Slashdot Mirror
House Panel Approves Electronic Surveillance Bill
narramissic writes "A U.S. House of Representatives Committee has approved the Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, a controversial bill that would broaden the U.S. government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. residents by making it easier for federal law enforcement officials to get court-issued warrants. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month." From the article: "Republicans praised the bill, saying it will help the U.S. government fight terrorism. The bill will provide the U.S. intelligence agencies 'greater agility and flexibility as they try to thwart our determined and dangerous terrorist enemies,' Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said in a statement. The full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month. The committee's action comes after U.S. President George Bush called on Congress to approve a controversial electronic surveillance program conducted by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). "
If the Republicans lose control after the mid-term elections will this piece of legislation ever make it to the statute books? Isn't this just another example of the Republicans in an election year trying to look strong on their chosen election issue of terrorism/national security?
Video Game cheats, hints a
First off, I totally disagree with these kinds of laws. But if they're going to have them, they should have a clause that the gathered evidence can only be used to convict for treason/terrorism. That would lessen the likelihood of abuse (well, we happened to hear about a drug deal going down, so...) Of course, with the bad precendent set, the scope will expand anyway :(
Not that the other guy would have done all that much differently, but at least he'd have to fight with his enemies in the Congress to get anything done.
I think the best part of Clinton's presidency was that for most of it we had a Democrat for president with a Republican dominated Congress that hated him. The Lewinsky stuff kept all of them busy from doing real damage. I've always felt gridlock makes for good government, and I look forward to having it again in November.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
The President claimed that they weren't wiretapping without a warrant, because that would be illegal. He was lying. The media revealed that he was lying. Cue kvetching and moaning about how the media are helping the terrorists. (Apparently embarassing the President helps the terrorists.) Cue accusations of treason against the media. (Ignoring the fact that it's invalid to classify things to hide them because they're illegal.) The Administration claimed that it had the authority either because (a) Congress had made the President into a King when they authorized overseas military action, or (b) the President is a King Just Because.
In reaction to these claims, Congress tries to retroactively legalize the President's actions, and pretend that he hasn't excercised kingly powers, and that they haven't scrambled over themselves to rubber-stamp said powers.
The funny thing is that Arlen Specter's original plan would have only given a 45-day window in addition to retroactively legalizing the President's decision that the law matters only when he feels like it. Apparently Congress can't fall over themselves fast enough to enable him. I am so writing my Congresscritters on this one.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I was visited last night by the local sheriff.
It seams that you have to register with the government if you own a diesel truck and buy more that 50 pounds of fertilizer and fill your fuel tank on the same day.
Crap, I can't even even spread it in my pasture without somone in D.C. knowing what color the sh*t is.
Ohh well time to go buy another 1,000 rounds of 7.62x39 on the credit card again
I love messing with them.
----
Smile and look stupid and the government will love you...
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
Let's just assume (for argument's sake) you agree that there is a threat presented by a group such as Al Qaeda and those who support them. How would you handle this threat?
Examples:
a.)Would you allow tapping of phones incoming / outgoing calls where one or more of the parties were suspected Al Qaeda as long as a warrant was acquired prior?
b.)Would you not attack or try to capture any Al Qaeda abroad, but instead just wait for action until they confront us?
c.)Would you try to begin peace talks with Al Qaeda?
d.)Would you put a fence up along both our north and south borders?
e.)If we are attacked again would you respond by holding a press conference, shunning the actions, and then trying to negotiate peace talks?
I just want to know, I don't want to be flamed. I want to understand how you would try to protect us from this threat?
What is the status of non-american regarding privacy rights in the current american law ?
If the CIA is reading my gmail account, is it kosher ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Did I miss something? I thought that Republicans were for freedom and Democrats were for government intrusion?
My voter registration says "R", but that can't be right. The Republican party that I know would call a bill like this "Democratic Big Brotherism at its worst" or something like that.
Maybe its all just a weird dream. When I wake up, things will be back to normal.
Osama bin Laden must be ROFL wherever he is that he was able to destroy the ideals of the United State of America that took centuries to build so easily.
He knew exactly what he was doing.
Read this quote from an interview right after 9/11:
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
--Osama bin Laden, October 21, 2001
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Or the two governments are too arrogant in their world status to think they can learn from others.
In the Battle of the Atlantic of WWII, British intelligence had broken the German communications encryption (it may have been ENIGMA, I' don't know) and could reliably track German U-boat sorties to the US east coast. In fact, the Brits were supplying this intel on nearly a daily basis.
The US Government, however, did nothing with this intel and so the u-boats roamed up and down the east coast with impunity until the US gov't finally started to listen to the Brits...18 MONTHS after the attacks started.
Winston Churchill is quoted as saying "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." (http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2313)
I guess this means that the US Gov't will do thr right thing in the "War on Terror" (a phrase I dislike since I don't recall a formal declaration from Congress, the ONLY gov't body that can declare war if I recall correctly) once they have:
-alienated every other country on the globe;
-infringed on every article in the Constitution;
-wasted untold trillions of dollars in the pursuit of terrorists.
There's probably more I'm missing, but that's what comes to mind right about now.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Imagine the day when EVERYONE has caught on to bullshit propaganda statements like "our determined and dangerous terrorist enemies" and we ALL take to the streets and remove these crazy idiots from the offices of OUR government.
Just imagine it for a second. It IS coming. We will take the power back and Bush, Cheney, all the rest of them will shiver and weep in some dark corner while it all comes crashing down.
Get ready to rise up people because they are ASKING for it.