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.

49 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Someone please explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As has been pointed out before... who needs an extension to the PATRIOT act, when the President can just issue an executive order?

    1. Re:Someone please explain by Council · · Score: 5, Insightful

      who needs an extension to the PATRIOT act, when the President can just issue an executive order?

      Moderation: +1 Funny


      What we really need is a mod for "Funny, but it's that sort of awkward laugh, where you're not sure if you should be crying instead."

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    2. Re:Someone please explain by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > One reason might be that information gathered without warrents might not be admissible in court.

      They're admissible in Gitmo...

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:Someone please explain by umbrellasd · · Score: 3, Funny
      The President needs the extension because it is the Patriot Act on which many of his executive orders stand. Specifically, that Act provides mechanisms to bypass the checks and balances upon which our nation is founded. Executive ordered wiretaps without judicial oversight in situations where the executive branch considers it "necessary" would be one of those bypasses since decisions are made and action is taken entirely within one branch of the government.

      Then again, Bush is in the Middle East with our troops because, as he told them, "God told me to come here and set things right." That's right, he said he is setting political policy and sending our children to war because of a religious agenda. Also, quite amazingly, God talks directly to him. I imagine that conversation went a bit like this:

      George. George I need you to send the son's and daughter's of your nation to die. I know I said all that Commandment business about not killing, but I'm in an Old Testament mood right now, George. You need to make things right over there. There's evil, George. You know just what to do. Stamp out evil wherever you find it, because George, I'm giving you a mandate, and my word supercedes all authority--including the authority of your nation's legislative and judicial branches. Do what must be done.

      There's another basic tenet of our nation's Constituation falling by the wayside: separation of church and state.

  2. It will be extended only to a certain extent by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It will be extended only to a certain extent by JesseL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The formation of cult of the majority is one of the most dangerous tools that tyrants have ever devised.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
  3. Agh by RexKwando · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is sad. 1984 anybody.

  4. Extending our Freedom to be Safe? Or Spyed on? by TheUncleD · · Score: 5, Informative
    Last week, the House voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions after striking a compromise that altered some of them.

    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.

  5. and anybody who disagrees with the Patriot Act... by cparisi · · Score: 3, Funny

    must be hiding something...

  6. I guess- by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 4, Funny

    We just got Fristed?

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  7. Now is the time! by Stanistani · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. Ever heard of Stasi? by forgoil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Better than nothing... by kerrle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. House voted for original renewal, not extension by frdmfghtr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?
  11. ...a win for America's safety and security... by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm going to quote an old post [slashdot.org] from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" [slashdot.org] article:
    Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
    To extend that idea a bit further: If we lose liberties present in The Constitution, The Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?

    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!
    1. Re:...a win for America's safety and security... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If we lose liberties present in The Constitution, The Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?"

      No, but we've lost. The only winners are the symbiotic politician/military-industrial complexes.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:...a win for America's safety and security... by wass · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If we lose liberties present in The Constitution, The Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?

      I think Patrick Henry's quote is far more apropos, given Republicans say stripping civil liberties are useless if you're dead from a terror attack. What did Patrick Henry claim? Give me Liberty, or give me death!

      And just remember, this was during a time of far greater uncertainty than today. Colonists weren't scared of a terror boogeyman that could pop up . They were more concerned about how a bunch of back-woods colonists in relatively newly-inhabited (from their view) lands could hold their own against the mighty British empire.

      They had far more courage sticking up for liberties, and against far greater threats, than the Republicans and Bush-defenders of today that whine about how cowardly it is to cut and run in Iraq (while they're safe over here) but then whore out their civil liberties for the illusion of safety from terrorism.

      --

      make world, not war

  12. Re:So... by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  13. Re:Why is a warrant needed? by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 3, Informative
    Liar!

    Clinton and Carter created Executive Orders PURSUANT to FISA - which FOBIDS spying on US citizens. The executive orders that Clinton and Carter create were nothing more than a list of delegates (in his cabinet) who can use FISA powers.

    NO WHERE in ANY ONE of those Executive Orders or FISA about search US citizens without warrants (in fact, it is specifically prohibited).

    Why don't you research something on your own instead of repeating what Rush and Fox News says? ...Idiot

  14. neverending soap opera by heroine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. can someone provide an example? by bkirkby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i'd like to see an example of where the patriot act provisions were used egregiously by the current administration.

    1. Re:can someone provide an example? by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      When Homeland Security agents arrived at the Pufferbelly Toys store, the lead agent asked owner Stephanie Cox whether she carried a toy called the Magic Cube, which he said was an illegal copy of the Rubik's Cube, one of the most popular toys of all time. Invoking the Patriot Act, he told her to remove the Magic Cube from her shelves, and he watched to make sure she complied.

      Search Google for "patriot act pufferbelly toy store" for lots of entertaining details.

      P.S. -- The Magic Cube was a properly licensed toy. Even if this WAS in the purvue of the Dept of Homeland Security, they were wrong. Something that would have come up in a normal "cease and desist" law case.

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:can someone provide an example? by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's another couple:

      http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1441 [Photographing the VPs entourage at a public hotel]
      http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/pt /cpt?action=cpt&expire=&urlID=8164533&fb=Y&partner ID=565 [Strip club owner]

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  16. Re:PATRIOT act mythology by Travoltus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, it violates the 4th and 5th amendments to the US Constitution and some of it has already been thrown out by judges.

    http://www.devshed.com/showblog/1305/PATRIOT-Act-D eclawed

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  17. Re:So... by Hrodvitnir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  18. Often overlooked by gcranston · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:Why is a warrant needed? by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 4, Informative
    LIAR!!!

    Clinton was arguing that since FISA allowed warrant-less wire tapping for FOREIGN AGENTS, the president should be able to do the same for physical searches - for FOREIGN AGENTS! (FISA was later amended to include this)

    FISA specifically outlaws wireless taps on US citizens without warrants. What part of US Citizen do you not understand?

    Nobody is criticizing Bush for wire tapping Bin Laden without warrants. Everybody is PISSED because he did that on US Citizens and BROKE THE LAW he is supposed to protect!

  20. Re:Why is a warrant needed? by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 3, Informative
    So, now you are using more lies to bolster your first lie? Nice, Bush has nothing on you!

    Bush authorized taps on international calls. There is no wholesale wiretapping of citizens.

    Wow, such monumental ignorance is hard to rebutt, but I will try. First, FISA specifically states that the govt has freedom to wire tap ANY electronic transmissions that happens inside or outside our borders. However, it also states CLEARLY that if a US citizen is involved in that communication, you MUST GET A WARRANT.

    Bush has ALREADY ADMITTED that he ordered NSA to break this rule and wire tap calls made by US citizens. But he tried to weasel out of some of that saying it was "only for international calls". Less than a day later now we have officials coming out and saying "well, it was MOSTLY for international calls" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa. html?pagewanted=print).

    Until we get a FULL list of calls intercepted, we have NO IDEA how widely this order was used. And frankly, the current administration has no credibility whatsoever right now.

    "Congress authorized Bush to use "all" means. Sounds pretty authoritative to me.

    Oh really? I didn't realize that giving authority to Bush to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq means all other laws go out the door. So you are basically arguing that Bush is, in fact, a DICTATOR. You are arguing that as long as he can justify (in his mind) that his action has ANYTHING to do with terrorism (which I think you would agree comes in almost limitless flavor), he can pretty much choose to do whatever he wants. No matter what Constitution or the law says.

    You sir, should leave your citizenship at the door and move to Cuba.

    IDIOT!!!

  21. Democracy In Action and Inaction by nick_davison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  22. The Beatles said it best: Back in the USSA! by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
    > 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*

    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!)

  23. The PATRIOT Act works by PaxTech · · Score: 5, Funny
    No terrorist attacks since 9/11. How can anyone say it doesn't do its job?

    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.
    1. Re:The PATRIOT Act works by terrymr · · Score: 5, Funny

      I haven't been attacked by monkeys since i started carrying an umbrella everywhere i go.

    2. Re:The PATRIOT Act works by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You may be correct. But it's still one more paving stone on one very famous road...

      America is referred to as the Land of the Free for a reason-our freedoms are what makes us a great nation. Not our military, not our economic strength, not our President, good or bad, not our Congressional system, not our massive land area. Our freedoms, as enshrined in the US Constitution.

      The PATRIOT Act undermines those guarantees-and therefore, no matter what else is to be said about it, it is unpatriotic in the extreme. It may be done with the best of intentions, but it is still the worst of laws. In the America that I know and love, the government is the one who follows "If you've got nothing to hide, don't hide anything", and opens its workings transparently to the American people. The government has no problem following the rules set forth for it, in terms of the due process of law and the Congressional guarantee of freedom.

      I will oppose anything which will destroy this America, that I love. The PATRIOT Act is one of those things-and so, regardless of good intentions, bad intentions, or simple inattention, on the part of those who pass it, I oppose it.

      --
      To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    3. Re:The PATRIOT Act works by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      6873

      That's the number I get from adding up the number of casualties listed, although I ignored the couple dozen assassinations, because those are, well.. assassinations. Of course, it's not (and doesn't claim to be) an exhaustive list, and some of the numbers are "at least," so we'll generously double it and say ~14,000 people died worldwide as a result of terrorism from 1961-2003.

      That's about 318 per year (at double the available statistics)

      In an average year, in the US alone:

      360 people are struck by lightning, about 90 fatally.
      120 people die in airplane crashes
      776 people die from the accidental discharge of firearms
      3,840 people drown
      12,760 people are poisoned
      15,000 people are murdered
      16,250 people are killed by a fall
      40,000 die in car crashes
      936,923 die from heart disease

      (Sources: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm, http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.htm l)

      That's not to say that we should ignore the threat of terrorism. However, the threat should be kept in perspective, and our response should be measured accordingly.

  24. Re:Why is a warrant needed? by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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!
  25. Re:OUTGOING - Mod parent up for cleverness by NorthWoodsman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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|)
  26. Re:PATRIOT act mythology - debunked by buss_error · · Score: 4, Insightful
    America is about freedom. I won't say it is never a good idea to limit US constitutional freedoms, but I will say it needs to be breifly, narrowly, and with a lot of reluctance.

    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.
  27. Re:PATRIOT act mythology by kpang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  28. Votes database by holovaty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  29. Hilariously incoherent even w/in your own post by ianscot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You do realize that it was passed 98-1 initially?

    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:

    • the Republican leadership, arguing that it must be renewed in its entirety, with no changes, or we're screwed; and
    • the Democrats, who want to revise specific provisions of the bill?

    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.
  30. I will not leave.... by foolish_to_be_here · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  31. Re:6months is not enough time by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one's checking my papers. ... 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.

    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 .sig.tar
  32. Which side of the fence are you on? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  33. Re: Obligatory Simpsons quote by james_madison34 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  34. Re:Who's the Liar? by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Do you read?

    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.

  35. Update: House Passes One Month Extension by Alien54 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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"
  36. They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 by mr_tenor · · Score: 3, Interesting
  37. Clarification on electoral college by tlambert · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, your statement:

            "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/Electora lCollege.htm

    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

  38. A Numbers Station? by Majikk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.