Slashdot Mirror
Senate Proposes Patriot Act Extension
geekylinuxkid writes "Senate leaders reached a bipartisan agreement Wednesday night to extend expiring and controversial provisions of the Patriot Act for six months. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, announced the agreement from the Senate floor, ending an impasse over the measure." From the article: "Last week, the House voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions after striking a compromise that altered some of them. The provisions were set to expire at year's end if not renewed. Controversial measures include those allowing the FBI -- with a court order -- to obtain secret warrants for business, library, medical and other records, and to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses." More commentary on the BBC. We reported on last week's failure of the original renewal.
As has been pointed out before... who needs an extension to the PATRIOT act, when the President can just issue an executive order?
Frist makes me laugh, he says "This is a win for America's safety and security, and I'm pleased the Senate was able to rise above the partisan politics being played by the minority to do the right thing."
And we know the majority would NEVER play partisan politics to get what they want.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
This is sad. 1984 anybody.
It's better to fight for freedom by _providing_ freedom. The same goes for a whole bunch of other nations as well... *looks at a bunch of European countries wanting to play Stasi as well*
Put the money on finding terrorists, diplomatic solutions to end hostilities and good old fashion not too bright police officers who screw up in a way we can find out.
At least we don't have never-expiring extensions that never come up for review.
The simple fact of the matter is that I just don't trust our current administration with the powers they've been granted - and that's quite a change considering I voted for Bush in 2000. He's done a lot to convince me I didn't pick the best man for the job - you'd almost think he was trying.
I think that goes directly back to what Benjamin Franklin was saying when he talked about people who give up freedom for security deserve neither.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So is this going to be one of those things that gets renewed temporarily...and then renewed temporarily again and again and again until people give in and just accept it? Cuz it sure seems like it.
Well, at this point that's better than the alternative... A permanent extension to the already overreaching powers that the Federal Government has. If this extension is going to have to come up and up again, perhaps -- just perhaps someone will have the fucking balls to stand up and tell the New Aged GOP douchebags that eroding the civil liberties of the American people isn't what this country was founded on. While it may not work, we can at least have it in the news and possibly get more and more people pissed off about it.
When it's already written into law, permanently, it gets ignored and more important news items like the breakup of Jessica and Nick and the possible pregnancies of Angelina and Jennifer get all over airwaves instead.
But what does that all matter when the President can just got behind the public's back and act like a dictactor and issue whatever atrocities against the American public that he feels like -- just as long as it's "to protect us" from the terrorists. Sounds like something that would have happened in Iraq, doesn't it?
The most amazing thing about this soap opera is how all that government spying was accepted to be really happening ever since the 50's by every conspiracy theorist or anyone with common sense.
What did you think those thousands of CIA agents, NSA agents, FBI agents did all day? Eat donuts?
Now that they actually tried to ratify their activities on paper, every conspiracy theorist now says it never happened before and acts like defeating the patriot act is going to make a difference.
i'd like to see an example of where the patriot act provisions were used egregiously by the current administration.
Of course. GW did say that these powers should stay in effect "as long as we are in danger." I've got news for you. Terrorism has been around a long time, and it's not going away any time soon. As long as there are terrorists in the world (an ever broadening group, due to the changes in how we define "terrorist"), there will be a reason to keep these laws around.
The current government has no plan to EVER give up the these powers.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
One thing that no one seems to realise - and is very important for Canadians and other countries who do business in the United Sates (so almost everyone) - is that this law also allows US intelligence agencies to spy on our businesses and citizens who have dealings with the US. They have no right to do this. It is an act of espionage and just another example the gross hypocrisy and mass stupidity of an administration claiming to stand for personal freedoms, civil liberties, and human rights.
This will only hit the garbage can AFTER we elect a democratically controlled senate/house.
Unfortunately, you did elect a democratically controlled sentate/house. It's just that a combination of events allowed most of the checks and balances to be overcome.
Ultimately, the 2000 election aside, a Republican president got elected in to office. In 2004 he got elected back in again. In 2008 he has to leave and either a Republican will be elected in to follow him or a Democrat to replace him. Pretty much democracy in action.
Congress and the Senate, similarly, were populated by votes. Granted there was some dubious redistricting by a guy who's now under criminal investigation - but those offices were all populated by votes and can have their population changed by votes. Again, pretty much democracy in action.
None of those offices, despite some glaring similarities, are dictatorships and, certainly, none of them are "for life" (save the Supreme Court but that's long been accepted). Every one of them can be changes [at regular intervals] by the will of the people. Thus, by definition, it is a democracy.
The problem is, when you allow the will of the people, you have to allow that people are stupid.
9/11 and the threat of the boogie man have worked as a great tool for scaring people and getting them to vote pro-conservative. It worked for the Nazi party in the 1940s, it worked for the Conservatives in Britain during the Falkands and the first Gulf war, and it's working for the Republicans now.
As Jimmy Carter pointed out on The Daily Show last night: "There's 9-10% of the population that, regardless of political affiliation, will always vote to support the current commander in chief whenever there's a war on and America's young men and women are fighting." Most of the margins are well within that 9-10% and, so long as there's a war on, it's an instant bonus for the party in power.
So, sadly, it is, by definition, a democratically elected government. It's just that part of democracy is allowing stupid people to vote, that stupid people can be manipulated, and that smart politicians will, eventually, find a way around almost any checks and balances. But that doesn't stop it being democratically elected.
"Congress authorized Bush to use "all" means. Sounds pretty authoritative to me."
sorry, but when congress authorized bush to use all means, they didn't mean "even the ones that violate federal law and the constitution". i really didn't think that congress needed to start putting that qualifier into bills, but apparently bush has demonstrated it's necessity.
sigh.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
I'm well aware of the original vote tally passing the "patriot" act. I think we've seen it was an overreaction, that it has been abused, and the White House has overstepped even the wide powers it got from that ill considered peace of legislation.
Every time Condi talks about it, she always says "The first smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud over a major city." My guess is that she's trying to scare and stampeed people into unwise actions.
America is about freedom.
The Administration is always talking about how "they" hate and despise our freedomes.
Seems to me that we shouldn't be limiting freedoms then. Otherwise, we are doing the work of destroying our country for them.
Getting down to cases, I think it's been shown what has done with the special powers granted in the act. EG: Not a lot of good things. We've invaded two countries, installed governments to our liking, and still people are shooting at each other and innocents are still dying. No improvement there, other than getting the Taliban and Saddam out of power. That is aregueably a good thing, but the price is much too high in my opinion. I thought at the time that we should have waited, but I was also concerned about the yellow cake situation. A stiuation it turns out just wasn't true.
Next is that "Congress saw all the same intelligence we did!" Well, sir, that turns out not to be the case. Seems that source assessment reports on the intelligence was NOT shared with congress, but WAS shared with the Administration. A source assessment report grades the source of the intelligence, some "spy" books range it as "Accepted as truth", "Trusted source, personally received", down to "known counterintelligence operat." There are good reasons not to share that information, but it seems most of the most damaging and most pointed to intelligence was from people known to be undependable, and that the administration knew they were but didn't say so, and there were some in the intelligence community that kept trying to point it out these sources were undependable. Some were gagged, some were transferred, some were fired, most were just ignored.
No sir. This is bad law and it isn't good for our country. I will say this, I have no doubt whatever that someone that has a known bad guy and needs the information to protect the country will do what it takes to get the information, even breaking the law to do it if it's that important. When that happens, it will either get covered up, or it will become public. Only if it becomes public will it go to a court, where 12 citizen will sit there and put themselves in the position of the agent and decide if what he did was illegal but justified. Even if it were illegal, I believe that a jury won't find him guilty if it was important enough.
Lastly, I love my country. I do not have to love the administration, and I refuse to accept being called unpatriotic because I disagree with your opinions. That is unworthy of a patriot, and the supporters of this administration should find a more mature way to disagree with people. What I see is that many confuse critizing the administrations actions with hating America. That isn't true. It's called loving your country to want to make it better, no matter how good it already is.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
We well remember the circumstances under which a law called "the PATRIOT Act" got passed to begin with. Yes. You might do better for your side of the ideological divide not to remind anyone of that process. This discussion is already about the abuse of power, you don't need to score points for the other side.
does NOT introduce one new power not already available to the government or a DA in some form to Drug Dealers.
You need to maybe edit this sentence so we have the slightest idea what you're saying. I think I can make a guess, but your point is badly garbled.
do the research and actually read through the entire legislation before making a judgement
Had you noticed that the debate about this law's renewal has had two sides:
Which of those sides seems to be staking out an adult position? Which reflects a thorough understanding of the bill? I ask you.
The objections to this legislation reflect specific concerns about it, they aren't an incoherent rant on the level of your post. I guess we'll just have to cut you some slack, though, as you're busy reading the 342-page text of the act, I feel certain.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
No one's checking my papers.
What makes you think you would be told if they were doing this? The PATRIOT act and FISA allow such surveillance to be done in secret, which means that you wouldn't be told. You might well be being monitored right this very minute; this very post may have gone into the "jav1231" file.
And you would simply never know.
--
$tar -xvf
The only meaningful thing you point out, and which is the REAL FUCKING PROBLEM HERE, is "You are all for it when it serves your politics".
I'm a Democrat, leaning libertarian, but some of the krap Clinton tried to pull, like the Clipper chip, and things he did get away with, like NAFTA, really pissed me off.
I guess I'm one of the few who rationally looks at legislation, regardless of whether it's proposed by "my party" or not.
It really blows my mind that the once "small government" Republicans (you know who you are...) are now the ones hell bent on making the U.S. some kind of police state.
IMHO, the Republicans who voted with the Democrats on this latest round of the Patriot Act have way bigger balls than the Bill Frists, et al.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Did you even read my post? FISA (the "Act" this order is referring to) explicitly grants permission to the President to authorize warrantless search for Foreign Governments and its Agents.
However, it EXPLICITLY FORBIDS the government from doing the same search on US Citizens without warrants.
Here, you can read it yourself.
Did you even READ this executive order? It does EXACTLY what I said it does. It says that since FISA gives me this power to search foreign powers, I am going to delegate this power to my Attorney General and other top cabinet officals.
WHERE does it say that even though FISA prohibits it, you are authorized to search US citizens without a warrant? Do you see ANY sentence here that says you should ignore FISA (in fact, EVERY paragraph starts with "Pursuant to FISA...")?
Why is this so hard to understand. I get that Rush and Fox News is distorting it, but gosh darn it, it is right here in black and white. ANY cursory reading of this order and FISA would lead any sane mind to fact that Clinton is going WITH the FISA while Bush is going AGAINST it.