Slashdot Mirror
Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions
PostConsumerRecycled writes "CNN is reporting that 'The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders ... If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on December 31.' The story also links to listing of the provisions that will expire."
Law enforcement has never needed the kind of powers the Patriot Act provides in the past. Its especially hard to justify when you consider the information the CIA had prior to 9/11. It was not a case of not enough information, it was a failure to act. the Patriot Act is a solution for the wrong problem. The restructuring of the intelligence organizations was the correct solution. The P.A. was a mad grab for power in the wake of disaster.
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
It would have passed without a fillibuster, but the fillibuster was sustained with 52 votes against (60 are needed to end a fillibuster). Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin led the fillibuster.
They impede the government's ability to do the work it's intended for.
Funny, I thought part of thier job was protecting us from our own government's abuse ("Checks and Balances", it's called) as well as fundamentalist nutjobs.
If you call life under new patriot act a "Free society" you are either trying WAY to hard for a +1 funny, or you are out of your bleeding mind.
Not most -- a majority voted to end the filibuster, but they fell short of the required 60%.
Patriot act big PDF warning. I am happy that our government is actually trying to restore our rights. First they let the assault weapon ban drop, now they let the patriot act die. I know it is early, but this may be a step in the right direction. Hopefully we can continue to elect out the lawmakers who would lie and steal their voter's rights. IMHO moving away from the 2 party system would be another step in the right direction, but I will take what I can get.
Beware the fury of a patient man
- John Dryden
From the NYT article:
Mr. Frist also voted "no" in the end, but in a purely parliamentary maneuver to allow him to try to bring up the bill again. Thus, the Patriot Act was actually seven votes short of the 60 needed to end debate today.
Air America is the mirror image of Fox News; don't believe anything either says without checking it out first.
Bush calls Constitution just a G-ddamned piece of paper
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's frusterating for me to watch this sort of shit. Paranoids are making life less safe for us all, and why? Fear of the government seeing which mp3s and videos you've downloaded from kazaa? Please. This is -- was -- used to target terrorists.
Horseshit. The main use of the "Sneak and Peak" provision was for drug investigations.
Whatever you think of the drug laws, peddling dope is not a terrorist activity.
Actually, it should be something like:
Congress fails to vote on extending PATRIOT Act, allowing some provisions to expire.
Yeah, a warrant signed by the FISC, which has never refused to sign off on a single warrant in its history. Read the article and tell me that the FISC is an independent court.
Sorry you got modded a troll.
What the moderator probably didn't know is just how instrumental Senator Russ Feingold was in rallying fellow senators' support. Here is the text to his speech:
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
It would be nice, for a change, to hear of some specific examples of how the government has used its powers beyond the reasonable scope of national security.
How about this
"Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions."
When even people inside the NSA question its legality I'd say it's pretty clear it has crossed the line.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
But it's still a little spooky that (if I remember correctly) the "New American Century" document that anticipated Bush's Iraq policy included an observation that a catastrophe "on the order of Pearl Harbor" might be necessary to win public support for a prolonged war in the Middle East. Many of the authors of that 1990s paper later played (and still play) key roles in the Bush administration.
While flipping through some TV channels, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few moments of a smirking politician rambling on about freedom and liberty. What a tragic comedy. The fact politicians still have a market to spew their crap is a testament to the lack of thought of the average viewer of such pretended "news" programs.
A few minutes of thought and any literate person of any degree of intelligence would dismiss politicians as con men. However, has any "journalist" on television, radio or in print ever confronted a politician by asking him exactly what he means by freedom? Can you imagine the look on a bureaucrat's face if he was asked to define freedom or liberty?
I'm going to demonstrate how easy it is to prove government is incompatible with freedom or the protection of freedom.
I'll define the word freedom. And so I'm not accused of being biased, I'll use only "legal" definitions: "Liberty; absence of restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 499. Look at the last word, "restraint." Liberty is "Absence of servitude and restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 734. And "free" means: "Without restraint or coercion..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 498.
Now let's define what governments do, viz., they govern:
"To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
It's correct to say freedom is "Liberty; [an] absence of" government. If there's government, there's "restraint" and therefore, no freedom. By definition, and in practice, government is anti-freedom. Keep in mind any slave had the freedom to do what his master ordered or allowed him to do; he was none the less a slave.
I know, statists (with not a shred of evidence of course) will shout government is there for protection and they're the only men and women who can. That's nonsense, as everyone with even the slightest knowledge of government should already know. There is no duty to protect anyone. And any lawyer claiming otherwise is either lying or was asleep during that part of law school. Like I say; if you doubt me, then sue the police or the "state" for failing to protect you. A team of "state" lawyers will file a motion for a failure to state a claim.
Statists argue there has to be political "laws" i.e., "restraint." Fine, then explain exactly how politicians protect freedom. Accepting such nonsense for sake of argument, statists argue themselves right out of business because it cannot be said, with a straight face, that "states" are protecting freedom and liberty because freedom and liberty do not exist when there is "restraint [and] coercion." The "restraint [and] coercion" is another reason there is no duty to protect anyone.
Statists also support the use of violence to provide and pay for a service. Statists believe it's OK to kill people to make them pay for a service that's never provided. If you doubt this, then refuse to pay taxes. A good one to not pay, if you want to demonstrate a politician's intent to kill, is the vehicle license tax. Go ahead and drive around without a tax plate on your car. See what happens when you peacefully continue to drive when the local revenue cutter puts his emergency lights on.
When NORMAL men and women provide services, even the service of protecting freedom, they do not exercise "restraint or coercion" in providing their services to their customers, thereby destroying freedom. They would not only offer their services on a mutually voluntary basis, they would not restrain us of our freedom in order to protect it i.e., they would not take away that which they want to protect.
By definition the protection of freedom cannot involve "restraint or coercion". And yet, this describes exactly how men and women doing business as a government operate. They coerce us to pay them for protection they have no obligation or intention of providing and they restrain us in millions of ways; restraint that clearly has nothing to do with protection. These smirking politicians destro
For many reading this thread, I suspect that the post 9/11 environment, and concerns about government over-reach are largely academic or driven by ideology (mind you, I'm not saying this is a bad thiing, really). For me, they're a bit more real.
... for a while there, it was quite common, since I might look like 'the enemy').
I was interviewed by the FBI in October 2001, as part of the 9/11 investigation for several hours by Special Agents of the FBI. While they never came out and told me why they wanted to talk to me, they were particularly interested in my general aviation flying. It appears that my "crime" was having a funny name (I'm of South Asian descent) and having a student pilot's license. The FBI did know quite a bit about me, such as what videotapes and such I'd purchased from "Sporty's Pilot Shop" and other similar items.
At the time, I didn't really mind the questioning - I felt that it was my patriotic duty to assist in the investigation. However, in subsequent years, my attempts to get my FBI records (and I know they have them, obviously) have been unsuccessful. The response to my FOIA requests state that they cannot release my information for "national security" reasons pertaining to "an ongoing investigation." So does this mean my name is cleared?
I haven't had any follow-ups with the FBI, and recent LiveScan background checks I've gone through (I work in EMS, and it's required in the county I work in) turned out OK, and I have no problems getting on an airline (and I don't usually get yanked out of line for the special screening anymore
My point in this is that we Americans must remain ever vigilant that our civil rights, our freedoms and our liberties remain protected. I am troubled when I listen to certain people talk about "Freedom" and "Democracy" in one sentence and then in the next breath go on and describe their desires for what amounts to a fascist state without any sense of irony. If we are to remain a nation of laws, we must remain aware of what's going on, and we must recognize that if only one person is denied their liberty, or due process, then we are all at risk.
Not that I expect you to beleive me, but I can safely say that the vast majority of the employees of the National Security Agency are quite interested in acting in a legal and ethical fashion.
I had to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I take this rather seriously.
The majority of the employees here are terribly intelligent and thoughtful individuals. Some have considered that perhaps the President is not acting in the best interests of the United States and its citizens, but in his own best interests. This feeling is nonpartisan and spreading more rapidly as news of his failings as a morally-guided leader reach us.
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time around and rallied the opposition this time. Senator Feingold spent the week blogging on the floor fight at TPM Cafe.
Here's some info on the Patriot Act, in case someone wants to actually read it (or at least the general gist of it) before they offer opinions.
VOTE!