Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. House Votes to Extend Patriot Act

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the get-used-to-it dept.

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."

68 of 1,137 comments (clear)

  1. Allow me to be the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    to welcome our new American Overlords

    1. Re:Allow me to be the first by Ravatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The GOP died decades ago, enjoy your neo-"conservative" agendas and lack of ability to handle finances.

    2. Re:Allow me to be the first by Capsaicin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh please, this is just typical liberal socialist scare mongering.

      Remember, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Well maybe if you are mistaken for someone who is doing someone wrong, or ... if you have a close relative who is doing something wrong, or ... if you once spoke to that guy who ...

      Anyway, as I was saying, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. This is for your protection, after all.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    3. Re:Allow me to be the first by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      very good comrade! although your newspeak is a bit disturbing.

      please report to the ministry of truth for re-education.

      Oh and remember there will be an additional gas ration card for anyone that turns in a suspected terrorist this month.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Allow me to be the first by onwardknave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find your sig...
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -- Goethe"
      ...amusingly prophetic.

    5. Re:Allow me to be the first by Mattcelt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wrote about this a while ago. Here's the text:

      "If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

      Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.

      And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:
      "Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
      but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:
      "If the're not guilty, why are they running?"

      Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.

      But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.

      They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.

    6. Re:Allow me to be the first by The+Spoonman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please, this is just typical liberal socialist scare mongering.

      Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you there. I've been a staunch Republican all of my voting life, I even voted for GWB twice. But, frankly, the people currently calling themselves Republican are nothing more than "The Tax & Spend Christian Party", imposing their warped, hypocritical and hateful religious agenda on the country and the world. I used to believe that if I wasn't doing anything wrong, I had nothing to fear, but I don't believe it anymore.

      You even point it out in your argument Well maybe if you are mistaken for someone who is doing someone wrong, or ... What happens then? Well, if the police and DA's office believe you're the one, then they'll put the full weight of their power squarely on your back until you break. Even better, if Patriot II is passed, and you're mistaken for a wrong-doer, you can disappear in the middle of the night and no one will know why. Grand.

      They've got control of the House, they've got control of the Senate, they've got the White House. And now, with Sandy D leaving, they'll have the Supreme Court, too. I feel so wrong for voting as I did last year. Oh, well, that's why I'm making plans for Canada next year. :)

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    7. Re:Allow me to be the first by Xabraxas · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Has anyone here has even read the Patriot Act?

      Yes I have, and while it may be useful in some parts it definitely takes away some of our civil liberties, like the right to a trial.

      Here's a crazy idea... Come up with a better solution to deal with terrorism in a free and open society

      No Patiot Act is just as good as having the Patriot Act when it comes to terrorism. The Patriot Act has done nothing to protect us from terrorists since its inception. In fact, the terrorists from 9/11 should have been caught with the existing infrastructure at the time. There really is no need for The Patriot Act to catch terrorists.

      And if you think that the US is no longer a free and open society, remember that in many countries around the world, you would be hunted down, arrested and maybe even executed for expressing the thoughts that you've so thoughtfully shared in this forum

      That's irrelevant. If you want to play that game you can tell the Iraqi people that at least they don't live in North Korea. You can tell Cubans that they're lucky because they don't live in Afganistan. Human rights and civil liberties are not relative, they are absolute. We must constantly safe-gaurd them or they WILL slip away a little at a time.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    8. Re:Allow me to be the first by eclectic4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real fear (which is counter to freedom, I might add), is wondering when the definition of what you are "doing wrong" shifts. With all of these provisions now in place, how easy would it be to deem healthy dissent as a a terrorist activity? Proof of this has already been seen. When will attacks on policy become an attack against America, and our "national interests", whatever they may be?

      Freedom is largely a state of mind. While it can be a dangerous one in much of the world, I don't like seeing our country moving in that direction. I would rather live free under threat than safe under fear of oppression. Besides, if the terrorists hate freedom, then why haven't the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc..., countries that are arguably more free than the U.S., not been turned into parking lots by droves of suicide bombers? No, it's our policy and actions, and I don't want to be deemed unpatriotic at best, and a terrorist under prosecution at worst for "attacking" those policies, just as it's supposed to happen in a true, working democracy.

      That is my fear, the Patriot Act doesn't help, and it doesn't "feel" free, that's for sure.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
  2. It's for the children! by 00Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gotta love the excuses that cost us our freedoms...

    1. Re:It's for the children! by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, yes, it is a fundamental right.

      It is a municipality's right to run a public library, in any way they and their voters choose. If the voters of Podunk want to run a library that distributes translations of the Canterbury Tales in Swedish, that's their right.

      It's one of those federal-interference-in-local-matters issues, commonly called "states' rights", that Republicans once got their panties in a wad over but have now forgotten about.

    2. Re:It's for the children! by bryan8m · · Score: 4, Insightful

      First we lose these rights, then those, then the ones over there that we take for granted today. We must break out of the sequence!

    3. Re:It's for the children! by kcb93x · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is...by this law, we may never hear about such a case. How can we complain about (and mention) specific abuses when we have NO proof of such incidents taking place?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:It's for the children! by tehlinux · · Score: 5, Funny

      Those damn terrorists will stop at nothing to rob us of our freedoms. The terrorists came up with the patriot act, right?

      --
      Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
    5. Re:It's for the children! by bryan8m · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I care more about my freedoms and privacy rights than I do the FBI's power to perform extensive wire taps and searches without carefully considered warrants.

    6. Re:It's for the children! by brsmith4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Link I'll stay silent, but here's just one of many many links.

    7. Re:It's for the children! by ltbarcly · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:It's for the children! by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, whenever anybody is asked to site a case in which some poor schmuck actually got shafted by these laws, they suddenly fall silent.

      And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?

      For starters, here's an obvious case: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8629443/>Jose Pidilla. He is an American citizen, who has been held for 4 years (since 2001). The government says he's a terrorist, but they've never proved it. The government was told to either prove he was a terrorist in a trail or to let him go in 90 days. That was way more than 90 days ago, and he's still being held. The government has appealed that ruling, saying they don't have to prove anything and can hold him forever.

      So there's one case: An American citizen, held by his own government, with no way to prove his innocence and the government refuses to prove his guilt. His lawyer has stood before the Appeals Court and literally asked that his client be put on trial.

      So how would you, if you were an American citizen, and you were in jail for 4 years (and it'll go on longer), waiting and hoping "that the courts would take the opportunity to sort it out"?

      There was another case, the name of which I cannot remember, where a court clerk accidently released the wrong documents and it was discovered there was a John Doe who had been held for months. Nobody knew his name, nobody knew the charges, he had not been given a lawyer, and nobody was notified he was being held. The ACLU tried to get permission to speak to him and represent him. I don't remember for sure, but last I heard, I think they were denied -- so we have a John Doe who may or may not be a citizen, being held without anyone knowing who it is and without any of his family having any idea what has happened to him.

      The PATRIOT act is the same thing as the House Un-American Activities Committee. Whenever you hear any politician stumping for something that has such an "all-American" name that there is no way any reasonable American could stand against it, then you know it means nothing but trouble for us. Anytime someone has to wrap a group or law in the flag so they can say anyone opposing it is unpatriotic does not have protecting freedom and the Constitution in mind.

      For anyone watching the news, and just keeping up with the headlines, the cases above would have been clear. The PATRIOT act has, and will be used to subvert the Constitution. Do you *really* believe you can give the government that much power and nobody in charge will use it?

    9. Re:It's for the children! by brsmith4 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    10. Re:It's for the children! by DrMrLordX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Republican party's interest in "state's rights" has been rather arbitrary and limited for years. They will fight empowering the federal government when it suits their constituents. They will empower the government when it suits their constituents. Replace 'constituents' with 'campaign contributors' as you please.

    11. Re:It's for the children! by HermanAB · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...
    12. Re:It's for the children! by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you say.

      The gov has yet to present proof. At this point, all that happened was that they declared him (a US citizen) an enemy combatent. According to the PATRIOT act, that gives them the authority to hold him forever, without even having to prove he is an enemy combatant.

      The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me.

      It's not just about his rights -- it's about protecting the rights of ALL citizens equally, so the gov can't do to him, you, or me, without following the law.

    13. Re:It's for the children! by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Timothy McVeigh was a real terrorist who was way worse than Padilla, and yet McVeigh got a fair trail. Evidence was presented in a court, he was convicted and executed. What makes Padilla an "enemy combatant" when McVeigh was just a criminal?

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    14. Re:It's for the children! by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jose is an enemy combatant

      And how do you know? Because the government told you so? I don't normally consider myself a tinfoil hat person, but I find that attitude very scary. I have always considered government transparency to be the most important thing in any democratic system.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    15. Re:It's for the children! by a+whoabot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What war? There is no declared war.

      If there is a war, then declare war. The people who are soldiers against you in that war that you capture are prisoners of war. If people you are fighting against are not following the rules of war, by not wearing proper uniform, etc. like most(all) terrorists, then they aren't soldiers: they are just criminals. You arrest them with the regular laws of the jurisdiction at hand; just like McVeigh, as was used as an example.

      You seem to be suggesting an Orwellian world where we're always at "war," and not with any particular enemy. In this case a war on terrorism, which is a tactic. The government is fighting a "war" against a tactic which has been used for centuries. That is not acceptable.

    16. Re:It's for the children! by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the definition of "something wrong" will be drawn ever more widely by right wingnuts.

      This isn't limited to the right. The left are just as likely to pass laws limiting freedoms as the right are, they'll just have a different set of criteria for choosing the laws. Both left and right are equally interesting in telling everyone else what to do and how to live their lives.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    17. Re:It's for the children! by Caine · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the voters of Podunk want to run a library that distributes translations of the Canterbury Tales in Swedish, that's their right.

      This might shock you, but where I live this have already started to happen. The public libraries are spreading their filthy swedish propaganda; almost all the books are in swedish now. And there's nothing the government can do to stop it. That is, without the Patriot Act. So support the Patriot Act and free us from the swedish menace!

      ...Hm. Oh wait. I live in Sweden. Nevermind...

    18. Re:It's for the children! by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Feel free to let him go. I know I like dirty bombs going off in my neighborhood.

      I happen to have evidence that you are a child pornographer. It is secret evidence, however, and I will not charge you with a specific crime or even let you know what we claim to know about you. Do you think parents want perverts like you roaming the streets their children play on? Of course not. You need to be held indefinitely.

      I'm sure some whiner will claim that this is unfair and that you should be let go, but I know I do not want child pornographers getting off in my neighborhood.

      See how that works? No evidence needed :)

      Finkployd

    19. Re:It's for the children! by pcmanjon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security -- Benjamin Franklin

    20. Re:It's for the children! by tokabola · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've tried to tell people about the American citizens being held without due process, but most people simply refuse to believe it. I've even given examples, they claim I got the info from some radical newspaper or website and it's not true - even when I can point to legitimate newspapers and magazines they won't believe.

      The current powers, of which the Bush administration is just a part, have realized a sad (to me) truth about the American People. The majority of us will happily settle for the illusion of freedom, eagerly believe any lies told us that support that belief, and disbelieve any truths that threaten that illusion.

      We don't really care how screwed up things are as long as we can justify our belief that nothing is wrong (and therefore we don't actually need to do anything about it).

      Complacency is easy, cheap, and doesn't cut into our beer and TV time.

      The "land of the free, and the home of the brave", is not here in America. Here is the land of the sheeple, and the home of cowards afraid to face any unpleasant truth.

      While there are many who are true patriots in this country, most don't actually do anything more than vote, if that. The vast majority has never written their congressmen and senators. Hell, most don't even know who their representatives are.

      We complain that voting has become a question of the "lesser of two evils", but wouldn't vote for a truly good candidate if he/she wasn't the official Democratic or Republican candidate. Often, in the two main parties, the best choices are weeded out during the primaries, removed from the ballots not by the will of the people, but by the whim of the party elite.

      Tommy

      --
      Open Source for Open Minds
    21. Re:It's for the children! by mrmeval · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Replace republican with democrat as you please.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    22. Re:It's for the children! by kbielefe · · Score: 5, Informative
      I might be inclined to believe your analysis if you got your facts straight. The USA PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with the authority to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant and hold him or her as a prisoner of war. That authority comes from the war powers invoked in Public Law 107-40. Individual cases are subject to oversight both by the Supreme Court and by Congress.

      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.
    23. Re:It's for the children! by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reading such books is constitutionally guaranteed. Anonymity is not.

      In bad old Soviet Russia, you could go and pee on Lenin's statue while shouting "This is what I think of communism ! Lenin, drink my urine ! Down with Stalin !". You would be executed or sent to Siberia for it, but you could do it.

      What I'm getting to is that having a right to do something means that you don't suffer negative consequences for doing it. If you do suffer said consequences, your "right" is no more right than our hypothethical russians right to pee on Lenin. And the only way to ensure that there's no negative consequences (such as being noted as potential terrorist by your government) is to make it both possible and legal to use these rights anonymously.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:It's for the children! by bamberg · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  3. Talkin' bout a revolution by Alien+Being · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Dem's sound bite on this is that they support the extension, but they have some "concerns" about civil liberties. Gee, thanks a shitload for giving us absolutely nowhere to turn to for sanity in this country. I apologize to the few honest politicians left out there for saying that the entire system is fucked.

    They're also trying to make hay by criticizing the war in Iraq. But where the fuck were they before we, for the first time in history, started a war where none already existed?

    Fuck you, Bill Clinton, for demeaning the office of President in such a way that infinitely corrupt GW could trick a bunch of right wing zealots to vote for him despite the pain he has caused.

    1. Re:Talkin' bout a revolution by apoc.famine · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
  4. Scoreboard by NilObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The terrorists will never succeed in taking away our freedoms and civil liberties!"

    Well, technically, they're using our own politicians to accomplish that, if that is indeed their goal. Now that is a feat: getting your enemy to obtain your goal for you.

    1. Re:Scoreboard by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now that is a feat: getting your enemy to obtain your goal for you.

      By politics or terror, bombs or rules, the goals of many politicians and religious terrorists are one in the same: It's about control-- imposing their will onto yours.

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
  5. Not yet extended by Blutarsky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, the house voted to extend it, but it still has to make it through the senate, which will be an interesting process.
    I'm just interested in seeing how quickly the conspiracy theorist start spewing stories about how the U.S. was involved in this because only the detonators went off.

    --
    Get a free Ipod!
  6. So this is how liberty dies by Approaching.sanity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To cheers and thunderous applause.

    --
    RTFA again for the best results.
  7. ZOMG! by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hm, maybe I should brush up on my national anthems.
    *ahem*

    Oh, Canada,
    Our home and native land,...

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  8. Hmmm. by Rew190 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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 danger. It works the same way in any country." -Adolph Hitler

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Benjamin Franklin

    1. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    2. Re:Hmmm. by uncoveror · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:Hmmm. by cdills · · Score: 5, Informative

      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."

  9. Library records? by nmoog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dang, they've taken out the libraries... If only there was some other place I could find subversive information...

  10. Check Who Voted What by aarku · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  11. The Power of Nightmares by NZheretic · · Score: 4, Informative
    If you have not seen Adam Curtis' documentary "The Power of Nightmares" then
    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.

    1. Re:The Power of Nightmares by chrispl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I could not agree more. This is one documentary that everyone should see.

      It's a pretty comprehensive look at the history and motivations BEHIND the threats we are facing, from both the terrorists and the American government. Yes, at times it's not even trying to be objective, but still a lot of the events and facts that are presented are historical record and are considered far too little today.

      If only this was shown in American prime-time, people may start thinking more critically about the moves we are taking now...

      I still shiver now when I hear the song "Baby it's cold outside".

      --
      What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
  12. "Extend the Patriot Act" by Captain+Pringle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "the US House has voted to extend the Patriot Act"

    If I'm reading the article right, I'd say "extend" isn't quite strong enough of a word:

    From the article: "The bulk of the back-and-forth centered on language making permanent 14 of 16 provisions that had four-year sunset provisions under the original law..."

    I have to strongly agree with the critics mentioned in the article, who "said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the September 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law."

    Guess the House didn't think so.

  13. Calm down people... by Paladin144 · · Score: 4, Informative
    It has not yet cleared the Senate, and when it does, the bills will need to be reconciled:

    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
    1. Re:Calm down people... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bills like this should not even be discussed in our country. There is no reason to calm down.

      It is offensive that laws like the PATRIOT act are even discussed in this country, let alone passed the first time.

      People act as if having any of these provisions striken is a victory. The fact that secret trials, the seizure of library and medical records, and roving wiretaps are even discussed in this country should offend you.

  14. Terrorism... by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Before he was elected, Bush was actually quoted as saying that he believed the American people had too much freedom.

    Terrorism is just being used as an excuse for Bush to remove everyones rights.

  15. Re:Fear Wins Again by FredAkbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was going to say the same thing. The terrorists have won again, not because they killed 50 people with some bus bombings, or 2,000 people with a few planes, but because their random acts of murder make our leaders think that they can make the world a better place by taking away freedoms.

    Our governments have taken away far more freedoms from us than the terrorists ever have. Good job, terrorists: mission accomplished.

  16. Ok, here's a question or two... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why extend them?

    Or to ask it in a more direct manner, exactly what terrorist activities have these bills stopped since they were enacted? Any?

    What's the benefit? How has the Patriot act helped us so far?

    Has it done any good at all yet - or is it just rights erosion for the expediency of law enforcement?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  17. In Memoriam Habeas Corpus by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    During the committee negotiations in the House of Representatives, one Democrat attempted to append an amendment to this Police Act that explicitly stated that the Act did not in any way suspend Habeas Corpus. That foundation of American justice was claimed by opponents to be threatened by the Act, which threat was denied by its supporters. So why did Republicans vote down that simple amendment? It surely would have saved a lot of time and money in any case where a judge had to decide whether, in fact, the Act did violate the Habeas Corpus principle. What does this Act therefore really mean, once the dross of rhetoric that ushers it through the process is lost in the sands of history?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  18. I think I speak for all of us when I say by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Funny

    fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck

    (For some strange reason the Slashdot filter doesn't like this post. I can't imagine why.)

    --
    Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  19. And this is why... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a mousepad with "smash head here" written on it. But, seriously...

    One of Osama's stated goals is to destroy, through holy war, America (the Great Satan). One of the things that made us great was our Constitution, that great document which protects our freedoms. Yet here goes the House of Representatives, doing exactly what bin Laden wants: Taking away our freedom. In fact, doing the one thing that Osama can never do. The only question I really want answered is, "House of Representatives: Who the heck are you representing?" Because I don't believe that the majority of America, let alone 60% of us, want the government to be able to get search warrants without a judge's consent. To force us to keep quiet about a search. To invade the privacy of our medical and library records.

    And I don't want to hear any BS about 'it will only be used on/against terrorists.' This government, like any other, has abused/abuses almost every power it was ever given. And you think they'll pass up something as juicy, and so easy, and so incredibly tempting to abuse as this? Look at RICO. It was passed so the cops could bust meetings of mobsters. Now it's routinely used against groups of garden-variety criminals.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H L Mencken. Terrorism is a complex problem. We have to pull off a considerable juggling act: We have to try and defend ourselves against terrorists. We also have to make sure that we have a nation that is free and worth defending when we're done. We have to find and assauge the root cause of the hatred, because as Vietnam and now Iraq have demonstrated, superior technology can't defeat a foe with the power of conviction in his beliefs. And we have to reign in our collective ego, and not be too proud to admit that Iraq is a lost cause and that we should leave. And so far, our government is only keeping one ball in the air. The "Patriot" act is an answer that is clear, simple, and dead wrong.

    "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison
    "History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Abba Eban.

    "Most Democrats echoed that support but said they were concerned the law could allow citizens' civil liberties to be infringed." translate(BS, ENGLISH) == "The 43 Democrats who voted in favor secretly oppose it but have no spine or willpower to say so."

    "While the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Of course not, dumbass. The threat will not recede until we (the Infidels) remove our troops from the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) because that's exactly what Osama expicitly stated! But America won't do that and we all know why.

    "The House debate included frequent references to the attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts that killed 56, including four suicide bombers." Hmmm... could it be that THIS is what the London blasts were about?

    Ugh... I am disgusted with this government beyond words.

    1. Re:And this is why... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Rather than reinventing the wheel, here's a link to another post of abuses. Also, did you consider that since the "Patriot" act allows the government to deny prisoners their right to an attorney, right to a speedy trial, and the right to know the charges against them, and allows them to be held indefinetly and incommunicado, you're not supposed to KNOW about abuses?

      Despite what the media wants you to believe, we are winning the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq and we are WINNING the war.
      If we were winning the war, then the number of suicide bombers in Baghdad would be decreasing rather than increasing. As I said, this is turning into another Vietnam which will again demonstrate that technology CANNOT defeat an enemy who has the power of his convictions. We lost ~60000 men in Vietnam, the Vietcong lost more than 2 million - yet we left in shame.

      The root cause of Islamic hatred toward America and the west is our success and our rejection if Islam.
      You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? Osama bin Laden has called for and gotten Jihad against America because American soldiers are stationed in Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca. HE FRACKING SAYS SO. If America withdraws it's forces from Saudi Arabia, he'll end the Jihad!!! But as I said, we won't do that for obvious reasons. Furthermore, if rejecting Islam was the reason that Osama hates us, then shouldn't he also be waging war on China?

      We can remedy this in two ways, by killing or capturing all Islamic terrorists or by converting to Islam. The terrorists know that if they lose in Iraq then it's all over for them, that's why foreign terrorists from all over the middle east are pouring into Iraq. This is the terrorists' last stand and we will prevail.
      Kill or capture all Islamic terrorists? Sure - just like each retaliatory strike by Israel against Hamas prevents violence rather than inciting more of it. Converting to Islam? Simply not going to happen. Removing our troops from the Holy Land of Mecca just like Osama wants? Not going to happen either. If it weren't for oil, we wouldn't give a flying damn about the middle east. Either we prop up corrupt dictatorships for oil and have to live with terrorists or we stop sucking the oil tit. It's obvious which we're choosing.

      Fortunantly we have a president now who couldn't care less what the American left and the American media say about him. They can keep calling him Hitler day and night, they can yell at him until they are blue in the face just like they did to Reagan. Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing, it doesn't matter to him one bit what vocal fringe lunatics think.
      Bush is doing the 'right thing?' Was he doing the right thing when he 'fixed the facts around the policy' of war with Iraq? When he failed to fire Rove and Libby for exposing Valery Plame becasue her husband exposed his lie about the Niger yellowcake? When he entered Iraq with no plan to exit? Don't delude yourself - Bush didn't invade Iraq because Saddam is a nasty meanie person. He invaded Iraq because Iraq has 1/4 of the world's oil reserves, and his advisors would rather enrich their former employers than invest 200 billion dollars in alternative energy.
    2. Re:And this is why... by Anubis350 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      did you miss the part about the "vocal fringe lunatics" being 49% of this country? Bush was elected on a very narrow margin Dr. Troll and there are a lot of us who don't believe in his policies.

      "The root cause of Islamic hatred toward America and the west is our success and our rejection if Islam"

      Bullshit, it's fringe religious nuts who hate the west. Most Moslems don't, don't support terrorism, and are good, normal people. Interestingly, the beliefs of the fringe groups that fund the terrorism have a great deal in common with the right wing christian ultra-conservatives in this country (including both hating freedom and those who disagree with them).

      Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing

      That's the worst part, the inability of the right wing nuts who control this country to deffirentiate between "the right thing" and "our beliefs". Bush beleives that he is Right and refuses to ever admit that he is wrong. This is not a strength but a terrible weakness. There is no shame in being wrong once in a while, there is shame in convering the fact up to avoid embarassment.

      --
      "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
  20. Re:Fear Wins Again by netsharc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well consider it like this AC, if I ask you which country monitors their citizens' library records and phone calls, would you say a) it's some Middle Eastern regime, or b) the US?

    These laws have brought the US one step closer to being the sort of nation that is closer to "Utopia according to Bin Laden". Still liking it?

    When religious zealots run the country appoint one of themselves to the Supreme Court and cry and whine about a nipple on television, it gets one step closer to Bin-Laden-Land, albeit with the Lord Almighty instead of Allah, but heck I don't see the difference.

    --
    What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
  21. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I don't want to hear your wild insane "Bush can knock down my door without a warrant" theories, I want to know how YOU have been negatively effected by the patriot act."

    My money is funding it.

  22. Re:Fear Wins Again by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That's absolutely right. The politicians jump up and down about how the terrorists hate freedom, then turn around and take away freedom in the name of preventing terrorism. It's very hard to not see the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act as being utter proof that terrorist tactics work---and work well.

    The scary thing is that they're out there watching our government's reaction, gloating, and planning their next wave of attacks to see what sort of reactionary fascism they can goad our government into next. Not only did the terrorists win, but our government keeps encouraging them by doing exactly what they want---whittling away the freedoms of the United States through the politics of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, all in the name of combatting terrorism.

    PATROIT act tactics have not worked in Britain against the IRA, or in Israel against various terror groups. They won't work in the United States, either. Unfortunately, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I fear that the American public does not learn from history. If that is the case, may God help us all.

    In any case, congratulations, Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, et al. Never in the history of the world has anyone caved to terrorism so thoroughly and completely as the United States in the wake of 9/11. You should all be ashamed, and more to the point, you should all be impeached.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  23. Re:Jose Padilla the facts by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well it certainly sounds like they have some pretty hard evidence, so why don't they try him?

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  24. Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh yeah, IT HASN'T. Unless your name is Habib and you wear a turbin to work then nobody gives a fvck what you do. I also know that if 9/11 occurred during the presidency of a Democrat you'd be STFUing right about now, you wouldn't even see 100000 crap articles like this on slashdot.

    People named Habib who wear turbans to work deserve the same rights under the Constitution as those named Steve. By denying them that right, we are violating the fundamental principles of our society; of MY society. The laws and principles of MY country are being violated, and my fellow citizens (many of whom are named Habib) being denied their rights as citizens.

    That anyone in DC even gives such a concept consideration is apauling and offensive.

    As for a Democratic president, there were terrorist attacks under the last Democrat. The Bill of Rights was not violated under him the way it is being now. Instead, we had an impeachment hearing about a blow job.

    You're right. Under a Democrat, we'd not be having this discussion. We'd be paying attention to a fake scandal cooked up by political hacks in order to cripple him. Welcome to Modern America.

    --

    --GrouchoMarx
    Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

  25. The U.S. involved? by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if the detonators went off but the explosives didn't because of some fuck-up in converting metric units to Imperial... then maybe you could believe the U.S. was involved.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  26. Reichstag Fire: by Amiasian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Adolf Hitler and Hermann Göring arrived soon after, and when they were shown Van der Lubbe, a known Communist agitator, Göring immediately declared the fire was set by the Communists and had the party leaders arrested. Hitler took advantage of the situation to declare a state of emergency and encouraged aging president Paul von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, abolishing most of the human rights provisions of the 1919 Weimar Republic constitution.

    I think this strangely appropriate. Ideologies, not countries, always seems to be the common threat under which liberties are stolen by states.

    1. Re:Reichstag Fire: by egrinake · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.