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.
HELLO WORLD
51596 51596
HELLO WORLD
92767 92767 35000 35000 60456 60456 36752 36752 17830 17830
64664 64664 97327 97327 46977 46977 61133 61133 17346 17346
61009 61009 73048 73048 04488 04488 14216 14216 60017 60017
14441 14441 56190 56190 63745 63745 23710 23710 72740 72740
32909 32909 37659 37659 25417 25417 81921 81921 94564 94564
09618 09618 86777 86777 35751 35751 30903 30903 36870 36870
04051 04051 45024 45024 46030 46030 52779 52779 98768 98768
38939 38939 29424 29424 95370 95370 39757 39757 76214 76214
33500 33500 58176 58176 94996 94996 92452 92452 16297 16297
24778 24778 35811 35811 98084 98084 90029 90029 97702 97702
99755 99755 70093 70093 36424 36424 57894 57894 70371 70371
87049 87049 43212 43212 23903 23903 17700 17700 33073 33073
64065 64065 13431 13431 90689 90689 44727 44727 50351 50351
98864 98864 48740 48740 99279 99279 27447 27447 40314 40314
85236 85236 97076 97076 50861 50861 23611 23611 83147 83147
57005 57005 71753 71753 16389 16389 13966 13966 13618 13618
37166 37166 12873 12873 30693 30693 64918 64918 48449 48449
96404 96404 67312 67312 59294 59294 19951 19951 08499 08499
21144 21144 39413 39413 71627 71627 07912 07912 94296 94296
37792 37792 67016 67016 45949 45949 23139 23139 65740 65740
06660 06660 32074 32074 15119 15119 96948 96948 12434 12434
79349 79349 61727 61727 45158 45158 75881 75881 23601 23601
78865 78865 21369 21369 92445 92445 80072 80072 13166 13166
50122 50122 16099 16099 51338 51338 65928 65928 51766 51766
36956 36956 61388 61388 45702 45702 75546 75546 71002 71002
94310 94310 58215 58215 11011 11011 29324 29324 02989 02989
29839 29839 82972 82972 56978 56978 96742 96742 05657 05657
91297 91297 82901 82901 61185 61185 49621 49621 79394 79394
88201 88201 18289 18289 30302 30302 31584 31584 94910 94910
14995 14995 52830 52830 69678 69678 85053 85053 22278 22278
06356 06356 70765 70765 25725 25725 20200 20200 59708 59708
59047 59047 49455 49455 45113 45113 30602 30602 75747 75747
30578 30578 69407 69407 27291 27291 44910 44910 23350 23350
73531 73531 96793 96793 07500 07500 19480 19480 06608 06608
52659 52659 75081 75081 98042 98042 27358 27358 54724 54724
45991 45991 56287 56287 08159 08159 47227 47227 76929 76929
81268 81268 26746 26746 88085 88085 93360 93360 08168 08168
84328 84328 29303 29303 38533 38533 00309 00309 10721 10721
88195 88195 99790 99790 47440 47440 29006 29006 60352 60352
54061 54061 98113 98113 45106 45106 17090 17090 24873 24873
12199 12199 73385 73385 99149 99149 33412 33412 77686 77686
30304 30304 97093 97093 04154 04154 47475 47475 55999 55999
63794 63794 43445 43445 06303 06303 13797 13797 90818 90818
69437 69437 42013 42013 82334 82334 17349 17349 35296 35296
96763 96763 76696 76696 73162 73162 84108 84108 45154 45154
42612 42612 44543 44543 31428 31428 84843 84843 36842 36842
66922 66922 46271 46271 67169 67169 99539 99539 91786 91786
13719 13719 66292 66292 88132 88132 51422 51422 32296 32296
26984 26984 12138 12138 39254 39254 39919 39919 21240 21240
92942 92942 17325 17325 81790 81790 11751 11751 81921 81921
42251 42251 20926 20926 19611 19611 45354 45354 92705 92705
30664 30664 13342 13342 88716 88716 40052 40052 56567 56567
77002 77002 43633 43633 88702 88702 44343 44343 32118 32118
04393 04393 93946 93946 89395 89395 45091 45091 49429 49429
76774 76774 05188 05188 58770 58770 49249 49249 26073 26073
03128 03128 05166 05166 19292 19292 77286 77286 86852 86852
93097 93097 26296 26296 01125 01125 98395 98395 04372 04372
43995 43995 69364 69364 54108 54108 29726 29726 27111 27111
12419 12419 09389 09389 31476 31476 18572 18572 19719 19719
64154 64154 81995 81995 51032 51032 51721 51721 57858 57858
24811 24811 86985 86985 27585 27585 62910 62910 77359 77359
29956 29956 70889 70889 13625 13625 47114 47114 53765 53765
21904 21904 75522 75522 96875 96875 23400 23400 00381 00381
44202 44202 27549 27549 18478 18478 26804 26804 26951 26951
62776 62776 431
As has been pointed out before... who needs an extension to the PATRIOT act, when the President can just issue an executive order?
This is not what I hoped for, but 6 months is probably the best the republicans can get for now. After all, 2006 is election year and everyone is switching into CYA mode. This will only hit the garbage can AFTER we elect a democratically controlled senate/house.
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
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Put me on the top of the list of supposed "terrists" because I oppose everything the jackbooted thug Republicans stand for. Let's see the idiots open a file on me now if they already haven't! Up the rebels!!!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This is sad. 1984 anybody.
Why would the FBI need a warrant when King George can simply bypass FISA and issue a secret and pointless decree allowing domestic spying without a warrant? Especially when, under FISA, a wiretap or other device can be requested without a pre-existing warrant (as long as a warrant comes within 72 hours)?
-- The reason it's called the right wing? Irony.
Fortunately, this doesn't guarantee it will pass. One of the provisions I agree with is the one that eliminates barriers to intelligence agents and prosecutors sharing information. This act has already infringed on many peoples freedom, but has also opened up the government to be more scrutinous in the case of certain suspicious entities. Has it overall had a positive or negative effect? Since we as the general public cannot easily gauge what information they have collected entirely as a result, who can say for sure.
For those interested in the provisions the House passed, this site explains most of them in plain english LA Times Provisions
This site has the latest in how the patriot act currently stands.
must be hiding something...
Well, Bush said he wouldn't sign an extension. Maybe they think they can sneak it past him if they spell it differently. "No, Mr. President. An extention is totally different from an extension. It's a good thing. Sign it and you'll get a cookie and then naptime!"
We just got Fristed?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
US citizens:
Write, phone, email your Representatives and Senators - and ask them to knock down at least some of the more onerous provisions of the Patriot Act - I'm thinking of provisions like the one allowing secret warrants, for example.
Many of them will be back in their districts for the holidays. Visit their offices and talk politely with their staff. Inform yourselves of the Act's details, and make to-the-point suggestions.
Exercise democracy. The Act is vulnerable at this moment.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
This is also covered on Yahoo's news site.
a triot_act
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/ap_on_go_co/p
When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. - Jefferson
I propose a Slashdot spelling contest. Gheese.
Too bad they didn't mean "extinction".
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.
Almost as bad as the guy that posted "czech this out" on the front page.
Wrists killing you? Not in 2 weeks. Learn Dvorak.
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 haven't read the linked article yet, but I did read a story in the Wisconsin State journal about it...
Apparently the bill still needs to go to the House, as the House originally voted for it to be renewed in it's original form, not an extension. According to that article, because it's different than what the House voted to pass, it has to go up for another vote.
It was also pointed out that the House is scheduled to be in recess until January 31, a month after the original provisions will expire and be off the books--and it's hard to extend something that is already expired (although I wouldn't put anything past this administration--I'll be so glad when W is out of office!)
In my not-so-educated opinion, it would appear that given what little I know, the extension doesn't stand much chance of passing since a recessed House would have to reconvene, debate, and vote on the changes, in less than nine days, during the holiday season.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
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!
What will be the next step? Start gathering a clone army or start building the Death Star?
Visit the RPG Search Engine
Totally. Also, I don't know why W.'s presidential term should expire.
Please.
Thou shalt not begin a subject line or post with the word "Umm".
The Patriot Act was passed in 2001 while the WTC rubble was still smoking. They built in the expiration because it was obviously a piece of knee-jerk legislation guaranteed to be overreaching-- it was expected that four years later, we'd have simmered down, we'd have the benefit of hindsight and the expiration date would force re-examination and adjustment of the law's provisions.
Nobody imagined that that son of a bitch Bush II and his minions would have spent the intervening years abusing/hiding behind it while turning the U.S. into a police state, and that they'd not want to pare down any of the civil-liberties-stomping aspects.
~Philly
from what I've read case law supports this. Since it involves foreign powers and influence, the President, any President, can use those powers with no need for a warrant as is within his right as commander and chief.
How about we strike a deal? The government will prevent people from blowing stuff up, like the Brooklyn Bridge, and they won't use those tapes in court at a trial.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
They haven't figured how to spy on us through our TVs.... yet.
/. population would leave the country overnight.
/tinfoil tv cover
And thank God we don't have mandatory morning calisthenics.
Half the
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
Nobody imagined that that son of a bitch Bush II and his minions would have spent the intervening years abusing/hiding behind it while turning the U.S. into a police state...
Um...just for the record...I imagined it. I started imagining it just about when the Republican-dominated Supreme Court of the Unites States handed Dubya the Presidency.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I bet you $100 I can show you one.
"Nobody imagined that that son of a bitch Bush II and his minions would have spent the intervening years abusing/hiding behind it while turning the U.S. into a police state, and that they'd not want to pare down any of the civil-liberties-stomping aspects."
And how has he done that? I don't see any police hanging around my neighborhood. No one's checking my papers. No one's stopping me and asking me where I'm going. No one's tapping my phone because I'm a) not calling overseas to countries that might harbour terrorists and b) I'm not linked to any terrorist organization.
i'd like to see an example of where the patriot act provisions were used egregiously by the current administration.
Actually, it violates the 4th and 5th amendments to the US Constitution and some of it has already been thrown out by judges.
D eclawed
http://www.devshed.com/showblog/1305/PATRIOT-Act-
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Nobody imagined that that son of a bitch Bush II and his minions would have spent the intervening years abusing/hiding behind it while turning the U.S. into a police state, and that they'd not want to pare down any of the civil-liberties-stomping aspects.
I imagined it, and a lot of other people did as well. We were quashed right out of public discourse, the corporate controlled mass media completely suppressed all dissent until sometime around mid 2004.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Vast majority of Patriot Act is permanent. Only few fringe statues are in play here. Even with those, majority of them have bi-partisan support (sad, but true).
We are only talking about 2 or 3 provisions being RENEWED with added safeguards.
NO ONE is talking about getting rid of the Act all together.
With the UK & USA seemingly going down the route of 'the more we can track our citizens, the safer they'll be', which 'western' countries have we got left to emigrate to where we can at least trust the government not to be listening to our conversations or tracking our cars - Canada? Sweden?
This isn't a partisan issue - this is an AMERICAN issue. The USA Patriot Act was passed right after 9/11 - who in their right mind wasn't going to vote against it (Whomever did, I forget whom, said that we were rushing into things). People wanted a response, and this is what they got. You do realize that the act was thrown together in 3 weeks and was about 400 pages long, don't you? Do you think anyone had time to read through all of it.
The point of the matter is - some provisions violate the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution, which, among other things, are supposed to protect the right to unreasonable searches and seizures and the rights of the accused. I did a long report on this my first year in college, and there's a lot to be worried over.
Quit blowing partisan smoke out your ass AND WAKE UP! America as we know it is falling apart, and idiots like you that spout off talking points aren't helping matters any.
My MythTV HowTo
Sorry for replying twice, but I wonder who's got the /. UID 1984
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
A six-month renewal of the Patriot Act would put another renewal squarely in the middle of election season. I'm thinking both sides are going to try to tar the other with it ("You want to give the terrorists free reign!" No, you want to trample the freedoms of the American people!"). Should be an interesting screaming match.
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.
No, instead it will be like copyright, and the government will simply renew them year after year after year until it fades from public attention.
Somewhat how like copyrights have been extended one a consistent basis so that they renew into perpetuety.
"Quit blowing partisan smoke out your ass AND WAKE UP! America as we know it is falling apart, and idiots like you that spout off talking points aren't helping matters any."
America as we know it is falling apart? Unemployment is down, the economy is booming, we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, and we are continuing to strive through disasters such as Katrina.
If you think this place is "falling apart" by all means leave and tell me what you see elsewhere.
Here's a key word for you, "yet."
Either you can just ignore what is happening and assume that "all will come out in the end," or perhaps you might want to stop the boulder at the top of the hill before it gains enough momentum to crush all those at the bottom?
Not for long, they won't be...
The enemies of Democracy are
I, for one, can't wait to help vote that dipshit out of office next year.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
These included roving phone taps and secret warrants for documents from businesses and hospitals, and for records of library books taken out by private citizens. From BBC
They can look at my library records? Oh, man. I only checked out the Brian Herbert books 'cause I was curious. I'm so sorry...please don't throw me in jail...
we are fighting terrorism. we are spreading democracy whether anyone likes it or not. if you question us, you hate freedom a good number of americans must hate freedom, then, as much as we're questioning this act that quenches it.
"of all worlds, may the good lord deliver us from a world where everyone
This is not what I hoped for, but 6 months is probably the best the republicans can get for now. After all, 2006 is election year and everyone is switching into CYA mode. This will only hit the garbage can AFTER we elect a democratically controlled senate/house.
Your hopes are pinned on the likes of Howard 'White Flag' Dean being able to garner the swing vote. Hmm, swing vote and Howard Dean, not two words you often find used together. I am hopeful Dean and his ilk will alienate the electorate again and that America will grow redder. A filibuster proof Senate majority would be nice. Then we can and we can really get something done. What I find really inexplicable about the agreement is that the ANWR was dropped. Hopefully Senator Frist will reattach it to some Democrat sacred cow legislation so we can actually do something to increase our domestic oil supplies.
an ill wind that blows no good
Hail, Emperor Dubya!
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
Patriot Act? With the President tapping phone lines, who really cares what laws are in place? Apparently they don't matter.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
"These included roving phone taps and secret warrants for documents from businesses and hospitals, and for records of library books taken out by private citizens."
Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography
DA's have been seizing library records for years, and roving wire taps just make sense. If a terrorist walks into Best Buy and can buy 10 pre-paid phones, we should be able to keep tapping him.
Poor widdle baby... did you burn yourself on my radiant zinger?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
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.
Hey, if the Iron Curtain was so much fun 1960s, well... the USSA can be fun, too.
With apologies to the Beatles...
Oh, flew into Miami Beach econo-class,
Didn't get to bed last night,
TSA guy's rubber glove still up my ass,
Man I had a dreadful flight,
I'm back in the USSA!
They're watchin' you every day, hey,
Back in the USSA!
Been away so long I hardly knew the place,
Gee it's good to be back home,
Leave it till tomorrow to unpack my case,
Honey disconnect the phone,
I'm back in the USSA.
They're watchin' you every day, hey,
Back in the US,
More flak in the US,
No slack in the USSA!
Well the Midwest girls really knock me out
They leave Moscow behind
And DC girls make me sing and shout
'Cuz Washington is always on my mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mind!
Oh, they're sayin' it's for reasons of security,
Naw, it ain't no politics,
And now they've redefined the meaning of "be free",
To shiny boots and big nightsticks!
We're back in the USSA!
They're watchin' you every day, hey,
Back in the USSA!
Oh let me tell you, honey! (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Oh, show me around your desert wastelands way down south,
Hire Chicanos for your farm,
Let me hear your patriotic acts ring out,
Shock and awe your comrades warm!
I'm back in the USSA!
They're watchin' you every day, hey,
Back in the USSA!
Oh let me tell you, honey! (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Hey, I'm back! (Ooh ooh ooh!)
I'm back in the USSA. (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Yes, I'm free! (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Yeah, back in the USSA.. (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Next step: Instituting a federal Bear Patrol to stop these constant bear attacks. I also hear there's a little girl who has a rock that keeps tigers away, this should also be investigated.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Would you say the same of anyone who objected to pre-flight anal-probes at all major airports? :-o
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
"Unemployment is down, the economy is booming, we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, and we are continuing to strive through disasters such as Katrina"
"Unemployment is down"
So are wages adjusted for inflation.
"the economy is booming"
Umm, no. The economy has posted modest gains offset by inflation (just wait until figures come out for Q1 2006) and leveraged by massive amounts of debt, which WILL need to be paid back.
"we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11"
Not relevant, unless you can prove one or more have been thwarted by the PATRIOT Act, that wouldn't have been thwarted otherwise.
"we are continuing to strive through disasters such as Katrina."
Strive? So, struggling is the definition of success? Besides, it didn't seem to me like FEMA was striving for anything in the immediate aftermath of Katrina. Just plain old suffering though a disaster means we're doing well?
Take a look at the long term. Open your eyes. Things are NOT good. Things will be WORSE soon, due to current policies. What is freedom worth to you, anyway -- a false sense of security?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
These are the text from number stations, they broadcast messages to spies using a one-time pad. numbers stations for more info; so really, parent should be modded up
1p}{ 1 sp34k |33+ +|-|e|\| p30p13 \/\/il| 8e i/\/\pr3553|)
You can also say that anybody who strongly agrees with the Patriot Act must be hiding something. Sort of like people who are vehemently anti-gay, yet are in the closet themselves.
I wonder if all of you realize that in order for the gov't to spy on someoen by the patriot act, they must be a known al-qaeda contact and one of the contact must be _overseas_
. asp?ID=20635)
if that applies to anyone here... and you think you're being watched wrongly, you can complain. for the rest of us, regardless of what the media tells you, the gov't isnt listening to your phone calls.
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle
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.
I suggest you visit this site and familiarize yourself with the event in question.
From the site (emphasis mine):Bush's 2000 victory was only 'legal' in the sense that a decision of the SCOTUS must be de facto lawful, as there is no higher legal authority...in other words, the doctrine of 'the King can do no wrong'.
For a taste of how our Founding Father's felt about this doctrine, here's a quote from The Federalist No. 69:Of course, this is in regard to the executive branch, but similar views were held forth regarding the judicial.
From The Federalist No. 78:
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please show that nobody imagined that the misnamed Patriot Act would be abused. It is my opinion that anyone with minimal capacity for rational thought imagined exactly that. Further, when it was subsequently revealed that none of those who voted for the bill had actually read it, imagination quickly turned to resignation. At least in my case. I still suspect that the allegations that the DoJ had the PA prepared in advance are true.
--
My other car is a tin foil hat.
America may be falling apart, but it's because of people like you. Oh how quickly we forget that our country was founded on the questioning of authority. Balance of powers, representation, freedom...those words ring a bell? Why are the ones that are so adament about spreading "freedom" to other countries (at least, those we have an economic interest in...oh, and aren't strong enough to fight back) so willing to give up their own? http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11054&c =130
Do those look like rights that the government already has? Or maybe we should be asking, do those look like rights the government SHOULD have? I'm really getting sick of Republicans using FUD to scare the ignorant masses into sacraficing their civil liberties in the name of security and the war on terror.
Let's use the secret wiretaps as an example here. Are there terrorist threats in the world today? Yes. Would allowing secret wiretaps of American citizens help monitor them? Yes. Do these two facts justify the use of allowing secret wiretaps of American citizens? NO! Jesus tapdancing Christ people, why not have a camera in every household monitoring your actions while we're at it? Maybe a CIA officer handcuffed to you at all times? Hell, why not just station each of us in some massive jail with no outside contact? At least we'd be safe right? No terrorist going to get us that way!
Sacraficing liberty and freedom in the name of security is anti-American and the way Bush and his administration is spinning it off is terrorism. Don't forget your roots and don't forget how quickly one bad dictator can ruin a powerful nation. Countries with seemingly unlimited power have fallen before, we are no different. You ever wonder how all those great empires fell and think "how in the hell did they let that madman drive their nation into the ground?". That's what's happening now. And if we aren't careful, we're going to end up becoming a footnote in history as another world power that toppled because of poor leadership that drew way too many enemies. That's when the terrorist will have won, when we start living in fear and sacraficing the freedom we tout. Hell, I'm not all that convinced they haven't already won. Time will tell.
P.S. The bill was passed by an overwhelming majority because it was thrown together at the last minute because they needed to do something to prevent mass hysteria in the wake of 9/11.
The Washington Post recently launched a comprehensive votes database that lets you browse every vote in the U.S. Congress since 1991 and is updated several times daily.
Here, for instance, is the House vote mentioned in this Slashdot blurb.
Disclaimer: I'm the Web developer who worked on this database.
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.
http://www.google.com/search?q="strip club" "patriot act"
"The law was intended for activities related to terrorism and not to naked women," said Reid, who as minority whip is the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Hell no! I will not leave this country. It is my country. Every time I read a suggestion that "We" find a new place to live, because "Our country is going down the tube, I cringe. I will not run away but will stay the course to restore citizens rights. If "They" don't like it they can leave but "I'm" staying put.
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
Excellent Post
the misinformation. I've seen these allegations that Clinton spied on american citizens without a court order on Drudge, NRO and all the conservative blogs. They all reference executive order 12949 which states " Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, theAttorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order" What does text of the law say, the president can authorize searches of foreign powers without a court order. No where does the law say American Citizens. King George could have easily followed the law but didn't, other presidents did.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
...typical AC cowahd!!!! Have to hide behind you mommy Taco.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Unemployment is down, the economy is booming, we haven't had a terrorist attack...
So, you'd prefer to live here ?
If you think this place is "falling apart" by all means leave and tell me what you see elsewhere.
I don't even need to leave my chair to do that....
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Debunking the Carter/Clinton Myth
by georgia10
Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 06:15:07 AM PDT
You know the shit is about the hit the fan when the wingers turn to Clinton to try and excuse King George's behavior. We saw it with the illegal invasion of Iraq ("but..but...CLINTON said Saddam has WMD!") and with the nuclear option ("but...but...you hated the filibuster when the Clenis was in power!"). But no distortion is more blatant, I think, than the one being circulated now that both Clinton and Carter authorized warrantless searches.
Think Progress does a quick and painless job of eviscerating the myth. Let's take a closer look and put this lie to rest. Yes, both Clinton and Carter issued executive orders pertaining to foreign intelligence surveillance. But neither of these even remotely authorized warrantless searches of American citizens, as Bush's order does.
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here's what Clinton signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] 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.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?
* the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.
* and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.
Moreover, Clinton's warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. "Physical searches," as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
CARTER DID NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
And now, Carter's turn:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Here, Carter refers to "electronic surveillance," rather than "physical searches" like Clinton. But again, Carter limits the warrantless surveillance to the requirements of Section 1802(a). That section requires:
* the electronic surveillance is solely directed at communications exclusively between or among foreign powers. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
* there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party. Translation: You can't spy on American citizens.
Section 1803(a)(2) requires that the Attorney General report to Congress (specifically, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees) about whether any American citizens were involved, what minimization procedures were undertaken to avoid it and protect their identities, and whether his actions comply with the law. Hot damn, that sounds like a check and balance to me!
To thwart would be evil-doers I use:
Cloak of Protection from +1, (+3 vs. Activist Judges)
Gauntlets of Serenity (+3 to saving throws vs. fear of a Neo-Con Supreme Court, unlawful searches and wiretapping)
Boots of successful striding (+4 to saving throws vs. harrasment by overworked and underpaid peon security personnel)
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
laws invoked in a benevolent administration* will still be laws in the future. When perhaps the government isn't quite as forgiving.
Maybe you missed the part of the conservative class where you're supposed to be interested in curtailing govermental power, not assisting a future installation of a totalitarian state.
*I assume you consider the Bush administration to be benevolent, as you referred to "liberals" in a condescending manner. I, OTOH, assume Bush is a hellspawned demon bent on enslaving the world.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
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 renewal was killed originally because the Democrats showed something resembling backbone by threatening a filibuster. Then, what? a couple weeks later, the same bill is being extended, and not a peep from the gutless idiots. So it was all posturing. They want it just as bad as the Republicans do, but they want to be seen to be reluctant.
The Senate Democrats showed themselves to be toothless watchdogs when they joined the 98-1 vote in favor of the original Patriot Act. It was later disclosed that most Senators joining in the vote didn't even read the legislation. And they slavishly voted in favor of the resolutions leading to the Iraq war with just as little questioning of the administration (with a very small number of honorable exceptions). Later, they trot out lame excuses: that they were deceived, they didn't know what they were voting for, they were just supporting the president in time of need, etc. This is what is wrong with the Democratic Party. They'll whine a litte, try to mitigate some effects, but they're part of the same rotten system, and are part of a herd mentality that afflicts the entire power elite in Washington. If the Republicans adovated the genocide of ten million, the Dems would offer a counter-proposal of five million, and fret about getting a Presidential assurance that only humane killing methods would be used.
They don't WANT the soap on a rope.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
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
ANWR may have 15 billion barrels of recoverable reserves. That would be about 10% of US output for the next 20 years, coming at a time when Prudoe Bay recovery is in decline. That is oil we would not have to import from Chavez or Ahmadinejad. The infrastructure for transporting the oil safely is already in place. Is that not worth it. As for conservation, great. But even if you cut consumption by a massive 20%, economic growth would eliminate that benefit in 10 years. Then what? Conservation is not an energy policy.
an ill wind that blows no good
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
The drunk part, on the other hand, is totally a personal choice. And a falsehood right now. But I should crack a beer, it's the holidays.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949
- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
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.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
Life is not for the lazy.
NAFTA article
A money quote from above article:
"In addition, NAFTA included unprecedented guarantees to protect the value of corporate investments and even the rights to earn profits in the future arising out of changes in government regulations or policy. In particular, NAFTA created specific clauses that provide for compensation for lost investments and loss of future profits due to regulations that are "tantamount to expropriation" (NAFTA Secretariat 2003, article 1110). No other part of NAFTA has generated as much controversy as this "investor state" clause. To date, 27 cases have been reviewed under this clause by companies alleging that their foreign investments or their right to earn profits in other countries have been expropriated (Hemispheric Social Alliance 2003, 68-74). These claims, several of which have resulted in damages paid or regulations rescinded, have had a chilling effect on government efforts to regulate private businesses throughout the hemisphere."
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
You made these same claims a few days ago, and they are utter Bullshit! The executive orders signed by Clinton and Carter specifically reference FISA and that authorities granted by those orders are required to abide by FISA!. Bush has bypassed FISA directly. There is no comparison whatsoever between the two cases.
Think Progress has a nice explanation of this, and how Bush went FAR BEYOND anything that any President of the US has done before.
And that begs the question, why do you think so many conservative Republicans are outraged if Clinton had merely done the same thing?
And finally, one last question to demonstrate the right-wing's hypocrisy - if you support Bush spying on Americans without court orders, including non-terror persons like vegans, Would you not mind if Hillary Clinton used the same authority to spy on NRA members, anti-abortion activists, intelligent-design advocates, and anti-gay-marriage people?
make world, not war
I can understand how you probably don't know what C-Span is, have never listened to NPR, have never read anything not printed by O'Reilly (ok, I'll let ya slide on that one...), but to think politics doesn't impact IT is your biggest mistake.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
We don't need examples of abuses to make it wrong. The patriot act allows for a variety of activities that, at least in my estimation, are blatently unconstitutional. It allows for potential abuses and that should be enough to get any self-respecting citizen of this country to vote against it, and any president that has SWORN to uphold the constitution to veto it. The argument that it makes it easier to catch terrorists may be true. I know there are many members of the law enforcement community that say the similar things about many of our other laws. If it wasn't for all of the criminals rights it would me much easier to prosecute and convict criminals. The reason criminals have rights is so that law abiding citizens aren't harrassed, intimidated or otherwise mistreated by law enforcement. We don't need constant examples of infringements on a law abiding citizen's rights to prove the validity of our constitution.
Find coupons in Greeley
Carter and Clinton signed Executive Orders that demanded authorities explicitly comply within the provisions of FISA! Bush's orders have bypassed FISA entirely. Why do you think even many conservative Republican politicians are outraged at Bush? Why did a FISA judge resign in protest of this decision?
Read this piece on Think Progress for more information on how what Bush did went FAR BEYOND the orders signed by Clinton and Carter. Clinton and Carter complied with FISA, Bush violated it extraordinarily.
make world, not war
SENATOR CRAIG: Well, Rush, thank you, and thank you for allowing me on. It is a very important debate, and something that I think has -- certainly by Harry Reid and others -- been dramatically miscast as it relates to the intent of some of us who have constantly worked to assure that the Patriot Act did not tread on the rights, the constitutional rights, of law-abiding American citizens. You know, I've been here a little while, and I remember Janet Reno, and I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge, and I fear the day that we get a president, not this president, who has a very liberal attorney general and sees the opportunity, uh, to leap through the holes that are crafted in the Patriot Act, uh, that could tread on our civil liberties. I say that having once voted for the Patriot Act and -- and will vote for it again, and we're working very hard at this moment. We've been visiting with the White House the last few hours along with Democrats and Republicans to try to resolve this, because there is no question that a majority of the Senate, which includes some Democrats, do not want to see the Patriot Act expire. At the same time, we see this as a once-in-a-two-or-three-year opportunity or four to make sure that it never gets misused. That's permanent law we're talking about, not just something that we keel with on a day-to-day basis.
RUSH: I understand that. Let me focus on something you said at first here. You said that Senator Reid is mischaracterizing some of the loyal opposition on the Republican side of this, or I guess throughout the whole Senate. One of the things I think that bothers people, and I'm sure you've been getting e-mail and phone calls in your office from people who just know that you voted against it, don't understand it. The reason they're upset is because they see a Democratic Party trying to undermine this president and sabotage the ability to wage war against this enemy, and the people who elected Republicans in this country expect them to go to Washington and understand this war is taking place and not side with them on things that hurt the president. So that's the first thing. People see that. They don't understand it, and it makes them wonder: What's the point of electing Republicans?
SENATOR CRAIG: Well, you've made a very good point, and I don't deny that. The reality is that we are at war, and we're at war with a very formidable enemy -- and, you know, my votes historically along with a lot of others have demonstrated that. I know --
RUSH: Well, what are you primarily opposed to in the Patriot Act?
SENATOR CRAIG: I'm opposed very simply, Rush, for the right of our government secretly to break into a home and to take computer files and other files and never tell the homeowner. I'm talking about a US citizen. Now, I'm willing to blink, and a lot of us are willing to blink, and we said, "Okay, you can go ahead and do that." This is under the FISA law, the federal -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. "We'll let you do that without telling the homeowner." That's a major step.
RUSH: Wait a second --
SENATOR CRAIG: Now, wait a moment. Within seven days after you've done it, if you find that you found nothing, and it will not damage your investigation, then you need to tell them. And if you do find something, and it will damage your investigation, then you've got to do like you do in civil or criminal law, you've got to go before a judge and say, "We have reason to believe, and here are all the facts," and the judge says, "Go forth. Be silent. Continue to investigate." That is a simple, simple request, and it is clearly a protection of our civil liberties.
RUSH: Wait a minute. I'm confused. You're coupling the Patriot Act with the FISA controversy?
SENATOR CRAIG: You bet I am because it's a major provision within the Patriot Act.
RUSH: Well, but there's been no illegality within the president in regards to any of this. This is pure propaganda, senator.
SENATOR CRAIG: No, no, no. No, no. We're talking two separate things here. You'r
Life is not for the lazy.
The reality on the ground is that a few dozen lawmakers, extremely loyal to the Bush administration, would have to turn coat entirely, as the first step toward impeachment. This is true, if the crime you want to prosecute is the domestic spying, or if a dead hooker rolled down the stairs of AF1.
Outside of this process, there is only the option of rebellion or coup d'état, and nobody is *that* upset thus far.
With a sufficiently loyal Congress, the President of the United States is effectively above any rule of law, and beyond the reach of any consequences of his actions.
People keep repeating the "I" word as though there is a conceivable scenario under which it could happen. Perhaps Winter 2006 will see a new Congress dominated by opposition party members who are actually willing to press charges against the President, but I would not count on this.
President Bush will end his term in 2009. When he does, the incoming administration will acquire whatever powers the current administration posseses today. Whether that incoming administration will be a Democratic challenger, or whether it will be Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, all remains to be seen.
But there is no chance of impeachment unless evidence comes to light that is so compelling, it turns some of the most stingently aligned and loyal politicians in history, 180 away from thier current position. You will need a great deal more than the phone tapping ideas, something as yet not ruled to be a crime by any judge. The Iraq lies didn't do it. The Plame case might make some headway, but I doubt it.
There's no Impeachment coming, and there is nobody stupid enough, brave enough, or upset enough to worry about a coup or a rebellion. This will remain the status quo until January of 2009.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Here, let me install a camera in every room in your house and a gps monitoring system on your person.
You're not hiding anything, right?
Sheep...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
> 68% of the populace thinks we should be able to tap terorist cell phones
Well, no shit. The problem is that it isn't used for terrorists, it's used for terror suspects who are presumed guilty without trial or any chance to defend themselves.
According to the breaking news banner on CNN, it has been bumped down to a 1 month extension, not 6. I'm guessing it is just so they can renew the debate once recess is over.
today is spelling optional day.
not that i disagree at all, because i don't, but just to play devil's advocate, i'd like to point out that 2600 is not the most credible source one can site... (and how long has it been 2600.com?? i don't think i've even *thought* about those folks since it was 2600.org)
The House has just passed a ONE month extension, vs the six month extension of the Senate. They now get to argue over a compromise. Although GWB has not been in the mood for compromise.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
In addition, we should spend more money on electric passenger and freight railroad systems. Maybe electrically-powered freight could even replace a lot of long-distance trucks in the next 20-30 years (using roll-on roll-off cars where the trailers are driven onto the railcars). Energy itself can also be saved by people adopting more reasonable lifestyles. The majority of incandescent bulbs' power input goes into generating heat. Replace those bulbs with compact fluorescents or LEDs and you're using 25% as much energy as before for lighting (and before someone starts complaining about Hg in CF bulbs, yes, CF bulbs are recyclable). In addition, who needs a 4,000 sq ft McMansion in the suburps for a 4- or 5- person family. Maybe development will become denser and smaller and heating/AC costs will go down that way.
Drilling the ANWR is a Bandaid for a gunshot wound. It might temporarily stop the bleeding, but the patient's still going to croak without major surgery.
-b.
How to become acclimatised to facism
The best states for change at a local level are probably the old-line New England states, namely NH and VT. Low population densities, not much crime (so not much fear for politicos to play on), and a high ratio of statehouse reps to thier constituents. So a smaller number of people can choose to elect a non-mainstream rep.
VT has even elected an independent to the US House - Bernie Saunders. Saunders is one of the few senators who's unabashedly and completely against the PATRIOT Act.
-b.
And given the quotes from the article, there is a world of difference between the President wanting to go beyond the law and actually signing SECRET executive orders to do so. Not to mention inviting the New York Times reporters to the White House and intimidating them not to publish the story. Not to mention when Bush adamantly denied (last year I think) wiretapping anybody's phones or emails without a warrant.
FISA was specifically enacted to prevent the kind of political spying Nixon did on his political opponents. There is absolutely no reason why Bush couldn't have monitored the calls/emails entirely within FISA limits. That argument I've yet to hear any Bush apologist offer. Why couldn't he comply within FISA? He had 72 hours after the fact to report the issue, and this is all sensitive information that remains secret from the public. So why did he need to go beyond this?
This kind of spying is too much power for the government to secretly have, it gives me great trepidation and it should give you great trepidation too. The fact that people like you defend these actions scares me just as much as the spying itself. Would you seriously not mind if say Hillary Clinton spied on purely-domestic emails and phone calls of NRA members and anti-abortion activists?
make world, not war
Seriously, name ONE REASON why he needed to go beyond FISA for this. Him and Cheney say they could have caught some al queda guys in San Diego if they had this power then. WTF??? They could have spied on them just the same, this ruling is nothing but a power grab to remove accountability from Bush.
FISA was enacted to prevent the spying on political opponents Nixon did. The parties involved are kept secret if they are sensitive. Why did Bush go beyond this? It's been revealed Bush spied on vegans and other purely domestic emails of liberal-related groups with absolutely no ties to terror groups.
A republican administration won't be in the White House forever. Honestly ask yourself if you wouldn't have trepidations if Hillary Clinton monitored NRA members, pro-lifers, and pro-intelligent-design groups under the guise of protection from terror. Even if you tell me otherwise, I can't imagine any Republican letting Bush do this while not being repulsed at Hillary Clinton doing the same thing.
make world, not war
Sorry... but I have to ask:
May the watchful eye of the sentry never again be blinded or shut... no matter the cost.
OK then... who is going to watch the watcher?
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
After McClellen said Bush would veto a short PATRIOT 3 month extension, and after the Senate approved a 6 month extension, which the President apparently liked- the House comes in, led by Republicans to pass a 1 month extension. Will Bush veto? What the hell is even going on in Washington today?
No risk of it not being extended. Governments wont give up power like this willingly. Even if it means getting along with the 'other' party.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Neither is attacking another country to steal their oil...Oh wait...
So you think US supertankers are pulling up to the Iraqi terminals and filling up? That is better description the UN oil for food program than any US policy. You'd be closer to the truth to say that we attacked another country so middle eastern oil could continue to flow at *market prices*.
an ill wind that blows no good
99.979%
a ts.html
Not quite the five 9's, but either they had good evidence for 18,738 different wiretaps, or the secret court rubber stamped all those requests.
http://www.epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_st
18,742 requests
18,738 approvals
4 rejections
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Anyone know how I can delete my above post? I clicked the wrong button
To repeat: the choice was not between "Let it die" and "Renew it." The choice was between "Keep it alive for another month so that we can have a real debate about its merits" and "Renew it now or the gubment will be powless to stop the terrists!" Under the circumstances, this is as much of a victory as could be hoped for.
Actually, your statement:
a lCollege.htm
"President is only voted for by the Electoral College, any member of whom can vote for anybody they want."
is substantially incorrect. It's much closer to your next sentence about the "all-or-none nature of each state" - 29 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia have what are called "Faithless Elector" laws, in which an elector is required by state law, and is in violation of that law, if they do not vote for the majority candidate for the state.
Further, there is no provision for apportioning electors between multiple candidates - these laws are in fact "majority rule", where all electoral votes go to a signle candidate based on the state popular vote.
Several states impose fines on electors who violate these laws, and one, New Mexico, treats it as a 4th degree felony (the penalty for a felony includes stripping certain rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in future elections, until and unless the felon is pardoned or the stripped rights are otherwise restored by an act of government).
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/Elector
Also, your statement:
"And the electoral college came about becuase they decided that stupid people shouldn't vote and that an intelligent person should represent their overall preference."
Isn't really that correct, although that was the rationalization used to sell the idea to the Federalists. The actual explanation has more to do with voing technology and communications delays than a plot to disenfranchise "the unwashed masses". It would have been nearly impossible, in the early days of the Republic, to communicate results from polling places to the county seat, and then to the secretary of state, and then to Washington, in under some number of months, effectively leaving us without a rubber-stamped government for large stretches of time following each election.
-- Terry
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
Interesting. This looks very much like a numbers station. Notice how it's structured.
HELLO WORLD -- Station identification?
51596 51596 -- One time pad?
HELLO WORLD -- Station identification?
And then the message starts.
5 numbers per group, with each group repeated once, which is very common, as well.
This has me thinking, really. Spies used to get messages like these from shortwave radio stations because shortwave can't be traced to the recipient and shortwave radios were commonplace. But shortwave radios aren't commonplace at all any longer. A website like Slashdot, on the other hand, is all but ubiquitous. EVERYBODY reads slashdot. I realize it's probably just someone messing around, but maybe the internet has become commonplace enough that we've gone from numbers stations to numbers posts.
But here goes. *deep breath*
I think corporations and government, working in lock-step, are attempting to revert us to a serfdom/feudalist society of landed gentry once again.
Evidence:
-
DRM mechanisms preventing ownership of goods
- Recent changes to the bankruptcy laws making it more difficult for a citizen to declare (as an aside, corporate welfare and the like is alive and kicking, and costs more than my mom's bankruptcy ever will; that's just me being bitter I guess)
- CC companies have now been forced (or was it merely a forceful suggestion?) to raise minimum payments. ( One of many links) This comes shortly after the law change. Now, it's sort of coincidence but it's one of those "happy coincidences" that seem to end up with SOMEONE indicted for fraud. Heh.
There's more but I'm home for the holidays and my mom just yelled for dinner. Honest. I don't live here anymore, I'm a grown up. I even read the Economist.You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
In that way you're also part of the problem.. If you're willing to sit and take it without going "screw this I'm going else where" (taking all your money and taxs with you), you more or less tell the government they can do whatever they like because you'll stay if it becomes Nazis Mark 2 and you're Jews Mark 2..
I like muppets.
If Bush's actions were legal, then why did one of the FISA judges just resign in protest? The FISA court approves essentially every application it gets, and the application can come after the spying. The only reason Bush would need to bypass the secret rubber-stamp court is if he was monitoring things that even FISA would not approve. Anything of a nature that even FISA wouldn't approve would almost automatically be a serious crime, hence an impeachable offense.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
You are so confused it is difficult to know where to begin.
Energy consumption *may* rise with economic growth.
This year economic growth was 4%. Energy usage growth was 2.2% as just proudly announced by the department of energy. Positive growth is unlikely to ever correlate with flat or negative energy usage.
In addition, we should spend more money on electric passenger and freight railroad systems. Maybe electrically-powered freight could even replace a lot of long-distance trucks in the next 20-30 years (using roll-on roll-off cars where the trailers are driven onto the railcars).
That additional power on the electric grid must come from somewhere. Hydropower? The greenies routinely block dam projects in order to protect minute populations of slim-eating crustations. Nuclear? LOL! Solar power? Not enough surface area on the planet. Wind? Greenies block wind projects to protect migrating birds. That leaves coal and gas power plants with their nasty climate altering CO2 emissions. You are back to square 1.
Energy itself can also be saved by people adopting more reasonable lifestyles.
I thought this is where your arguments for collectivism would start. Happily I am wrong.
The majority of incandescent bulbs' power input goes into generating heat. Replace those bulbs with compact fluorescents or LEDs and you're using 25% as much energy as before for lighting (and before someone starts complaining about Hg in CF bulbs, yes, CF bulbs are recyclable).
I'm with you on all of these. The 20% savings you acheive do nothing but slow energy usage growth, but grow it does.
In addition, who needs a 4,000 sq ft McMansion in the suburps for a 4- or 5- person family.Maybe development will become denser and smaller and heating/AC costs will go down that way.
Lets go a step better. Let the state build all housing and provide central power and heating. Sound good, comrade?
Drilling the ANWR is a Bandaid for a gunshot wound. It might temporarily stop the bleeding, but the patient's still going to croak without major surgery.
No, the obstinate and irrational refusal to drill ANWR is a form of liberal flagellation. They sacrifice an obvious and useful resource, and willingly accept higher gas prices, as a form of penance for their high standard of living. There is no reason not to drain it dry. Do you think the Cariboo care?
an ill wind that blows no good
Tom Waits Mule Variations (1999) What's He Building? What's he building in there? What the hell is he building In there? He has subscriptions to those Magazines... He never Waves when he goes by He's hiding something from The rest of us... He's all To himself... I think I know Why... He took down the Tire swing from the Peppertree He has no children of his Own you see... He has no dog And he has no friends and His lawn is dying... and What about all those packages He sends. What's he building in there? With that hook light On the stairs. What's he building In there... I'll tell you one thing He's not building a playhouse for The children what's he building In there? Now what's that sound from under the door? He's pounding nails into a Hardwood floor... and I Swear to god I heard someone Moaning low... and I keep Seeing the blue light of a T.V. show... He has a router And a table saw... and you Won't believe what Mr. Sticha saw There's poison underneath the sink Of course... But there's also Enough formaldehyde to choke A horse... What's he building In there. What the hell is he Building in there? I heard he Has an ex-wife in some place Called Mayors Income, Tennessee And he used to have a consulting business in Indonesia... but what is he building in there? What the hell is building in there? He has no friends But he gets a lot of mail I'll bet he spent a little Time in jail... I heard he was up on the Roof last night Signaling with a flashlight And what's that tune he's Always whistling... What's he building in there? What's he building in there? We have a right to know
You never catch me alive
Hmmm...I need to learn Dutch.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
With media coverage & governments' responses, I think it becomes impossible - the 3,000 who died on 9/11 from the terrorist attacks, because they were on every news screen & in everyone's mind, were much, much more important that the 2500 or so who died of heart disease the same day. Is it rational? No, but that's emotions for you.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
The land of wonder, the land down under.
See here. The trolls may, in fact, be encrypted messages... or may just be random numbers. Or maybe someone's using Slashdot for their drug deals; I dunno, I don't work for the NSA. Feel free to try and get CmdrTaco drunk enough to talk about whether he's gotten a national security letter over it the next time you see him.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Why are you singling out Bush/Cheney. You think kerry, gore, clinton or any of the democrats tell the truth? All polititions are scum. Respectible people won't take jobs in political office anymore. So, I say to you,
CLINTON, KERRY AND GORE LIE REPEATEDLY
All polititions are scum, and should be impeached from office.
I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong
We just have to see what the voice of http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43189/print/i ndex.html god has to say
Big Brother of course. >8D
Perhaps thats because it's getting harder and harder to publicly support the Administrtion without sounding like a brainwashed fool.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
Actually, if I was sure the information would remain out of reach of employers, family, enemies, etc, then I'd have no problem. However, I do not have that much faith in the competence of our government regarding information security.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Apparently 9/11 didn't fully take hold in the public mind. They let those bastards run two planes into the WTC and one into the pentagon. Give them what they want or they _will_ let a nuke or three slip through customs.
Fight terrorists in Iraq? Bah! The real fight is being fought right here and you and I have already lost.
All hail to our industial-military overlords!
Be heard || Be herd
I was referring, with some degree of sarcasm, to the "Church of George".
Thomas Jefferson:
Now follow me here. George Bush goes to the Middle East and says in an upfront way: "I started this war and I will finish this war because God told me to do it." George Bush is a Christian. For that matter, more generally, he is a member of a religious denomination that believes in God.Now let me ask you, "Do you pay taxes voluntarily?" No, you do not. You are compelled to pay taxes. (Indeed this line of reasoning could be used in a court to try to establish that it would be unlawful to be forced to pay taxes because of the following conclusion that I will make.)
Your tax dollars paid for the Gulf War, and they are paying for the war in Iraq right now. You have been compelled to furnish contributions of money for a war that was started by George Bush because it is his opinion that God told him to do it. In other words, George Bush as the leader of the executive branch made a legal (law) declaration that establishes a legal endorsement of his particular religious beliefs.
First Ammendment of the Constitution:
There it is. If your particular religion is not his--perhaps you do not believe in God at all, not only has he done something unconstitutional, but he has done something which one of the founding fathers of our nation explicitly state was tyrannical. He is forcing you to make a monetary endorsement of his religious beliefs.I'm not cruising for a bruising here, so I will just say that this particular line of thought might give one pause to think that maybe something is a bit wrong. I can tell you for certain that if he put the words he said to those Middle Eastern leaders in the declaration of war, the judicial branch would be going nuts.
You've lost me in that "I'm part of the problem". I'm not sitting, but taking action, by voicing my opinions about the facts as I uncover them. I act with my vote, my wallet and my taxes (again with my vote). Yes, here on Slashdot I hide behind a "moniker" but in my community I am openly public about my views. How does bailing and running contribute to the fix? [I'm neither karma Nazi or Jewish ;) Have a nice day! ]
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4320586.stm.
The denomination of the majority of the population is not a justification for setting United States policy according to that faith's tenets. That is specifically interdicted by the Constitution: "The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The line that cannot be crossed is the one where policy validates a particular religion's beliefs as truth.The "Will of the People" is an excellent argument, because the Constitution is the legal document of the United States. It is the strongest statement of the "Will of the People" that this nation has. The judicial power of the nation is vested in the Supreme Court of the United States and it is the ultimate arbiter of the word and intent of this one document (Article 3). The Constitution provides a mechanism by which the Constitution itself may be altered, should the the values of society change substantially enough to warrant it (Article 5). It is for this reason that your argument in 4 is poor.
You presume in your first point and you wager in your second. I do not presume or wager in my points. I read the Constitution. I read the transcripts of the President's communications on www.whitehouse.gov, and I read material from reputable news sources like the BBC. I also read the text of most judgements handed down by the Supreme Court.
If I had to wager anything, I would wager that these sources are a more accurate reflection of what is true about our nation than you are.