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."

30 of 1,137 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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!
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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...

    10. 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

    11. 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
    12. 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
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

  2. So this is how liberty dies by Approaching.sanity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To cheers and thunderous applause.

    --
    RTFA again for the best results.
  3. 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. :-(
  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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."

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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?

  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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