Slashdot Mirror
U.S. House Votes to Extend Patriot Act
Rick Zeman writes "In the wake of today's 4 dud bombings in London, the U.S. House has voted to extend the Patriot Act by a vote of 257-171. This includes 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on December 31, one allowing roving wiretaps, and another allowing searches of library and medical records."
Check this webpage for the record of who voted what, whenever they get around to putting it online. That's what I was linked to by my local representative's site.
Download the three episodes from the Internet Archive.org and SEE THEM.
Even if you do not agree with his conclusion, the historical background will give you a far clearer picture of the reality of the situation.
A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.
So, let's use this time effectively. Get the word out, and contact your senator. The PATRIOT Act will probably pass, but we can at least try to get ammendments to it that will protect civil liberties while still allowing different law enforcement agencies to work with each other. While I would prefer not to have the PATRIOT act pass, we'd be better off with a bill that protects privacy and prevents racial profiling.
Personally, I think we should allow it to expire and start over. Many bits are useful, but let's have more emphasis on protecting American rights/liberties. And come on - who named this thing? What an awful, divisive name; it implies that anyone who opposes it is unpatriotic, which is complete horseshit. Name the act for what it does, not for cheap political points.
Electric Monkey Pants
I think you are looking for this quote...
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Hitler did not say that, one of his right hand men, Hermann Goering said it at Nuremberg. That is a good quote if you use it correctly. Read more here.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
My Rep voted against it. How did your reps vote?
If they voted differently than you had wished, pick up the phone tomorrow, and let them know. Tell people you meet. Do something. Don't just bitch on slashdot.
(Unless you can't vote in the US, at which point bitching is about all you can do about this latest vote.)
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Link I'll stay silent, but here's just one of many many links.
In Howard Zinn's book "Declarations of Independence," he cites a speech by a student at the Harvard Law School in the early 1960's given to a large group of parents and alumni. The student was speaking about current events, and said,
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! Danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive."
The crowd applauded the words of the young speaker, and when the crowd hushed, he continued.
"These words were spoken in 1932 by Adolf Hitler."
However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.
The first rule of Patriot Act is don't talk about Patriot Act.
Seriously though, the nasty thing about this stuff is that it all goes to an oversight court, the dealings of which are all secret.
For example, when the ACLU sued the government related to these laws, they couldn't even talk about the trial in public, not because it was ongoing, but because it was classified.
So no, you don't hear about the abuses, because they are illegal to talk about, as that would be revealing a secret.
In other news, the government is arresting and holding american citizens on american soil and declairing that they can keep them in jail forever without trial. Not scary at all, keep it moving, nothing to see here.
Ah, you know what? I think we need more links:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. A rebuttal for some sense of "objectivity", whatever that means.
Here's the list.
But here's a summary:
94% of Republicans voted for the act. They have no morals.
21% of Democrats voted for the act. They have no strength.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Yup, we also had a Canadian Citizen(!) being deported from the USA to Syria, where he could be tortured until he confessed to whatever-the-fuck the US wanted him to confess to: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/10/16/arar021016
Oh well, what the hell...
I suppose you also believe that the USA PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to perform a mass library record search without the approval of a judge. Libraries aren't even mentioned in the entire text of the law, and the language people blow out of proportion would only allow the search of a single person's records on approval of a federal judge with respect to a specific ongoing investigation. Please try to verify things you read on Slashdot before passing it on, including what I just said.
Not that I disagree with you that things could quickly get out of hand. I assume because you feel so strongly on the matter that you have contacted your Congressman to support H.R. 1076: Detention of Enemy Combatants Act , which acknowledges the need to detain enemy combatants who are U.S. citizens, but enacts specific requirements on the duration, conditions, and judicial review of such detentions.
This space intentionally left blank.
The Reichstag fire is widely believed to have been started by the Nazis themselves, as a pretext for declaring a state of emergency, reducing civil rights and starting an anti-communist campaign. From Wikipedia:
At Nuremberg, General Franz Halder claimed Göring had confessed to setting the fire: "At a luncheon on the birthday of Hitler in 1942, the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building [fire] and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Göring interrupted the conversation and shouted: 'The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!' With that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand."
Some people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the US government were somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks - either by direct action or by lack of action - precisely to have a pretext for 1) reduction of civil rights, and 2) launching a large-scale military campaign in the middle east. I'm not saying this is correct, but it sounds a bit less far-fetched when knowing that stuff like this has happened several times before.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights; it recognizes them and proscribes limits to government actions accordingly. The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn't explicitly list every right that people have so they provided the Ninth Amendment, which states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
More info here.