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). "

Comments

The Rise & Fall of My Country

[eldavojohn]

Republicans praised the bill, saying it will help the U.S. government fight terrorism.

Maybe it will. Maybe it will ensure that I never have to worry about a terrorist inside my country ever again. Maybe. Then again, maybe it won't. Maybe they'll just become better at using encryption. Who knows? I don't think you can really prove that it will help you at all. There is no "silver bullet" to stop terrorism. Stop claiming there is. Our best bet to end terrorism is making it a world wide effort and treating other countries with respect -- the same way our country would like to be treated.

One thing I do know is that this will allow my government to build a case against me with no warrant, probable cause or charges filed and documented against me. There could be a dossier (digital or hard copy) somewhere in the government's system with my name on it even though I haven't done anything wrong. Worse, the same could be said about every single American.

You can call me a crazed conspiracy theorist and you can call me a tin foil hat-ist but you can't deny it will be it will be a possibility for even you if you live in the United States.

Under the guise of "modernization," this bill will only add to the decline of my country. We sure aren't as "modernized" as Orwell's 1984 so I guess we're 22 years behind and we better get on it -- and who better than the Republicans to lead us there?

For the love of your country, write your representative in the house about how you feel on this issue. Please. Do it by hand with your signature and address on the letter. Physically mail it to them. Take the time to do this. Make sure you are heard about the things that matter to you. Make your concern known to those who represent you. If you spend a lot of time writing it, send it to your local newspaper also as a possible editorial. I doubt I'm alone on my concerns.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[ArmyOfFun]

RTFA, it answers your question. Someone can monitor all of your communications (wiretaps of any type) for 90 days without a warrant.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Exp315]

It's truly terrifying to see this happen in my lifetime. I grew up reading SF stories about bleak future worlds in the "1984" vein, but it was always difficult to understand how any people who loved freedom and democracy could let those worlds come about. Who would have believed that all it took was 19 nut cases acting together? 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.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[truthsearch]

It didn't take just 19 nut cases. It also took 30% of the US population to re-elect the person who's making many of these changes. 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.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[cdrudge]

Yes. The FISA court allowed warrents to be secretly handed out retroactively.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[mooingyak]

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.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Detritus]

There is no "silver bullet" to stop terrorism. Stop claiming there is. Our best bet to end terrorism is making it a world wide effort and treating other countries with respect -- the same way our country would like to be treated.

Some fights are unavoidable, unless you would rather surrender or run away. The idea that we can end terrorism by treating everyone with "respect" is naïve.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Mister Whirly]

"I want an application that generates a constant and never-ending stream of encrypted nonsense communications"

They have that already - it's called the Fox Network.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Mister Whirly]

No, the attitude that NOT treating countries with "respect" WON'T cause more terrorist acts is naive.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[TheRaven64]

It didn't take just 19 nut cases. It also took 30% of the US population to re-elect the person who's making many of these changes.

Actually, it took the 99.9999999999% of the US population who didn't stand at the last election on a rational platform.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Fred_A]

Maybe it will ensure that I never have to worry about a terrorist inside my country ever again.

What I still don't get is why US people would "worry about terrorists". Especially when almost nobody else on the planet does. What are people in Iowa worried about ? Exploding corn stalks ?

Isn't there anybody speaking out against the fearmongering media over there ?

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[orielbean]

Remember kids, the warrantless spying and excessive amounts of data would not have helped prevent 9-11. We had the information the whole time, but the agencies don't cooperate between each other. That is it. We don't need any new tools; the old ones worked fine but the 'crats got caught up in paperwork and red tape and infighting. Imagine the data dump that will ensue from this new approval. What a travesty.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[compro01]

The idea that we can end terrorism by treating everyone with "respect" is naïve.

well, the fact that the US pulled out of Afghanistan right after the soviets did, and the soviets basically trashed things on their way out, along with the fact that the various mujahideen groups that were fighting the soviets (some backed by the CIA) started fighting among each other, further screwing the country, which then lead to general dislike of the US as they basically used them as pawns against the soviets, then left when they needed help to pick up the pieces. this lead to the leader of one such group basically took it upon himself to make the US pay for abandoning his country. you might have heard of the guy. he goes by the name of Osama.

you can't end terrorism by treating other countries with respect, but if you had treated them with respect, rather than just packing up and leaving the country in ruins, the terrorism likely wouldn't have started in the first place, or would at least be far more low-key.

just my $0.02.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[hcob$]

RTFA, it answers your question. Someone can monitor all of your communications (wiretaps of any type) for 90 days without a warrant.

Go read the BILL!

When will people learn that EVERY news outlet, magazine, article, caster, whatever.... Is biased. Dig into the story, and make up your own mind. Spewing the half truths of some article as facts, without due dilligence, is just plain wrong. It's wrong for the news and it's wrong for you.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[benneja1]

IF and ONLY IF they have determined that you are a viable threat and there is evidence of a pending attack against the US.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[plague3106]

You mean how we respect other countries by overthrowing their government and installing dictator? I notice you left Iraq off your list. Is that because the US orginally put him into power? Don't forget all the counties in South America we've done that to as well.

How about US companies paying slave wages to Chinese citizens to make cheap products? Is keeping China's government in power via economic trade showing respect?

What about all the lopsided trade deals? You know, where we 'helped' a third world country build a dam to generate electricity, but the catch was that only American contracts could build it and we would own it when it was finished (made under the promise that building and then later running the dam would create jobs in that country)?

Is THAT how you think we 'respect' other countries? Or is that how we screw them to our own advantage?

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[GogglesPisano]

The idea that we can end terrorism by treating everyone with "respect" is naïve.

The idea that we can end terrorism at all is naive.

Terrorism is a methodology, not a nationality. It is not a problem that can be solved with armies. The US has been trying this for five years now - how's that been working out, then?

Compare and contrast to the terrorist plot recently foiled in the UK. It shows us that the most effective means of dealing with the problem is steady police work aided primarily by a good intelligence network. What's the best way to gather a circle of people on the "inside" willing to provide information to law enforcement?

If your answer was "waterboarding", sorry - you lose. Seems to me that "respect" is right answer here.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[DragonWriter]

someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already have some power similar to this? where they could obtain a court order retroactively?

Somewhat. But this is a vast expansion.

does this just extend their time limit on it?

No. It does, as a minor provision, extend the time limit (there have been characterizations that it extends the current 72-hour limit for foreign intelligence surveillance while seeking a warrant to 90 days—this is false. It extends that limit only to 120 hours (from 3 days to 5 days.) The 90-day limit is something completely different, see below.)

But it does a lot more, including (and this is not an exhaustive list):

It expands the definition of an "agent of a foreign power" to include not only actual agents of foreign powers, but also any person "reasonably expected to transmit or receive foreign intelligence information".

It also narrows the scope of the limitations on government power in FISA: currently, it is unlawful to conduct surveillance except under its rules against any US person who is within the United States. EMSA would make it only illegal if those conducting the surveillance reasonably believe the subject is within the United States. So if they don't believe you are in the United States when they target you, or if that belief is unreasonable, their action is not prohibited by the law any more.

EMSA would also further narrow the scope of the limitations on government surveillance power in FISA by defining "surveillance" that it restricts to only include the acquisition of the content of communications; under current law that is included, but so is the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device for "monitoring to acquire information" of any kind. As a concrete example of the effect, a camera planted inside a residence or other private area to see what went on and who was present at various times would probably not capture the "content of communication", and would be entirely unregulated under the changes proposed in EMSA, but is restricted under the current law.

It also entirely eliminates (not merely extends the timeline) the rule that, without a court order having been obtained, communications deliberately or incidentally captured of a US person cannot be retained, disseminated, etc., beyond a 72-hour period.

It expands the scope of surveillance that requires no warrant (retroactive or otherwise) to include not only surveillance of communications exclusively between foreign powers (including their agents), but to communication of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and strikes the limitation that such warrantless surveillance may only be used when "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party", (and, remember from above, it expands the definition of "agent of a foreign power" to include people who are expected to send or receive foreign intelligence information, whether or not they are in fact agents of foreign powers; as one example of the impact of the effect of these two provisions together, since reporters covering foreign affairs beats can be "reasonably expected" to sometimes receive or send "foreign intelligence information", that means that, under EMSA, any communication of any such reporter with any other person for any purpose can be monitored without any restriction of any kind.)

It expands the ability of the government to order private parties to assist it in performing surveillance: this is curerntly restricted only to communications common carriers, and would be expanded to "any person with authorized access to electronic communications or equipment used to transmit or store electronic communications".

It deletes the requirement that warrant applications for surveillance include "a d

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[nickmalthus]

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." -Thomas Jefferson

"The division into Whig and Tory is founded in the nature of man; the weakly and nerveless, the rich and the corrupt, seeing more safety and accessibility in a strong executive; the healthy, firm, and virtuous, feeling confidence in their physical and moral resources, and willing to part with only so much power as is necessary for their good government; and, therefore, to retain the rest in the hands of the many, the division will substantially be into Whig and Tory." -Thomas Jefferson

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[DragonWriter]

There's a simple way for this to never EVER be applied to you... don't make/recieve calls overseas(out of the country).

Actually, this bill specifically removes limits which raise the bar higher for surveillance of purely domestic communication. So you are wrong.

Simply put, this is STILL ABOUT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITES.

Only insofar as the justification that must be asserted to exercise the powers is that the subject matter is "foreign intelligence information". It is not restricted to foreign communication (it neither requires at least one non-US location as an endpoint, nor at least one non-US person as a party.)

However, if this is EVER used to tap two US citizens within the US and no overseas callers, everyone who participated in the action should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail for a long time.

Well, that's too bad, because this law makes that in many cases no longer criminal, so there would be no basis for arresting, trying, and convicting them.

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[Catbeller]

Who is "they"? And how are they monitored, exactly? And what is a "viable threat"?

We have laws for this already. But they require courts and warrants. This bill removes those silly impedances. We'll just have nice, smooth secret surveillance of anyone they don't like, forever and ever and ever...

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[MECC]

"When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit."
-- Lao Tzu, 550BCE

Re:The Rise & Fall of My Country

[iggy_mon]

For the love of your country, write your representative in the house about how you feel on this issue...

and that is going to help how?

According to some very fascinating reading over at wikipedia, "A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws...(6)". Under the "Social Contract Section", "If a majority is unhappy, it may change the social contract. If a minority is unhappy, it may persuade the majority to change the contract, or it may opt out of it by emigration or secession."

I'll come back to that. Meanwhile...

Interestingly, "Authoritarianism often arises from the governing bodies' presumption that they know what is right or wrong for the country and from intolerance of dissent. The government then enforces what it thinks is right, often with use of considerable force and sometimes in blatant violation of human rights. Dissenting voices are ignored, or, more strikingly, are considered to be plotting against the best interests of the country(5). "best interest" Sound familiar? Human rights, Guantánamo (1).

It's in our best interest to make sure this bill passes because we have to "thwart our determined and dangerous terrorist enemies". It's in our best interest "to require ISPs to preserve customer records because "government's lack of access to customer data the biggest obstacle to deterring child porn(2). "We respect civil liberties but... {emphasis mine}" This headline says it all... CCTV Cameras In UK Get Loudspeakers(3)" That's the news from DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED governments, (forget rogue governments) in the last 5 days using only slashdot as a jumping off point! How much more is out there that we didn't get to see on this site?

Let's try to wrap it up. Use Authoritarianism(4) to maintain Social Control(5) to change a Government(6) into a Police State(7). And you want to write a letter to a person who isn't going to read it about an issue which is near and dear to his/her heart (gaining more and more power, the very nature of government) seeking change? Good Yuck(r)

(1) http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-e ng
(2) http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/19/22 31253
(3) http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/17/16 56258
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state

p.s. dear government officials, I am NOT a radical and i did not mean to think about my freedoms, rights and responsabilities. That is your responsability and you are doing great job.

I mod this Bill...

[HugePedlar]

...(-1, Flamebait).

Re:I mod this Bill...

[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.

I think pretty much any law that claims to be about [insert fear mongering item here] and isn't specifically limited (in the text of the law) to [fear mongering item] should be considered Flamebait.

"The Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, ..., would also allow federal law enforcement officials to spy on U.S. residents for up to 90 days without a court order in the period after a terrorist attack. The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation Wednesday by a 20-16 vote, with all committee Democrats present voting against the bill.

The bill, ..., would reduce the amount of information required from federal agents applying for a wiretapping warrant from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

90 days without a court order after a terrorist attack?
It passed the committee 20-16 on a party line vote.

Fuck the Republicans on this one.
They've forgotten the reason we had those laws in the first place.

Interesting but...

[56ker]

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?

Re:Interesting but...

[HugePedlar]

The problem is, what senator is going to openly disapprove of a bill that "Protects us against Terrorists"? You know the spin that will be put on this, whoever's in power.

Re:Interesting but...

[TheRaven64]

I don't really understand this. US politicians are frightened of opposing bills in cease their opposition at the next elections starts saying 'Candidate X voted against the think-of-the-children act!' Surely this can work both ways. Why doesn't anyone run campaigns saying 'Candidate X voted for 20 bills that restrict individual freedom in the last session?'

Re:Interesting but...

[jafac]

American politicians are TERRIFIED right now of the abuse and character assassination that is going on in the mass media, and the massive network of lobbying organizations, think tanks, consulting groups, pundits and commentors, posing as "real news". From a media perspective, it's profitable, and it's good business. Give us dirty laundry. And Karl Rove and his minions are all too happy to dish it out.

If you think they're not above punishing disloyalty in their own ranks, just take a look at how they slimed McCain in 2000 in the SC primary.

The terror tactics of Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, use bombs. The terror tactics of the modern Republican machine uses Information Warfare. Some people call Karl Rove an evil genius - but he's just exploiting the market-driven and overconsolidated corporate media in the US. They make big money, and they cycle it all back through the propaganda system through folks like American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundataion, Aspen Group, Center for American Progress, Focus on the Family, etc. (this is the "vast right wing conspiracy" Hillary Clinton was talking about. Yes, Bill really DID get a blowjob, yes, he really did lie, by a plain-folks definition of the word, and yes, there really was a vast right wing conspiracy that was out to get him.)

Remember, remember

[Anonymous Coward]

the 5th of November.

[How come I feel like "Post Anonymously" gives me no protection from the government in this post?]

Why bother?

[Fr05t]

"to get court-issued warrants"

Why bother when the non-court-issued ones are readily available?

And the first people up for surveillance...

[Billosaur]

...should be members of the House panel. Perhaps if they were the subjects of the electronic spying they were authorizing, they might think twice. Still, this is the House Judiciary Committee, not the full House or Senate, so there's still time to write your Congressman and tell him/her that if they vote for this, you'll help hand them a one-way ticket to unemployment.

Close the supermarkets

[glomph]

They are an essential part of the terrorists' support chain. After that, the gas stations. Do we care about defeating the evildoers or not? This is no time to be weak!

Make it _only_ for terrorism

[vijayiyer]

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 :(

Re:Make it _only_ for terrorism

[finkployd]

Wouldn't help, everything is classified as terrorism anyway. Dealing drugs is terrorism with chemical weapons, pirating music is financial terrorism directed at our corporations, etc.

I understand wanting laws to have scope and restriction, but making that restriction "terrorism" today would not really restrict it in any way.

Finkployd

The great thing about being President

[Chemisor]

One really great thing about being the President is that if you find yourself doing something illegal, all you have to do is tell congress to make it legal, and then continue doing it. Gosh, I wish I could do that!

It's me, GWB...

[truthsearch]

What I ordered the NSA to do what technically illegal. Now that the public has found out about it please pass a bill to make it legal.

Thanks,

- GWB

p.s. Please redefine "torture" so our interrogators can keep up the good work.

p.p.s. And, uh, please don't hold an official vote on Bolton since some of you may prevent him from representing us at the UN.

Re:It's me, GWB...

[lawpoop]

Am I mistaken, but aren't you still guilty of a crime you commit today, even if your actions are legalized next year?

In other words, we have no Ex Post Facto laws. You can't have something made illegal retroactively into the past. If congress passes a law tomorrow making it illegal to use the internet, we aren't breaking the law for using the internet today.

Similarly, can you retroactively make something legal? If the president is breaking the law today, and his actions are made legal tomorrow, isn't he still guilty of breaking the law?

Re:It's me, GWB...

[truthsearch]

I can't speak for this particular bill but there is at least one active bill which attempts to make GWB's actions legal retroactively. Of course it shouldn't work this way and the courts shouldn't allow it, but today just about anything goes.

I've quoted this before and i'll do it again...

[djdead]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~ Benjamin Franklin

come on guys

[einolu]

its about time we all stop worrying, havent the last couple of years proven that the republicans know what they are doing?

Re:come on guys

[finkployd]

I know you are being funny but there are a lot of people who honestly believe this. They believe strongly that GWB needs these powers (along with torture) to fight terrorism. They believe that he is doing a great job at it and these expanded powers just for him keep us all safe.

I'm not going to get into whether or not that is true, but it demonstrates some serious short-sightedness. What happens when Hillary Clinton gets into power, and inherits all of these orwellian powers? Do those same "Bill O'Reilly"-lovin people think she will be just as honerable, trustworthy, and uncorrupt as they believe Bush to be? Granting a president nearly unlimited power because you believe he himself will not abuse it is silly at best. The president is not a person, it is a position, and that position changes at least every 8 years.

I'm waiting to hear a different tune sung when all of these powers are turned against tracking down "gun-owners" as the next step in the war on terror (when fought by someone on the far left).

Finkployd

Why it is Important?

[Aditi.Tuteja]

Intelligence is the first means to have best defense in the war on terror. It is powerful way to keep any country safe. Excesses are best prevented by when intelligence activities are operated within a framework that is controlled...This Bill would modernize and simplify the process of getting a FISA warrant so that they can focus on protecting civil liberties of Americans, it is indeed a vital step!

Re:Why it is Important?

[Exatron]

What have you been smoking? This is a completely unnecessary step that only erodes our constitutional rights and remove checks on the executive branch. FISA warrants are already easy to obtain, and can be acquired up to three days after the surveillance occurs.

Terrorism has already won

[DragonPup]

We put ourselves in the greatest national debt in the history of the nation for fear of terrorism.

We shred our own basic Constitutional rights for fear of terrorism.

We blugeon our critics for being weak on terrorism.

We start a war with a country out of fear of terrorism and place our troops on a sacrificial altar.

Our administration runs on campaigns reminding us to be scared of terrorism.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we lost the War of Terror already.

Re:Terrorism has already won

[sglider]

Can I use that in a letter to my Congresswoman?

Re:Terrorism has already won

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree, The war on terror is over. USA lost.
 
Bin Laden wanted to a) Americans as a country and as a people to feel terror or fear and b) Cost you lots of money. Did he fail at either one of these? Every passing day his victory has been escalating.
 
Very not funny is that this reminds me of the War on Drugs, which has resulted in minimal success and mostly escalated the cost of drugs for the illegal consumer, which means crime boss drug lords make more money per product now. You gave the criminal underworld a retirement plan rather than stopping them and you still have tons of kids on drugs.
 
Based on these two shining successes, I personally hope the US would declare war on me too. I could really use a new house and maybe a yacht.

Re:Terrorism has already won

[DragonPup]

Please do.

Let me get this straight...

[Noryungi]

Here is what I understand of the situation:

• Surprisingly, [some] people discover the NSA has been spying on them illegally, without a warrant or a FISA court authorization. Congress promptly passes a bill to legalize these wiretaps.
• Amazingly, [some] people discover the US military has been illegally torturing detainees, in flagrant contradiction with the Geneva Conventions (which, incidentally, happen to protect US troops from the same treatment). Congress promptly passes a bill to legalize torture.

Hmmm... Can you spot a pattern here? What's next? The coronation of George W. Bush as the emperor-for-life of the United States? What about the return of public flogging and/or public execution of people who dissent with our beloved Emperor?

And, remember, people: We have always been at war with Oceania and its Islamofascists. Ignorance is Strength! War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Long Live the Great Emperor!

In other words (and this is coming from someone who loves the USA): what the fsck are you people waiting for??? Get rid of that chimp already!!

Horrifying

[keyne9]

Naturally, any given governmental employee is bound to be exempt from this surveillance.

Fuck you, Senate. Give me my country back.

Yes, 72 hours.

[Grendel Drago]

FISA allowed for 72-hour wiretaps before a warrant was required.

The difference between no warrant and warrantless.

[khasim]

someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they already have some power similar to this? where they could obtain a court order retroactively? does this just extend their time limit on it?

Sort of. Previously, spying could start and they would need to get a warrant before the deadline.

With this one, there doesn't seem to be a requirement for a warrant at all (as long as you don't exceed 90 days).

The problem Bush and Co had was that they weren't even bothering with the retroactive warrants. So now it looks like the law is being re-written to coincide with Bush and Co's practices.

Warrantless spying on US citizens.

Why are you so against efficiency?

[91degrees]

This isn't a violation of our civil liberties at all. The government just wants to eliminate a lot of paperwork. By removing the need to include completely different branch of government, we can do the same job with fewer agents, thus reducing the tax bill. And all the benfits go back to you, the taxpayer.

The true cost of terrorism

[gillbates]

Laws like this, ladies and gentlemen, are the true cost of terrorism. Yes, the terrorists did manage to kill 0.002 % of Americans 5 years ago, but the resulting fear and paranoia has led us to a state where everyone is a suspected terrorist and even innocent people are being tortured in the name of the "War on Terror". Far more Americans are affected by the knee-jerk reaction of Congress to 9/11 than by the actual attack itself.

On September 11, 2001, the terrorists took away more than just the lives of 4000 people. They managed to steal our liberties as well. We can't properly consider the impact of 9/11 without also considering the fact that it provided a catalyst for the removal of our Constitutional rights.

A brief recap.

[Grendel Drago]

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.

Well said.

[FatSean]

9/11 killed less than half the number of people who are killed every day on our highways and streets. This act destroyed a few buildings...but not as much damage as what happened to New Orleans when Katrina hit.

But hey...improving auto safety or levees doesn't allow for as much of a power grab does it?

Playing right inot terrorists hands

[plopez]

Terrorism has 2 functions.

1) Obviously to spread terror.

2) To create distrust of the exisitng government and authorities. By creating an extreme reaction by the exisitng authorities, the populance begins to first distrust and then works to actively undermine the exisitng authorities. This is what is happening in the US right now. Poeple are begining to distrust the governement and its motives.

The terorists are winning as long as this happens.

Re:Ill never understand warrantless searches

[finkployd]

But what if the judge is a wacko leftie who impedes the investigation? Or worse, what if he is a terrorist sympathiser himself? Quite simply, Bush does not trust ANYONE (congress, the courts, certainly not us) with the war on terror. Any information can be used by the terrorists so it must all be classified and kept secret at all costs. This is why warrants must be bypassed, lawsuits against the NSA, AT&T, et al must be stopped, and accused must not hear the evidence against them.

The rallying cry on the Right is that the president's most important job is to keep us safe, and he must be able to do anything necessary to do that job.

The question that no Bush supporter has been able to answer in regards to this?

"What happens when Hillary Clinton or someone more left gets into power and inherits all of these unlimited powers? What happens when they declare gun owners to be terrorists and bring to bear the full power of the electronic suveriliance and secrets court and warrants against them?" What happens when the President is no long someone you believe to be totally trustworthy and honerable, but corrupt and evil, and now armed with the unlimited power you gave not to Bush, but to the periodically changing position of the President?"

I've seen several people's eyes glaze over in a "oh my god I never thought of that" moment when asked this question.

Finkployd

America, we have a problem

[thorkyl]

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...

Re:America, we have a problem

[maxume]

As you long as you feel safe messing with them, we, in fact, do not have a problem.

Re:America, we have a problem

[Nimey]

7.62x54R is really cheap too; I've found surplus Czech ammunition for about 70 USD / 800 rounds. Wouldn't it be ironic if we had to fight for our freedoms using old Communist-manufactured weapons?

Re:America, we have a problem

[B1ackDragon]

As true as that may be, there's certainly been a chilling affect regarding exercising rights, and I would argue it is a strong one. While the following relates specifically to firearms rights, I think similar arguments could be put forth regarding people's hesitation to exercise rights of free speech, assembly, and basically just ask questions.

Related to the topic at hand, I grew up target shooting various kinds of weaponry. I've been on my own a few years now, and would like to get a gun or two of my own so I can continue the hobby. So far, I haven't, and the primary reason (the only reason, really) is that I fear being on a list of registered firearms owners in this environment. Prior to the early nineties, I don't think I would have felt this way. Then again, I am probably just too young to remember the world before that.

(It's my opinion that much of this terrorism fear spreading really began in the early nineties era with Waco, Oklahoma City, and Ted Kaczynski's later "works." I think this is also possibly the reason so much effort is directored toward citizens, while the mantra remains "the foreign terrorists." But again, what do I know?)

Of course, I could _not_ register, which these days is practically asking for a few years in the pen.

Looks like one way or another, I'm just going to have to grow a pair, or let my rights rot...

scp -p -P 7777 localhost:/dev/random /dev/null

[Kadin2048]

Seems like that would be pretty trivial to do; you could just establish a SSH tunnel and then pipe /dev/random to it, and route it to /dev/null on the receiving end.

A more intelligent thing to do -- and perhaps this is already done, I've never investigated it -- would be to configure a VLAN or VPN so that it sends a certain amount of traffic at all times. If there's not enough 'real' traffic to meet a certain minimum, then it just pads with random garbage that gets discarded at the remote end.

Such a thing would be the bandwidth equivalent of a leaky faucet, though; I'd imagine that if you weren't careful and you pay per GB, you could be in for a shock when you get your bill at the end of the month.

There are systems which are designed to defeat traffic analysis by padding and sending dummy messages -- the mixmaster mail-relay system, for instance, does this. I'm not sure if mixmaster is still alive or not, but now might be a really good time to resuscitate it, if it has died.

It's Never Been Tried So How Would You Know?

[eldavojohn]

The idea that we can end terrorism by treating everyone with "respect" is naïve.

No more naïve than thinking that increased nuclear warheads, military spending and seek & destory missions in other countries will end terrorism.

Did I suggest we surrender or run away? No, I suggest an alternative more condusive to listening and thinking than burning and shooting.

Also you misunderstood me, I didn't say "everyone" as in individuals, I said "other countries" specifically the ones we have exerted influence over in order to benefit our own country or economy. I'm not concerned about respecting Osama Bin Laden. Hollowing out countries where he has been in the past in an effort to find him does concern me, however. I feel it leaves long lasting detrimental effects on the populace living there and only creates more anti-American sentiment. We should be fighting a war of words and asking for help from other countries, not blowing up what we want and demanding things. We make our allies look like puppets to the rest of the world and say things like, "If you're not with us, you're against us." Stupid.

Disculpame pero no es cierto

[xtracto]

Some fights are unavoidable, unless you would rather surrender or run away. The idea that we can end terrorism by treating everyone with "respect" is naïve.

Allow me to disagree on that. In order to end with terrorism on your country, you have to get to the root of the problem. What is it?, why are the people of the middle east so angered against your country/government/people?

Is it because they hate your "way of living"/culture? (as your government wants to make you believe). I really doubt it. See, I am from the poor country which sits at the south of yours (I am assuming you are from USA). I am from Mexico. One of the things that bothers me (a bit, as I run on the same tunnel a lot of times) is how we (Mexicans) love to imitate the American lifestyle. Hell, you just have to see the spark in the eyes of some Asian guys wen they ask me if I have been to America. America is cool for other people.

So, it is not your culture as the culture in my country is trying *so hard* to be like yours.

Then, what could it be?, what could conutries like Mexico, France, Canada (not sure about them), Japan, Brazil, Chile have been doing to avoid these terrorism attacks, hey, I guess, no.. I am positively SURE that the security systems in my country does not compare to the super technological security here in UK or in the USA.

My country cant afford that, neither Chile or Brazil can do it.

So, what I can tell you is that none of your gadgets/law-bills will help.

It is my view that what you [your government of course] should do to avoid being "terrorized" is to stop puttin gtheir noses everywhere. Leave other countries alone. Spain learnt the hard way, but HEY THEY LEARNT!!!.

It seems UK and USA government hasnt learnt (because they dont want to I guess).

btw, as one sig I read said, dont mod me down just because you dont agree with my opinions :-)

Re:Disculpame pero no es cierto

[frdmfghtr]

It seems UK and USA government hasnt learnt (because they dont want to I guess).

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.

Gangs are the major TERRORIST threat

[SpecialAgentXXX]

Maybe it will ensure that I never have to worry about a terrorist inside my country ever again.

What a lot of people seem to overlook is that our gang problem in the US is huge. For example, the MS-13 gang is spread out across the US and is made up of former South American guerrilla soldiers. Go into any inner-city: Los Angeles, Chicago, Detriot, etc. and the people there live in fear on a daily basis from the gang warfare. Drive-by shootings, rapes, murders, etc. Gang violence has only increased in the past several years.

Yet all we hear about from our corrupt politicians is that the boogeyman Osama and Al Quaeda is coming to get us. Fear! Fear! Fear! I lived in the inner-city for awhile. I absolutely guarantee you that those people living there could care less about Osama or Al Quaeda or Emmanuel Goldstein. The real threat to their lives, to their children's lives 24/7 is the gang problem. Those people truly live in fear.

However, what do our despicable policians do? Do they order the police and national guard to round up all gang members and get them off of our streets? No. They want to grant amnesty to the illegals! (I would say the majority of gang members are illegals or children of illegals.) And what happens when an individual police force tries to get tough on gangs? Civil lawsuits! The police "violated" these murderers', rapists', drug-dealers', and illegals' "rights."

So what do our politicians do? Why they enact laws that are meant to monitor, arrest, and imprison... we, the people!

I do not live in fear of "terrorists." I live in fear of my own government.

Poison?

[psykocrime]

So let's take an approach (bomb) similar to the way spammers try (attack) to confuse bayesian (Hezbollah) filters... or maybe a better (Zionist pig) analogy would be the way RIAA companies (Jihad)try to "poison" p2p networks... let's (Allah)start sending so much bullshit (nuke) psuedo-terrorist looking (airplane) communication around the Internet, that (smuggle) they get so overwhelmed with (chemical) false positives (liquid bomb)that it renders (Semtex) the system unusable. I mean if (terrorist attack) everyone of us (terrorists) would (Israel) do this we could (Al Queda) really
screw this (tube station attack) up.

How would you Protect us? - Al Qaeda

[neonprimetime]

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?

Re:How would you Protect us? - Al Qaeda

[kindbud]

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?

In the five years since 9/11 there has been no terror attack on US soil. In the five years prior to 9/11, there were no terror attacks on US soil. What we were doing prior to 9/11 is at least as effective as what we have been doing since. So, keep doing those things. We don't need any new laws, and the ones passed since 9/11 should be repealed. They are unnecessary, and freedom lovers do not want unnecessary laws.

What about the rest of the world

[Yvanhoe]

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 ?

Mary had a little lamb

[nickos]

it's fleece was white as snow.

I know a lot of you Americans have only heard the lines "Remember, remember, the 5th of November" from V for Vendetta and think it's very clever to quote it, but it sounds really dumb to anyone from the UK - you're quoting a nursery rhyme.

Re:Mary had a little lamb

[RingDev]

I've quoted "Sign a song of sixpence" when discussing military tactics before. Just because someone put it in proes that rhyme hardly demotes its relevance.

In this case, I'm of mixed response though. To know that your children are signing nursery rhymes to each other of the importance of fighting for freedom and constant vigilance against governmental control, is very heart warming.

On the other hand, your dismissal of the point of the story as nothing more than a nursery rhyme is quite disheartening. It's like asking an American what's so special about the 4th of July and having them tell you "That's the day we set off fireworks!"

-Rick

Re:I love my freedom but...

[tthomas48]

Every statement we make could be twisted to make us have something to hide. Trust me, there is something in your life that could be misconstrued by someone to cause you harm. Are you religious? Are you not religious? Do you spank your children? Do you smoke? Do you eat fast food more than once a week? Have you ever looked at pornography? Have you ever cheated on your spouse? Have you ever mentioned cheating on your spouse in a joking manner? Have you ever missed a payment for a credit card? Would you be comfortable with all of this information being available to your boss, your government, you student's teachers, CPS? Because remember, they don't have to tell you what the information is or where it came from or where it's being used. This just says they can use it after a terrorist attack. To what ends we don't know.

And we are hardly in a dangerous position here. Your daily commute is far more dangerous to you than terrorists. It's still probably more dangerous statistically even than living in Iraq. But I don't see anyone calling for automated driving systems to keep us from killing each other on the roads.

RTFA Yourself

[db32]

I love how this crap gets modded up so much. I think this is a horrible mess and it makes me sick that this crap was even proposed let alone getting support. HOWEVER! You need to RFTA yourself, or stop with your creative editing.

You left out "The Electronic Modernization Surveillance Act, opposed by several privacy groups, would also allow federal law enforcement officials to spy on U.S. residents for up to 90 days without a court order in the period after a terrorist attack."

So yes...bad freaking law...bad freaking stuff...but kneejerk creative editing only serves to further make the privacy folks that realize this is BAD juju for freedom look like paranoid lunatics. We all know that folks like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan are taken so seriously these days due to their overzealous overreactionary nonsense.

Re:RTFA Yourself

[ArmyOfFun]

I probably did leave off the "period after a terrorist attack" intentionally. So, good catch. Does it make my statement look crazy and paranoid? I don't think so.

Regardless, look at the bill to see how a "terrorist attack" is defined:

...the President submits a notification to each member of the congressional intelligence committees and a judge having jurisdiction under section 103 that--

                        `(1) the United States has been the subject of a terrorist attack; and

                        `(2) identifies the terrorist organizations or affiliates of terrorist organizations believed to be responsible for the terrorist attack.

There's nothing there to keep the president from labeling any crime he wants a terrorist act in order to prompt 90 day warrant less surveillance (although congress and a judge will at least be aware of it). A better version of the bill would require a 2/3 majority vote from congress recognizing an attack was a terrorist action. Although I still fail to see the need for 90 days of surveillance without judicial oversight.

Re:RTFA Yourself

[DragonWriter]

I believe the question that really needs to be asked, is what defines a terrorist attack against the United States?

Its worth noting that there is a separate provision relating to armed attack on the territory of the United States, language which is not used in the terrorist attack provision. This makes it fairly clear that the terrorist attack provision is intended to apply to attacks targetting the United States no matter where on the globe they occur.

So this is how democracy dies...

[B11]

And those wanting to blame Republicans, Bush, the Devil, et al. are just plain wrong. WE handed over our freedoms and liberty in the name of security and protection from the "terrorists." The cruel irony is that Franklin warned us us centuries ago that trading one for the other results in having neither. At least I got to live somewhat free for a few of decades.

Re:Republican vs. Democrat doesn't matter

[SpecialAgentXXX]

if you consider the scenario that we are witnessing the fall of our democracy

Actually, we are a republic. There's a huge difference. A democracy is just a popularity contest - tyranny of the majority. If the majority of people want to be spied on, then it is law, regardless of the 4th Amendment. Sadly, the Constitution and Bill of Rights aresupposed to be held above a "majority rules" (except in the case of an amendment).

You know, I'd like to vote for a lawremover, not a lawmaker. Ever think someone will win running on that platform? "I'm so-and-so and I'm running as an independent to be a Washington lawremover. Vote for me and I'll reduce the size of government by getting rid of all of these unconstitutional government programs and alphabet agencies." We can dream, can't we?

I didn't get the memo...

[haggie]

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.

Hahahahahaha.

[twoallbeefpatties]

You have completely ignored the implications of the other posters, that this sort of legislation is unnecessary given the tools that we already have, and have attempted to switch the argument around to once again say that we cannot prosecute or capture terrorists without this bill. No one is saying that we should hold peace talks with al-Qaida, no one except for strawmen erected in the yards of Republican Congressmen to be smacked around as necessary. Don't ask to not be flamed if you're throwing around flamebait.

I'm not going to answer these trollish questions because they are foregone conclusions. If you want to make America "safer," don't continue loading us up with these bullshit bills that provide just as much pass to investigate people who are not al-Qaida suspects. Instead, foot the bill to intelligence agencies to increase the number of agents in the field, increase communcation with foreign relations. What we need right now is not a stronger net with barbs and poison - what we need are more nets. This bill does nothing to actually increase enforcement of policy - it only increases policy.

The answer to your last question, which many progressives have provided and many Democrats agree with, is that we need to begin phasing out military operations in Iraq so that we can shift funds to intelligence agencies, bring our National Guard troops back to home grounds so that they can be ready to serve as first-responders for attacks that slip through our intelligence webs, and to begin preparing for possible engagements with Iran. As long as we continue blowing as much money as possible on the Iraqi occupation, then we're going to continue to hamper ourselves in the real goal, which is protecting American soil from terrorists. No, not the "war against terrorism," but the "protection against terrorism," which involves proactive intelligence and military action based on that intelligence. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and read any further into your questioning.

Just a bit to add...

[PontifexPrimus]

Namely, that, whenever 9/11 comes up in the American press there is talk of "the 3000 American victims" which is patently untrue: ~2700 came from the US, ~300 were foreign nationals who worked in the twin towers or were passengers on the flights. And I'd like to point out that other nations have kept much, much cooler heads than the US about these victims.

Re:Republican vs. Democrat doesn't matter

[SpecialAgentXXX]

We really do seem like more of a democracy now than a republic, since the Constitution is just a worthless piece of paper according to our own president.

You just described a dictatorship, not a democracy. Our "democracy in action" is when policians pander to the ignorant masses to vote for them and their pet law/project, regardless if it is constitutional or not. As long as 50.1% favor XXX, then it is law regardless if it violates the inalienable rights of the other 49.9% of the people.

Re:The difference between no warrant and warrantle

[megaditto]

The important difference here that the law is being re-written retroactively to cover violations already committed.

Currently, W Bush and Cheney are essentially convicted felons, which is enough grounds to fasttrack their impeachment come November (if the Democrats take Congress, which is not impossible).

Once Bush and Cheney are impeached, Pelosi (as a Speaker), becomes an acting President (and gets the PATRIOT and other 'powers').

And that is why the Republicans desperately need to make what Bush did legal.

Since when

[/dev/trash]

have we been a democracy?

The Goebbels Experiment

[nickmalthus]

If you ever get the chance watch the documentary "The Goebbels Experiment". It is the narration of excerpts from the diary kept by Paul Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister from the 20's until his death in 1945. It documents the rise of the Nazis first hand from an insider's experience. Cabals of driven individuals, fixed elections, censorship, propaganda, secret surveillance, intimidation of critic, and war for peace are not new concepts. When undermining a Republic use a proven formula that works!

Re:Offering every orifice

[The Master Control P]

Why people like you terrorize themselves into believing that we need to give up what makes America America escapes me.

You know, it would make us a lot safer if we rounded up all the Muslims (no, better make it everyone who looks remotely middle eastern) and put them in "internment camps." If the TSA started handcuffing everyone who flies to their seat, we wouldn't need to worry about anyone hijacking a plane ever again. I'm sure officials could catch at least a few terrorists if they were allowed to search anyone they found suspicious. There's even a chance that they might be able to beat some names out of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. I'm pretty sure that we'd catch a few more terrorists (or at least people who hate America) if the FBI were to round up everyone who ever entered "al quaeda" into Google. Perhaps the NSA should preemptively wiretap everyone who requests http://www.aljazeera.com? Yet none of these things have been seriously proposed, except the torture one (because torture is no longer a debasement of everything America holds dear if they're terrorists). Care to think why?

You would have hated the Founding Fathers for the laws they wrote. You think they didn't know that the 2nd Amendment would make the police's job harder? You think they didn't know that the 4th would seriously impede legitimate investigations? That the 5th gave conspirators a free hand to stonewall investigations? That the First Amendment, giving anyone the right to say whatever they wanted (except in condition of causing immediate danger), would let all manner of sickos and hatemongers spew their filth without fear of reprisal?

Do you want to know why they would write such laws, which the Bush administration would no doubt (correctly) denounce because they "impede legitimate investigations" if they were proposed today? Exactly BECAUSE the Bush administration, or the Clinton administration, or the Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon or Hoover or Grant administrations would denounce such gaurantees in the name of efficiency and convenience. The Founders KNEW that power breeds corruption, and they knew exactly where the powers unequivocally denied to the government in the Constitution and in the Bill of Rights would lead on very, very short order because they'd just overthrown such a government. They intentionally hog-tied the Federal Government because they knew where anything else would lead, and they knew how many people died getting back their rights the first time.

And here you are, cheering the Bush administration as as they try to renounce the very laws that have assured historically unprecedented freedom for hundreds of millions of people for centuries in the name of expediency. In the words of Samuel Adams, "We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

At this point, I finish with a snide comment about the Emergency Clause in the Soviet constitution. You may now proceed to rationalize wholesale attacks on the Bill of Rights in the name of expediency to prevent your worldview from imploding, certain that Stalin will renounce his powers as soon as The Emergency is passed.