Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
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.
In soviet russia, You ask not what country do for you, but what you do for country!
Oh wait...
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.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
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.
There are 10 true patriots out there.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
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?
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
I at a loss for words for the first part of that paragraphThat 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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
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.
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.
Sure I do. Have a got at these features, taken from http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/faci
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.
Oh bullshit! I'm not hysterical. I'm just pointing out that your country is fucked up. Deal with it without namecalling.
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
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.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
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?
Joachim
People don't write Manifestos any more -- what's going on in this world? [Frank Zappa]
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.
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:
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.
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.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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.
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.