act. I also attend and speak at assemblies from time to time in the university square. I vote for who I think will do a better job, though this is sort of a moot point since so many candidates are jokes anyway.
Before you automatically assume I do nothing which was very evidently implied by your post, FUCKING ASK ME. I have no idea how you were rated +5 Insightful when you so arrogantly posted that.
Well, then things are going to happen sooner rather than later, as it was on the news today (well, at least here in Belgium) that 36 million americans live in a family where there is not enough food.
Libertarian movements like these are popping up in Europe as well. In Iceland (my home country), a libertarian party will be an option for voters in the next congressional elections in 2007. I know who I'll be voting for.
Governments, in general, are getting way too big. Their power over their citizens is overwhelming and we need to stand up and do something about it.
Americans: Join that movement!
Yes. A little perspective here, please. Whatever you think of this proposal to expand the Patriot Act, recognize that it is only a proposal. The original article states:
/.:
The FBI has gained new powers to demand documents from companies without a judge's approval...
The FBI has gained nothing. No laws have been changed. There is no new secret, Judge-free subpoena power. It is possible that there will be such a power in the future, but this is just one of the very first steps needed to get it done.
Other commenters in this thread have bemoaned that poor state of education in the US, that so many citizens don't know what rights they have. Well, it's not quite as grand as all that, but here's a little civics lesson for those of you whose main political information comes from
Laws in this country must be passed in both the Senate and the House. The process is often very messy and cantankerous. Even a very popular bill can get stalled using different parlementary techniques, and it is not uncommon that a bill that looked unbeatable in January will end up dying in some comittee and not passing by the end of the year. More controversial bills are even harder to get through, and there is a very complicated chess game that goes on in which bills are ammended and revised as they move through the process.
This particular bill apparently passed the Senate Intelligence Commite, 11-4, a couple of days ago. If you look in more serious news accounts, they make it a lot more clear that no new powers have been granted, and this is but merely the opening salvo in a long Congressional negotiation on this topic.
From here, the bill travels to the Senate Judiciary Committe, where "Feinstein and other Democrats planned to again offer amendments." Even if it makes it through there as-is, it would need to be considered by the whole Senate. Even if it passes there, a parallel bill will have been going through an analogous process in the House. Those two bills probably won't be the same by the time they pass both houses of Congress, so from there it's off to the joint committee to come up with a "compromise version" that everyone expects will pass both houses. Finally, the House of Representatives and Senate both vote on the final version, and, if it passes, it goes to the President for his signature.
It is quite impossible to say at this point if some provision voted into a bill in an early Senate committee is going to make it into law.
I believe concerns about this particular provision of the bill to be a bit misplaced. As best as I can determine, this takes the existing system for issuing subpoenas to companies for relevant documentation that exists in "foreign intelligence" cases and applies the same standard in domestive "terrorism" cases. So, for example, if the CIA turned up evidence that someone trained in Pakistan and is a member of Al Qaeda, as it stands right now, they could issue a subpoena without a Judge's prior approval to gather information from (i.e.) the phone company to try to build a case against him. However, if the FBI determined that a purely domestic terrorist was planning on blowing something up, they would not be able to use the same power.
I would like to see a frank and open debate in this country about the privacy and expectation of privacy of records owned by companies. Under the existing US Constitution and laws, if I make a phone call, the record of that phone call belongs to the phone company, not me. The phone company has no fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seziures," and it is therefore much easier, from a constitutional basis, to get a warrent to request some documents. As well, the phone company has no particular interest in fighting such requests, so it complies with the
lemme get this straight. the poster says that Iran was a tolerant place 6 years ago, right before it changed.
you try to disprove that assertion by linking a story about an event that happened 3 years ago.
in effect, you're helping prove the parent's point.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Most historical revolutions have occured when things were getting better, but not fast enough. When things are really bad people are too busy surviving, but when things start to get better they get the idea that perhaps they deserve more and the system isn't giving it to them fast enough.
That isn't to say some revolutions aren't sparked at the depths, but people tend to become animal like in those conditions and while animals are sometimes violent they are usually only violent in the protection of their little bit of survival rather than any grand ideas.
Of course the US has never really had a revolution, at least not a successful one(the civil war could almost count, though I don't agree with most of what they were fighting for), and has not progressed anywhere near as far as either the UK or most of the other Anglo nations. Though some of them are moving backward rather quickly.
Just a bit of history
Thomas Jefferson pushed the bill of rights ever more forcefully as his french friends began to meet the french razor for their accused state in Paris etc. To be blunt, the bill of rights is not something to prevent us from handling terrorism. It is something to prevent the worst kind of terrorism. STATE TERRORISM by a government who arrests without warrant... Jails on evidence obtained by rash seizures and private secret searches... and which keeps anyone who opposes it marked as enemies of the state.
I have been at some length of effort to determine if the Patriot Act as now constituted has any functionality useful for Anti-terrorism. Bluntly it has none. It hasn't even been used for that purpose effectively. The few arrests under it resulted in charges which were so blithly messed up by the Federal agents that they were useless. If you are inclined to believe some of these arrestees were guilty, the US Attorney General and et al were practically enemy agents sabotaging the cases. If you believe the charged were innocent the Attorney General and his minions were playing Gestapo. Even more scary is the reality that both conditions are probably true!
The bottom line is that no additional powers were needed after 911. The USA was not some phlebe in the world without laws or well practiced experience handling such events. Contrary to the claims that we were, terrorism was noted in the US Declaration of Independence. It has ruled US History until about 1940. The Indian Wars and much more were halmarked by such events. The USA does not need to suspend its legal/constitutional protections in order to deal with Al Qaeda. This act and its extension are just plain wrong. The few effective enforcements we know about are even more scary when we find that they were applied to affairs having nothing to do with any acts of terrorism.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
What would you notice? Well, let's see, we directly helped kill a Red Light Camera bill (spy camera issues tickets), and we've got people doing a variety of both political and civil disobedience issues... it's still early, so we don't have tons of " 'We' did this", but we've got a voice and some momentum.
No specific towns. Manchester is the _largest_ city (100K), and one activist there told me that if he had a dozen people working together, he could work miracles there. We don't need a 'Free Town' specifically... or a Free County. NH's setup is such that we can do a lot with just a vocal activist minority.
Job prospects? NH has no income or sales tax, much of it is less than 1 hour from Boston, and it has the lowest unemployment rate around.
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
> the Democrats elect far left wing candidates
Doesn't exactly look like that. I'd call most of them democrats as "conservative center". Otherwise the PATRIOT-act would never have passed.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
The British, for example, have a much lower threashold to search and sieze, as well as detain without trial. England is not alone however.
I guess what I'm saying, with about 5 minutes worth of research, is, it's not wise to throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Maybe, but Putin didn't loose his dogs on Khodorkovsky simply for being rich, he did it because Khodorkovsky was throwing that wealth at the opposition party. This also had the effect of making Yukos a state run enterprise. These actions do indeed fall well to the right on the political spectrum.
The main issue is not the electoral college per se, but the winner-take-all rules. A couple of states, including Maine, have their electors proportionally allocated to the candidates according to the popular vote. In most states, the candidate who wins the most popular votes, even only 50%, gets all the electors. Having proportional allocation of electors makes your vote relevant in all elections.
Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born there. (GBS)
The people at Gitmo are not conferred the status or treatment that apply to prisoners of war - they are placed in this facility specifically so these principles do not legally apply to them.
At least do some semblance of fact-finding before spouting off - here's a fucking link which comes up second in a google search of 'guantanamo bay pow':
http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/detention.ht ml
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
You need to look a little bit further back in History for Lucas' inspiration.. around 40 BC.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
The Judicial branch is under direct assault. House Majority Leader Tom Delay right after the Atlanta courthouse shooting of a judge (and others): "If they thumb their nose at Congress and the president, the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.". About judges in florida who diasgreed with federal interference in the right-to-die case: "Congress for many years has shirked its responsibility to hold the judiciary accountable. No longer." Asked whether the House would consider impeachment charges against the judges involved, he responded, "There's plenty of time to look into that."
Don't think the republicans already thought of this obstacle. I'm with you - the judicial branch is my only hope, but I'm afraid Rehnquist won't hold out until 2008.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
1) Captured while violating or being in the company of those violating the international laws of war and performing or appearing to perform Terrorist acts against the US.
2) There is no torture at Gitmo. The living conditions of the Guards is more sparse and regulated than those of the prisoners.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Well, it has to be challenged and make it into the courts before the courts could do anything about it.
This is an extremely important point. It is not unusual for the Congress to pass unconstitutional laws. But the courts can't do anything about them until until they hear a case concerned with them. Some of this has already ocurred.
So this is why Supreme Court nominations are even more important than these individual Acts in the long run.
A point...
Although it can be said that the Nazi's borrowed some ideas from mainstream socialist thought such as the expansion of social benifits in the form of programs such as old age pensions, they did not follow many of the core principles of socialism. They opposed the concept of class conflict that is key to most socialist thought. Moreover, their embrace of nationalism, a idealist philosophy, is in direct conflict with the materialist beliefs of most developed forms of socialism. Additionally, most of the more socialist oriented members of the nazi party were killed in the "The Night of the Long Knifes" which was a purge of the left-wing of the Nazi party that Hitler used to consolidate his power. The Nazi government should not be viewed as socialist, but rather corporatist in that Hitler utilized powerful corporations (VW, BMW, MB, etc...) in order to acheive his production goals rather than acheive them directly though the state.
There are a great many who do care, and we have been fighting for quite some time now. I used to read stuff like this on Slashdot, get all worked up, post, then do nothing and wonder why I felt so dissatisfied. Then I realized that no one else was doing anything about it, dammit, so I had to. I started a grassroots political organization here in New York that has swelled to 15,000 people.
Last election cycle we took back three state senate seats from the neo-cons, and fought really hard on two others, getting the one to within 8% of victory and the other to within a mere 18 votes! That puts us 4 seats out from regaining a majority in state senate, and in turning back the neo-con tide here in New York. We also fought really hard to remove a Bush rubber stamp Congressman called Vito Fossella from the district in Staten Island. Got our guy to within 8% again, but because of our efforts the party is now going to focus money and support on that race in 2006.
Right now we're working on NYC races for mayor, etc., but really planning for the mid-term elections in 2006. We're 15 seats out from recapturing the House of Representatives, people. What does that mean? The ability to launch congressional investigations into Cheney's deals with Big Oil, who leaked Valery Plame's name to the press, the Downing Street memo that confirmed that Bush lied to the American public to get them to invade Iraq, etc., etc. It means we can impeach, imprison (at Guantanamo!), and expunge this blight from our country and world.
So get out there and help! The neo-cons are petrified of the idea that Americans will wake up and start fighting back. It doesn't matter where you are in the country, fight back. We vastly outnumber them.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Bush is not a patriot. He is killing everything that America once stood for.
YEs, the US and Soviets sold them to him, and he used them against IRAN and the Kurds. He refused to prove that he had disposed of them and blocked the inspectors trying to find out.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
I just finished reading Baghdad Year Zero. Thanks for passing it along. It was tremendously informative and insightful. A must-read for anyone who thinks like a journalist and just follows the money.
Please explain oath and affirmation. Does it say this oath and affirmation needs to come from the court? Or does it need to come from someone who took an oath to this country? Every FBI agent needs to take an oath prior to becoming an agent.
Neither of those really. What it means is the cop/agent who presents the "probable cause" evidence to the judge must swear the evidence is accurate, etc since there won't be an oportunity for the accused to rebut this "probable cause" evidence.
Fair enough about Wiki. Here is a link to the applicable section of federal rules of criminal procedure. To quote the most relavent section:
(b) Authority to Issue a Warrant.
At the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government:
(1) a magistrate judge with authority in the districtor if none is reasonably available, a judge of a state court of record in the districthas authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district;
(2) a magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed; and
(3) a magistrate judgein an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331)having authority in any district in which activities related to the terrorism may have occurred, may issue a warrant for a person or property within or outside that district.
I agree that the patriot act is for the most part fine. Its just a few parts that bother me and this new extension is type of thing that bothers me. I'd agree with your postion on time sensitive issues, but this really has nothing to do with that. There are already of plenty of "in pursuit" exceptions to search and seizure that account for those situations. This is about bank records etc. And if it is a national security issue, they could contact a judge for approval basically just as fast as they could contact thier bosses for approval. With faxes, email, cell phones, etc for important stuff you can get a judge to sign-off in a matter of minutes providing you have real probable cause. The only use for this I see is wanting to search without the probable cuase required by law.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
That said, there are good american beers. Try a Fat Tire sometime. :)
[javac] 100 errors
If you have a rule of law without democracy, it's all for nothing.
Even more, if you have a rule of law without democracy you have genuine fascism. Nazi Germany was a rule of law, everyone stood against the same laws and those laws were properly enforced. Except for the fact that it were draconian, bigot laws specifically designed against enemies of the ruling party. Jews and communists weren't imprisoned and burned at the whim of a camp commander or local warlord but at the order of the chancellor himself that had become law.
The first true dictatorship move was the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" (law of empowerment), that enabled the chancellor (who headed the executive branch before) to issue presidential orders ("Notverordnung" or "emergency order") that were treated like laws. So the parliament issued a law that said everything the chancellor undersigns is from now on treated as a law. And the bureaucrats in Nazi Germany heeded every order to the letter. Even if that meant genocide.
Arlen Specter
711 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
Dianne Feinstein
331 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-3841
Mike DeWine
140 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-231
Joe Biden
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5042