Slashdot Mirror
Significant FBI Abuses of the Patriot Act
Noksagt writes "The Washington Post is reporting that recently discovered documents indicate serious intelligence violations by the FBI. This comes just months after the U.S. House voted to extend the Patriot Act, EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act of thirteen cases of possible misconduct in intelligence investigations. The case numbering suggests that there were at least 153 investigations of misconduct at the FBI in 2003 alone."
> The American idea of dividing the powers up It's not an American idea. You guys might think you invented democracy, but the idea of 3 powers in a state came from the Greeks - about 3000 years ago.
Timo's Audio Software http://www.esseraudio.com
Give an example of how you are being restricted in exercising ANY civil right since these policies were put into place.
Free-Speech Zone - The administration quarantines dissent
You might not realise it, but you're living in a fascist country. To quote Mussolini (!):
"If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government."
it's in my head
No, but posting informative comments peppered with sarcasm might. For instance, did you know a law can be created without discussion these days in America? I certainly didn't. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (FECA) has been amended, without published notice of proposed amendments, under the authority of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. If anyone can navigate that maze of spagetti code to see how these new amendments apply, I'm sure you'll find sharing BMG's latest offerings an offense punishable by death. What next? Taxation without representation?
"The fact of the matter is that these measures have not removed or degraded ANY civil liberties in this country. If you think otherwise, PROVE IT! Give an example of how you are being restricted in exercising ANY civil right since these policies were put into place."
It's called FEAR, and it affects the excersize of people's rights in a very real way. People are less likely to speak up, or even go to the library to get information about their own government if they believe that the government will abuse its authority to monitor such activities. You don't have to change laws to take away peoples rights, you can just make them too afraid to use them. The FEAR that these laws, and the apparent abuses stemming from these laws cause is a DIRECT DEGRADATION of our civil rights.
By the way, the president now has the right to secretly arrest you, without trial or cause recourse or oversight, fly you to a foreign country to be tortured by contractors, in secret, until such time as you die. You don't have any rights anymore.
Perhaps the weeks following a terrorist attack are not the best time to write legislation regarding what to do about terrorism.
"Many people do not know that the USA PATRIOT Act was already written and ready to go long before September 11th"
[---]
"it was the Reagan Administration which initially proposed some of the most troubling provisions which eventually became part of the USAPA. When Reagan proposed these provisions, Congress rejected them on constitutional grounds. The first Bush Administration then made similar proposals, which were again rejected by lawmakers. Congress twice refused to enact the secret evidence provisions proposed by Bush I. (Indeed, just prior to 9/11, Congress was about to pass a law repealing the secret evidence provisions of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act.)"
link
it's in my head
As an Australian, I can say you're right about everything except the guns. If you're a private citizen and have a valid use for a rifle, it's just a matter of paperwork, always has been even before the buyback scheme. Which, by the way, was mostly about removing automatic weapons from the public - fair enough too; I highly doubt there's many legitimate reasons to fire hundreds of rounds per minute (some that were in the business of culling feral stock from helicopter had cause to complain though). Pistols are difficult, because apart from sport there's no practical reason to have one, although IIRC if you're part of a gun club I believe it isn't too much hassel if you use pistols that are kept at the club at all times.
This might appear odd to you, I guess it's a culture difference. You have an absolutely fucking scary culture with guns over there. In Australia, we automatically exclude the possibility of using a gun against a human. Writing "Self-defence" on the application form to obtain a gun license will guarantee you won't get to own one (legally). Unlike Americans, we don't believe guns are useful just because it's a gun. We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right. A liability, a responsibility. We acknowledge that not every random bastard on the street is going to be responsible and rational enough to engage in safe gun ownership. You must have a legitimate reason to own one, this includes agricultural and sporting applications. Letting people own a gun purely because "it's teh c00l" or "self protection" does not benefit society at all.
As for the smh article, the PM does not have absolutel control. Even if his legislation does get through, it is highly vulnerable to a high court challenge. One of the fundamental parts of our constitution is a separation of powers between the executive and judicial arms of the government. His new legislation expects the courts to become "servants to the government" by "assisting where necessary" with speedy issueing of warrants etc. even in cases where suspects may have no actual evidence (in the traditional sense) against them.
This is upsetting a lot of QCs (Queen's Council - top brass barristers) and a couple of state-level governments.
It is unlikely the judicial branch will take this lying down - this won't be the first time the government will be "disappointed" by the courts not doing their bidding.
We haven't heard the end of this: Anti-terror laws: 'unconstitutional' summit
The American idea of dividing the powers up and setting them at each other's throats was really clever. Unfortunately, no one knows the future, and things have evolved in a way where the powers are bigger and more concentrated than any English king's powers ever were. Unanticipated side effect of the 17th Amendment. (Yeah, the idea of an evolving document was pretty good, too, but it also got misused...)
It was a French idea. Montesquieu thought up the idea of dividing balancing powers in 1748 (Trias Politica). Only much later did America take it over but to claim it is an American idea is too far-fetched. Dividing balancing powers is a French exportproduct. Know your history!
French and abused. Oh, the irony.
Not too many mortars here in Australia, or people dying in violent protests. The government has been in power for about nine years too.
Really - the original poster's nickname is "aussie a" which should give you some hint to where he's from.
You do make a good point though. I too live in an electorate where the votes are about 60% in favour of one party. I happen to vote that way myself, but I've lived in others where my vote doesn't matter unless there are ten thousand more of me.
Of course, voting's compulsory here in Australia, which is a Very Good Thing. The minimum we should ask is that people vote and that the government's mandate is fairly based upon the popular vote. Of course, the ruling conservative government are making noises about making voting voluntary someday, but a spell in opposition will change their minds.
First impressions you are right - on reflection, those religious groups are on a continuous war footing. They are working non-stop to promote their message and they are hassling their elected representatives. They don't think that voting is enough (even though it really should be).
I would suggest that if those same elected representatives were hassled to a greater level by any other point of view - they would quickly change their tune.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
England is where the modern idea of a constitutional democracy took root with the signing of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_carta. Interestingly, the English parliment was formed by a group of wealthy Barrons who forced the king to divest some of his power because he was screwing up their bussiness interests (seems aggressive lobbying is nothing new).
The parent post is however correct, the Greeks invented the basic "seperation of powers" concept, every other democracy since that time has simply tinkered with the details.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
In your dreams... In practice, if such situation occurs, it's more probably that the administration will prefer to waste that money rather than admitting that there was a surplus. If they admit that the have leftovers, not only will they have to give back what they didn't use, but they'll also get less the next year.
We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right.
In America, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. So, for us, it is a right. You could see how we would have a different take on gun ownership than our Aussie friends.
The writers of the constitution didn't put the second ammendment in so we could hunt deer or shoot tin cans. It is so we can protect ourselves from the government and overthrow it if necessary. It is so we can have guns that we can fight a corrupt army lead by a corrupt government.
--- tangent ---
At the time, that meant you could have your flint lock musket and flint lock single shot pistol, and probably better models than the government could afford to supply the army with. Even through the civil war, people could go buy repeating rifles (6-14 rimfire bullets) and six shot black powder revolvers, same thing the infantry had (if they were lucky enough to have repeaters - most had muzzle loading rifles). Sure, they had cannons, and a few breachloading ones at that, but you had a fighting chance.
They didn't forsee one weapon that could kill millions of people at a time. Should I be able to have one? Common sense says no. The Constitution says yes.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Interesting that Australia's top criminologists say "The weapons/methods used in the commission of homicide have remained relatively unchanged over the years." - essentially, they say the gun control laws don't make a bit of difference, criminals still kill in the same proportions with whatever is available, be it a gun, knife, or hand. This dovetails quite nicely with the theory that individuals hold the primary responsibility to protect themselves from vermin (old US values) and the theory that individuals are weak and puny and need a big gov't to protect them (new US values, and most of the rest of the world). Politicians everywhere are in the business of grabbing and holding power, using whatever crisis du jour is available. Bush used our very real terrorist problem to invade Iraq and force the Patriot Act on the country - the only question now is, is the damage too far gone to ever be repaired? ref: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/66/02_summa ry.html#4a
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
Vote Quimby
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Pistols are designed for shooting people. Sometimes this is necessary.
This is Insightful?!?
Yes it is sometimes necessary if you are in the police force or army or whatever but an ordinary citizen? In what situation in your everyday life is it necessary to shoot people?
Maybe I'm naive but it boggles my mind that there are people that think like this, and other people that think this idea is "Insightful".
While I will not disagree with you, I will point out that it is the most obvious over the last 5 years. In particular, the press should be all over a number of on-going scandels that are occuring within this admin, yet are not. Under reagan, the admin had some odd 250 scandels over the 8 years (by far, the most of any admin), but they were covered by the press.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The cowards who think that our entire world must be changed because a couple fanatics did something fanatical, and that Freedom should be outlawed because it interferes with the safety of the populace deserve every bit of malice they get.
I can't get over how beautifully ironic it is that the terrorists won under the mantle of "The terrorists may have already won!".
It's been a long time.
This could just have easily been expressed "The Washington Post has obtained documents indicating that the FBI aggressively investigates any reports of their agents violating Federal law in pursuit of their duties, maintains extensive records of these investigations, and provides them to the press in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act."
But that wouldn't do.