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
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
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.
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