Senate Passes Patriot Act Renewal

IAmTheDave writes "The Senate has passed a renewal of the Patriot act, 89-10, after two extensions caused by months of negotiations. The only thing standing in the way of a full renewal is a House vote, expected to pass next week. The renewal comes with some privacy protections attached, however, some worry they are only cosmetic. Some lawmakers who voted for the package acknowledged deep reservations about the power it would grant to any president. "Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for the president," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who voted to pass the bill package. Certain lawmakers supported passing the bill even though they were still wary about it - Arlen Specter urged his colleagues to pass it even as he promised to introduce a new measure and hold hearings on how to fix it. Terrorism aside, the bill also includes new legislation that has almost nothing to do with terrorism, like one measure, which would make it harder for illicit labs to obtain ingredients for methamphetamine by requiring pharmacies to sell nonprescription cold medicines only from behind the counter. I know that people like Arlen Specter promise further hearings - but why pass what you know is flawed?"

Comments

Funny

[CountZero117]

I like how the patriot act gets renewed virtually without any coverage, cause Dick Cheney accidently shooting some guy is a much better story than covering an act that restricts our civil liberties. This isn't a troll, i'm just pissed off.

Re:Funny

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there really ought to be much more attention paid in the news media to our civil libHOLY SHIT GOOGLE JUST WROTE A WEB PAGE EDITOR IN JAVASCRIPT

Re:Funny

[east coast]

I'd rather hunt with Cheney than be a passenger in Teddy Kennedy's car.

Re:Funny

[Khaed]

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney. The guy lived, and he still has his civil liberties. Some pain and a hospital stay for one person is worth it for everone else. the Cheney story was another example of stupid media sensationalism (not related to partisanism but sometimes it can be) -- remember how much Chandra Levy was covered?

Hell, in 2000, there was constant election 2000 coverage, even when they were pretty much saying, every hour, "We're still waiting for news."

"They're still counting ballots in Miami-Dade at this moment. Only 4,000 boxes* left!" It was like a demented New Years Eve countdown that lasted two months.

* And 800 dangling, swinging, jiggling, clusterfucking chads in a pair tree.

Re:Funny

[ozmanjusri]

But no matter how you cut it civil liberties won't shoot you in the face.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/assets/VietNam/Kent State.jpg

Why Pass It?

[oostevo]

"... - but why pass what you know is flawed?"

I'm no political science student, but I can assume that it's because of the political consequences that would come with not voting for passing the act - could you imagine how easy it would make life for the campaign manager for a candidate running for office against one of the people who voted against it?

"[Insert Senator Name] hurt American security by not voting for the absolutely vital PATRIOT Act"

Or some nonsense like that.

Not that it makes it right.

Re:Why Pass It?

[cascino]

That's exactly what the Republicans are aiming for. In recent years, the ruling party has enacted the Clean Skies act, Healthy Forests Initiative, No Child Left Behind, and the PATRIOT act - all of which are (a) ironically named - the skies are not cleaner, forests are less healthy, children are left behind, and eradicating civil liberties is hardly "patriotic" - yet (b) difficult if not impossible to vote against. Even though it's only a front for the deregulation of the logging industry, what politician is going to vote against the "Healthy Forests Initiative"?

Re:Why Pass It?

[Moofie]

Turnabout is NOT fair play.

Asserting that the "other side" is just as bad is a tacit acceptance of the fact that there is not a meaningful "other side"...just two groups trying to destroy slightly different sets of my liberties.

Re:Why Pass It?

[Syberghost]

Yes, let's say "Republicans" when talking about the PATRIOT ACT, because only 2/3rd of the Democrats voted to make it permanent. Why, I couldn't imagine a more stinging rebuke by the Democrats than supermajority support!

You know what this means?

[Eightyford]

You know what this means? This is muuch worse than I originally thought. At first I thought the lawmakers were just incompetent last time for not reading the bill, but now I know that the majority of them are downright fucking evil for renewing it.

"Why pass what you know is flawed?"

[Nova Express]

Um, because we live an imperfect world where 99.9% of all legislation is flawed and the result of numerous comrpomises between different factions because we don't live in a one party state?

It must be nice to live in a Utopia where all the laws passed are fair and just, and that everyone in the nation agrees with them 100%. Let me know when you find such a place. Our flawed Republic is not it--only better than all the other alternatives.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?"

[east coast]

Um, because we live an imperfect world where 99.9% of all legislation is flawed and the result of numerous comrpomises between different factions because we don't live in a one party state?

Not only that but also giving a little is better than giving nothing at all. Sometimes battles are won by taking "baby steps"... I know this is a hard concept for some slashdotters who think that it's either all or nothing. If specter can make more headway later it's great, otherwise it's better than where we were just a few days ago.

It must be nice to live in a Utopia where all the laws passed are fair and just, and that everyone in the nation agrees with them 100%.

Indeed. Too bad most people don't accept that they do not corner the market on common sense. For as many people out there who are for something you're for there are just as many people who are likely to be against it. Look at legislation that has been a series of gains and losses for decades with no clear outcome; stuff like drug legalization, gun control and abortion rights. The bottom line is that most people are fairly moderate in all these cases, it's the hardliners that make it tough to make real progress.

I, for one, am pro-drug, pro-gun and pro-choice. But note that I am actually for drug legalization and private gun ownership. I'm actually pro-life in my own mind but I know that making abortion illegal also leads to some pretty ugly situations so I can't support the abolishment of abortion without considering the kinds of alleyway clinics that it would lead to... and worse.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?"

[neoform]

I'm sorry, "ALL" the alternatives? You've been brainwashed quite well by your government I see.

Tell me, what's the best part about being in a two party system?

Elections just passed here a month ago, I had 5 major parties to vote for, now we have a minority government, I can tell you there's a lot more power in the hands of the citizens here than if we only had two parties to pick from.

Horray for Canada.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?"

[Ctrl Alt De1337]

Agreed. The Patriot Act isn't a simple cut-and-dry It's Good(TM) or It's Bad(TM) type of thing.

One thing the Patriot Act does is enable federal agents to pursue suspected terrorists using a lot of the same tools the government already uses to hunt down drug lords. This is a good part. It also allows for the searching of people's searches at libraries if the happen to search for the right ternms. Many would argue that this is one of the bad parts.

Looking at it from a cold and pragmatic standpoint, it's better to pass it flaws and all because while you can always restore liberties that might be temporarily infringed upon, terrorists cause permanent damage. If you look at it from an idealistic viewpoint, it should not be passed until we are sure that no rights are violated. For better or worse, practicality usually wins over idealism.

The Patriot Act will continue to be renewed as long as there is an Al Qaeda, but hopefully there will be some inquiries to pare it down to the essentials. It was probably an overreaction to 9/11, but at the time cooler heads were never going to prevail (even if they existed at that point). The perspective of time and hindsight should help lawmakers straighten everything out, but there's no guarantees in Washington.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?"

[TubeSteak]

I'm going to quote an old post from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" 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.

Now for your words:

If you look at it from an idealistic viewpoint, it should not be passed until we are sure that no rights are violated.

If you look at your words realistically, you're conceding that rights will be violated.

I at a loss for words for the first part of that paragraph

it's better to pass it flaws and all because while you can always restore liberties that might be temporarily infringed upon

That mindset cannot coexist with the fundamental fact that laws in the US of A must be consistent with the Constitution and its Amendments.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?"

[vux984]

Overall, both the US and Candian systems are very good conceptually -- they just both fail dismally in practice.

Both suffer from serious shortcomings in proportional representation. A party squeaks into power with barely 50% of parliament / congress / etc, and they can run the country like there is no opposition at all.

Both also suffer from serious shortcomings in letting the meritous reach the top. Both countries are starting to foster dynasties -- the law says anyone can become president / prime-minister, and while its true that any one can run -- increasingly only members from certain powerful families ever actually manage it.

And that's increasingly serving those families more and more and the citizens of either country less and less.

Its not enough for democracy that everyone can vote, and anyone can win by law, it actually has to work. Specific protections are required to ensure that everyone's vote is actually represented in the resulting government, and that being rich and connected are not the biggest factors in who forms that government.

Just as a free market doesn't work when power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of corporations who can erect barriers to entry, create cartels, and price fix -- a free country stops working when the power is concentrated in the hands of a small number of parties.

I'm not sure which country is less screwed up. The US is a 2 party system that simply flips power back and forth. Canada has several parties but most of them are irrelevant and many are the fragments of the shattered Progressive Conservative party -- fragments which are coalescing back together. And the BQ is hardly a postive force in Canadian politics -- the constant focus on Quebec is like the annoying pandering to the 'Swing states', only 10x worse.

Overall I guess Canada seems to be preserving its 'instability' better, the American balance seems very precarious -- if one party ever manages to polarize the issues enough to capture a solid 55% of the vote the US would become little more than a monarchy that is legally required to crown a new king (chosen by the party) every 8 years.

Hopefully it never comes to that, but while Orwell's 1984 didn't happen... it may just be late... it still seems to be coming.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?"

[tezbobobo]

So, being reconciled to the fact that the world is imperfect, we don our apathy hats and vote 'aye.' That is a little stupid in terms on an explanations. It is, in short, a pub arguement.

The Patriot Act is not a pluralistic compromise. Nor would I argue, is your nation a Republic. Last time I checked America was a Constitutional Representative Democracy. In fact, it is exceedingly rare for George Citizen to make ANY direct decision about his civil life in America.

And better than alternatives? I think (which is to say I know) it was John Locke who pointed out that democracies had a propensity to create tyrannies of the majority. This is a theme which ran from the time of Plato.

The facts of life are there are other forms of government and regardless of what yuo've been told, they stand up very well in contrast to your polity. There are dictatorships in the world which have far better human rights records than America. There are democracies in the world which are far more republican than America.

In fact, I have no idea what your basing your value judgement on.
Who is the best
Wealth per capita - Kuwait
Best Health System - France (including most doctors per head)
Economic Wealth - India
Highest Salaries - Monaco
Least discrepency between Rich and Poor - Sweden
Life Expectencies - Andorra
Fertility - Israel
Literacy - Australia
GDP Per Capita - Luxemburg
School Life Expectancy - Norway
Economic Aid Per Dollar - Luxemburg

And so on...

Maybe you should look at your nations history and ask yourself how America got to the place it is and what the Patriot Act actually signifies.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?"

[Ihlosi]

Looking at it from a cold and pragmatic standpoint, it's better to pass it flaws and all because while you can always restore liberties that might be temporarily infringed upon, terrorists cause permanent damage.

Unfortunately, it worked exactly the other way round in history.

Terrorists can kill people and blow stuff up, but unless they also have widespread support in the population, do not pose more of a danger to a _nation_ than any other criminals do.

However, once civil rights are taken away, they are very hard to restore. If enough rights are taken away, it becomes impossible to restore any of them by legal means, since the legal means to do so have been removed themselves.

Ignorant Population

[3arwax]

I doubt 10% of Americans understand the Constitution in any depth. This is why our elected officials can take away our freedoms and usurp power.

Guess who the real patriots are.

[bidule]

There are 10 true patriots out there.

Re:meth

[Khaed]

You're a friggin idiot. Have you tried to buy cold medicine lately? Do you think the extra hassle for customers has stopped meth labs? It's stupid and if you need to get it after the pharmacy closes it's impossible and you're fucked. And I have lived near a meth lab (and near a meth lab that exploded because methheads are stupid; burned their house down. I have a feeling insurance didn't cover it.), and it IS uncomfortable, but I know for a fact restricting access to cold medicine hasn't stopped meth at all.

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you

[GuyMannDude]

The Patriot Act provides the same tools for counter-terrorism officials that anti-narcotics officials have been using for years.

Anti-narcotics officials have been able to conduct secret reconnaissance of what books I've been reading?

Perhaps some of you don't remember 9/11.

No, considering how many times the TV news has delighted in replaying those horrific images, I doubt anyone could possibly forget.

This is not a crime-enforcing bill, it is a counter-terrorism bill.

Look, Stargate SG-1 isn't a good show by any stretch of the imagination (except for that hottie Capt. Carter), but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it terrorism.

Sure, I may be inconvenienced by the Patriot Act, but nothing is more inconvenient than getting blown up on your way to work, like what tragically happened just this last summer.

You were blown up on your way to work this summer?

I mean, one of the government's few purposes is to keep the people safe. The US government failed to do that on 9/11.

Boy, you got that right. The one piece of advice that the Clinton adminstration gave the incoming Bush adminstration was to watch out for bin Laden. The government doesn't need new tools; they just need to learn how to use the tools they already have.

(This is what I honestly think, don't just down-mod me because you don't agree.)

I'm glad that you assured us that you honestly believe this otherwise I would have thought you were trolling. As for modding you down because someone disagrees with you, that's not necessary. Your arguements are so weak, they deserve to be modded down on their own merits, independent of the political opinions of the moderators.

GMD

Re:meth

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a friggin idiot. Try living across the street from a meth lab for a while. Enjoy the sight of tweekers coming in and out of your neighborhood, eyeballing your house and vehicles. Yeah, you should start a lab, go right ahead. The fume exposure should do you some good (or kill you).

I think you are blaming the wrong people. You obviously know where the meth lab is, as do your neighbors. Therefore there is no reason why the police can't "figure it out". Are the police doing anything about your problem? No? If not, why not?

How is treating ordinary people like criminals going to solve your particular problem, just because they have a cold or flu and want over the counter medicine? Why is it that the solution to crime always involves further measures to criminalize and penalize the law abiding? Is it that Big Brother is just too lazy to bother going after criminals who don't roll over and go along with the law, when it is so much easier to penalize us sheeple because we are stupid enough to obey the law and do as we are told?

Just who is running this madhouse, anyhow?

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you

[chgros]

Perhaps some of you don't remember 9/11
Oh, yeah, that was so long ago...
But not as long ago as the famous Ben Franklin quote

Re:meth

[Anonymous Coward]

So call the fucking cops, asswad. If you had enough balls to tell them that people are coming and going, that they look all tweaked out and stay up to 6am, that you smell solvent that might be related to meth making, that they've waved guns around and and acted crazy, keeping the neighborhood up (who cares if it's a lie? It dosen't hurt to hyperbolize), the cops would watch the place, and then they'd come down hard on them.

NO... AGAIN, NO!!! Police department will look over it, because a drug bust always looks damn good on the news. Unless you're in a tiny ass villiage where the cops partake and benefit from the existance of meth, they will go after them. I did the same thing. I live in Denver, and there was a really creepy thing happening on my block. I turned them in. They got busted for meth production and conspiracy to commit felony. The problem stopped. End of story.

You have NO place to whine unless all of your well fought attempts to get them shut down have utterly failed, and that's almost an impossibility. So get on the goddamned phone, stop being a puss, and stop advocating the use of a law against dopers that's really supposed to be used in the protection of our nation from ***TERRORISTS***....No matter how fucking stupid the law may be.

Can it be that hard?! Say it ain't so! And if all else fails, maybe it's time to become the terrorist; toss a goddamned molitov cocktail through their window. If they're tweakers, they'll have more enemies than they can shake a stick at--plenty of other tweaker scapegoats to attract the attention from yourself.

It's a Race!

[teamhasnoi]

Will those you allow to hold office destroy your freedom before you can take back your country?

How many Amendments to the Consitution have not been ignored in the last 6 years?

Name three things that this Administration has done that didn't do exactly opposite of what they were called!

For extra credit: Which hurts more - being shot in the face by Cheney, knowing that you've just been sold down the river, McCarthy-style...or that in some windowless cube farm, someone is being paid by your taxes to determine if your Slash-o-dot post is a threat to this country?

For the win: What is the name of my Investigating Agent?

Answer quick, they're at the door - I want to surprise them.

I suppose you've read the bill then?

[fortinbras47]

Why don't you cite a few specific provisions you find objectionable and why.

I'm rather tired of people going nuts over the Patriot Act when their only source for information is the Daily Show with John Stewart. To have an informed opinion, do at least some of the following:
(1) Read the bill
(2) Read analysis by law PROFESSORS (not tv-journalists)
(3) Read analysis by lawyers nationally regarded as experts.

I bet 98% of people posting here can't name two provisions in the Patriot Act.

Re:I suppose you've read the bill then?

[slothman32]

I will read as much of it as Congress did when it was passed in 2001, i.e. none.
I shouldn't have to read a 200 or however many page bill/law to find out what it is.
If it were 10 pages maybe but I doubt Congress ever reads most of any bill, not just that, that are so long.

Yes I know this is a different law than the older one but I doubt it is much shorter. If you can tell me it will take an hour for the layman, who it affects, to read and understand it I will do so. I don't care what judges will say as I generally won't pass a law using that criteria.
I will vote on it according to if it is moral.

The fact that laws are in legalese, or I assume so as all I have ever seen are in that way, makes it hard to read.
I know I have some trouble with olde English books like Shakespeare or Chaucer.

Re:I suppose you've read the bill then?

[grylnsmn]

Actually, the Secret Service Uniformed Division has been around for decades (it adopted that name in 1977). It has long had the power within the District of Columbia to conduct warrantless arrests for crimes that they witness. For example, if they witness a mugging in front of the White House, or an embassy (which the SSUD has responsibility over), then they have the authority to arrest the criminal without a warrant, just like any other police officer can do within their jurisdiction.

The provision in question simply extends that jurisdiction for the SSUD to cover the entire US, rather than just DC.

Viva La Revolucion!

[tekrat]

Everyone here is moaning and groaning about our elected officials and how corrupt they have all become. Out of 100 senators, only 10 had the balls to stand up to this piece of filth and vote no.

I have many other friends who say there is no longer any choice. Democrats or Republicans -- it's all the same thing, they are corrupt and represent their own self-interests, or the interests of corporations or those organizations that can afford to put politcians in their pockets.

But there is another choice. The 2nd amendment allows the American people to throw out their government and replace it with one that works. That's what the right to bear arms is about -- it's about keeping the government from getting so powerful that they take the guns away, because only at the point of a gun can you establish a new government.

The whole point of maintaining a militia is to keep the government honest. When the government is corrupt, WE THE PEOPLE are allowed to overthrow it.

Remember that the President is supposed to protect us from threats foreign and domestic -- that includes protection from the corrupt government itself. When the government isn't of the people, by the people and for the people, it is time the government was replaced with one that is.

If the president has failed in his duties to uphold the Constitution, then he too, must be replaced.

It is time the American people rose up and took back what is theirs.

WE THE PEOPLE, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility.

It is time WE THE PEOPLE joined together and tell King George that we will not be dictated to any more. Shall we lay supine while essential rights and liberties are forever pilfered? No! Give me liberty or give me death!

It is time to take back the country from the hands of criminals.

It is time for the second American Revolution.

Re:Hysteria Unleashed

[vandan]

You have no idea what fascism is

Sure I do. Have a got at these features, taken from http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/facis m.htm:

Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

Disdain for the importance of human rights.

Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

Rampant sexism.

A controlled mass media.

Obsession with national security.

Religion and ruling elite tied together.

Power of corporations protected.

Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

Obsession with crime and punishment.

Rampant cronyism and corruption

Fraudulent elections.

Sounds like America to me.

You're so swamped in hysteria and paranoia

Oh bullshit! I'm not hysterical. I'm just pointing out that your country is fucked up. Deal with it without namecalling.

you wouldn't recognize a real fascist if one was standing beside you

I think this might apply to you before me. As for standing next to fascists, I tried to when Emperor Dubya came to Canberra, but the fucking police wouldn't let me get anywhere near him. Next time ...

Re:BECAUSE IT WORKS

[jschrod]

With these kinds of opinions rampant in the US, I'm so glad that I don't have to live there.

Protect your country by giving up the civil liberties that the US stood for, once upon a time. Uh. Do you realize that the hypocrisis of the PATRIOT act is one of the reasons why US politics are now so despised in the world, when they were used to be a role model for a free society?

Re:Easy

[Mattcelt]

Wait, I think you misspelled "politicians".

Re:Not Flawed Legislation

[plague3106]

Um, no one is every going to look for people that checked out Winnie the pooh; its books say on islam that tend to attract attention. People have a right to be informed and to make their own decisions and you shouldn't come under suspesion just because you read a book the majority doesn't like. Popular speech doesn't need to be protected, its the unpopular speech that does.

Re:meth

[plague3106]

The only reason these cold and flu remedies weren't banned outright is because of the drug industry bribery to politicians.

Or perhaps because people want to have cold and flu remedies when they catch the cold or the flue...

Re:Not Flawed Legislation

[Dashing Leech]

"... as if concealing the fact that you checked "Winnie the Pooh" out of the library is more important than gathering enough information to stop the next WTC bombing before it happens."

It's attitudes like that which terrify me for the future of society. Two world wars and other more local ones were fought with many millions killed from many countries and the one saving grace, that many of us are immensely proud of and justifies that many deaths, is that these people fought and died to protect our rights and way of life.

Now 3000 people are killed on American soil and everyone is running scared saying "Here take my rights away! What do I care if the government monitors me, I'm not doing anything wrong. They can do anything they want and take away any freedoms that I'm not really using regularly; just please don't let any more people die."

I've never seen such a bunch of self-centered scared wimps. It's a disgrace and disrespectful to those who died in the past to protect these rights and freedoms. The American Founding Fathers would have a fit. Ben Franklin too would probably just hang his head in shame:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Ben Franklin

Re:Not Flawed Legislation

[miskatonic alumnus]

Just call 9/11 a gasoline tax. If you want to stop terrorist acts at home, it's real simple. Stop playing the global bully.

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you

[vertinox]

Perhaps some of you don't remember 9/11. But don't you remember the March 11th train bombing in Madrid or the attacks just this last summer in London?

If you fear terrorism, you are a coward plain and simple. You are more likley to die because of a drunk driver. Even if 9/11 happened every day for a year more people would have died to car accidents, yet we don't see more laws being passed in the name of public saftey for the "War on Drunk Driving"

Secondly, you are just plain ignorant to think it requires new powers to government.

9/11 happened because the pilots didn't lock their doors like they do is Israel.

To prevent 9/11 again, we simply have to require more common sense on the airlines. We do not... I repeat... We do not need to pass more laws in order to prevent more terrorism. Killing people and conspiring to kill people is illegal right? There ya go. Go catch those terrorists. You don't need to trample on the Constitution in order to do so.

Lastly, laws will not prevent terrorism. I'm more right wing than probaly you, but I know the reason why we haven't caught Bin Laden is not because we haven't passed another Patriot act but it is our leaders or incompentant or cowards.

Or perhaps there is a reason Pakistan hasn't caught him yet. Maybe we are paying them too much money to find him and they wouldn't want a good deal to go away. Maybe they have nukes and we don't have the balls to stop terrorism once and for all.

Re:meth

[Numbstruck]

Wow, what a surprise! "Half-Baked" is calling someone with an anti drug-dealing stance a "tool". Nice work, you tool.

I completely agree with cluckshot, and it has nothing to do with whether I think people should be allowed to use this drug or that drug. This is about the kinds of people (or behaviors) that these drugs (meth) attract. Do you know why we don't allow people to wander the streets intoxicated? Because people do things they normally wouldn't do while under the influence of alcohol. Most people, I would assume, are not excited by the prospect of a neighborhood full of "Half-Baked" visitors who would barter children for their next fix.

I used to live in an apartment complex that was acress the street from a drug house. My car was broken into several times because of the goons that house was attracting. So I don't want to hear this "You're a fucking narc-tool" gibberish. If they could have just picked up whatever they came for and then left, I wouldn't have had a problem. Instead, they would scour the parking lot and vandalize multiple cars with each visit.

If you want to do your meth, then get it legalized. If you lack the conviction to try that, then at least go through someone who deals discretely. If the people of the neighborhood don't know what's going on they won't complain. IANADD, but that would be my objective. If your dealer is advertising the fact that they are running an illegal business, regardless of whether you feel it should be illegal, they deserve to be caught.

So, maybe you should tell your dealer cronies to get a clue and to not be so god damned obvious in their illicit dealings, k-thx?

Please Note: I know I have terrible grammar and probably made several mistakes.

Russ Feingold for President 2008

[MacDork]

You know, the only guy that had the brass to vote against USA PATRIOT the first time? I'd vote for him based on that alone.

Pax America

[Ranger]

Too bad they didn't pass it on the 70th anniversary of the Reichstag fire February 27, 1933, but that might have been too obvious. History does not repeat itself but it does produce derivative acts. I haven't read what passed, but it did have a provision to allow you to protest a gag order/national security letter. After ONE year. Let's enjoy freedom of expression while it lasts. Do an I'm-feeling-lucky Google search for asshole.

Re:Not Flawed Legislation

[Dashing Leech]

"You're butchering the quote and as a result perverting it for your own uses:"

Hold on a sec. I am not butchering anything. I obtained and confirmed the quote from several independent sources. You only provide one. While yours does look like it has been researched (or copied) by that wiki author in a little more detail, that doesn't guarantee it is more accurate. For the sake of argument that yours is correct since it really isn't important at all to the point.

What is perhaps more important than the actual wording of the quote is the point: that trading rights and freedoms for security is generally not a good idea. I don't think anybody would have interpretted it as mean any right or freedom starting from 100% no restrictions. That's just silly.

But you are completely bypassing the point I was making for the sake of trying too be geekier about the correct quote. Millions died protecting the rights to not have government monitoring them over reading books on Winnie the Pooh, or Islam, or whatever (as an example). That 3000 more have died and everyone turns 180 degrees on these issues, without even requiring the government to demonstrate the necessity or usefulness, is a travesty and says a lot about the self-centeredness of today's society in America and the ability of propaganda to scare the crap out of them and just start handing over their rights.

I'd rather live with a 1/100,000 chance (3000 out of 300 million) of being killed by a terrorist on American soil than have 300 million people lose rights like this. And that terrorist risk also doesn't take into account the bungling of the intelligence under the existing system in 2001 nor in the increase in security that could be done without reducing rights and freedoms. It hasn't been demonstrated that these measures are even necessary. In some cases, the response security measures (and potentially violations of rights) are even counter-productive towards securing against terrorism.

Re:meth

[RichardX]

On the first offense, lock up *every* drug user over the age of 12 for 5 years with no parole

It's gonna be kind of hard for the country to function when only about 0.01% of the population aren't in jail. After all, how many people do you know that don't use alcohol, caffine, or tobacco? Oh, or did you only mean to lock people up for the drugs not deemed socially acceptable?

Re:Hysteria Unleashed

[vandan]

Yeah, so? Didn't Kerry wrap himself in the flag?

Yes. That's the point. Everyone's doing it.

Disdain for the importance of human rights.
If that were the case, you would not have been able to type this.

Read up on Scott Parkin. Then google up on 'US torture camps'.

Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
Um... when they fly planes into buildings, they move from "scapegoat" to "terrorist". If you can't unify against your enemies, how do you unify at all?

Who exactly flew the planes into your buildings? The Iraqis? No. The Afghanis? No. The Iranians? No. It's claimed that Al Queda was responsible, but the US government did everything they could to prevent any sort of investigation into what actually happened. There is ample evidence that repeated warnings of an immanent attack were ignored - people were even told to stop raising warnings about this particular attack. The US airforce were told to stand down. There is even evidence that one of the planes ( which resembles a US military aircraft ) had explosives onboard, and *they* were responsible for the towers coming down. I say ( and a lot of people are starting to agree with me ), that Bin Laden ( Emperor Dubya's biggest financial backer ) was invited to attack the WTC and Pentagon, and promised safety in return.

Rampant sexism.
How on earth do you come up with this one? Can you name me an administration that has had women placed in higher positions? (as opposed to under the desk)

That bitch Rice is the exception that proves the rule. She's not female anyway.

A controlled mass media.
This is my favorite. I had no idea that Rove and Bush were controlling the media. You'd think they'd stop some of the bashing they recieve every single day.

You really are deluded. I've listened to the 'Voice of America' broadcast. It's a fucking joke, as is the rest of the so-called 'independant' media. Where, for example, is the discussion of impeachment over Dubya's breaking of numerous laws? The media were certainly on the case over Clinton. Where is the analysis of the illegal wars you are involved in. One would think that with over 50% of the population now against the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, that a balanced media would spend some time on the issue - apart from repeating government BS about the flourishing democracy and roses sprouting from the graves of Iraqi children. Your media is one of your most frightening points.

Obsession with national security.
Well, yeah! As opposed to what, acting French? That's right, they clamped down to. What country is not obsessed with national security? National security is the president's number one job!

I rest my case.

Religion and ruling elite tied together.
I don't recall a whole lot of religion in 1940's Germany.

We're not talking about Germany. Keep on the ball.

Power of corporations protected.
If you want a job, businesses must be protected. Would you suggest that we have a government take over of private property...

Actually, being a revolutionary socialist, that's exactly what I suggest. Thanks for asking :)

I mean evil corporations? I think that was tried before and it didn't do a whole lot for civil liberties.

Yes it did. It pushed the world into the 20th century. The Russion Revolution achieved a lot for people everywhere. They were the 1st to get an 8 hour working day, *real* freedom of religion, homosexual relationships legalised, freedom of political association. They even managed to pull out of World War 1. Of course the shit hit the fan once the rest o