Slashdot Mirror
National Security Letters Reform Act Reintroduced
eldavojohn writes "A bill introduced today, similar to one that died in 2007, would reform the plague of National Security Letters and greatly narrow their scope. On top of that, it would mandate the destruction of any wrongly obtained information discovered in audits by the Inspector General that uncovered widespread improprieties in NSLs."
That is supposed to be what the courts and judges are for. Try reading the constitution some time.
Who will guard the guards?
According to Thomas it was introduced by a Democrat.
But, sure, Republicans can sign on to bills that restore the rule of law to the USA, too.
> On top of that, it would mandate the destruction of any wrongly obtained information discovered
Why not toss out any court case based on such wrongly discovered info?
Why not criminal prosecutions of those issuing the letters from which information was wrongly discovered?
Why not remove the muzzeling of anyone issued such letters? After all if they were improperly issued letters in the first place any inducement to STFU about such a letter must also be wrong.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Looking back at the pre-american-revolution era, it's incredible the similarities the to-be-americans faced with what we are going through now.
Things like the Writ of Assistance etc. Basically "we're going to ignore any laws or rights you thought you had for a little while here, please step aside." These NSLs are basically doing that sort of thing.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Hard to believe something like this was ever introduced in this county. And supported by...a lot of you. At least many of you voted and stuck up for the dirt bags who proposed it.
Obama bailing out the auto industry and trying to fix health care is the path to socialism, but spying on Americans without due process and then trying to forbid them from talking to an attorney, you're okay with that.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
All of our government officials are sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. "Exceptions" to the bill of rights such as NSLs, particularly when they are abused, weaken the Constitution as a whole, and officials responsible should be held responsible, preferably with criminal charges of their own.
Without enforcing the protections provided by the bill of rights, those principles become mere historical curiosities as the "antiquated" ideals of the founding fathers.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...
This anti-republican dogma has really got to stop. First of all, if you are going to believe in the myth of the "two sided democracy", then you have to at least admit that there are both good or bad eggs on both sides of the aisle. If that weren't true, then there would be no way we would be in the constitutional mess we are in today -- as soon as the "right" side got the majority, everything would have been fixed. Since that's obviously not the case, you have to assume that each majority has its' own agenda and the entire contemporary political machinery exists solely to maintain the existing power base in Washington and the elite of the U.S. Only when we as a society can get beyond the Democrat versus Republican myth will we truly start dismantling the subterfuge that is destroying our liberties, our Constitution, and our democracy. If we start looking at every politician based soley on his or her merits alone and ignore his or her political affiliation we would see the enormous "change of course" that we have been promised oh-so-many times and never actually seen.
Interestingly, nothing chills political party circle-jerk fantasies of unlimited executive power quite like the possibility that an opposing party might wield it.
Fixed that for you. If you think the phenomena that you have described is unique to Republicans then I think you are in for a rude surprise.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As you may or may not recall, during the Bush administration the Justice Department had this problem where some political appointees decided that they'd hire and fire people at Justice based on political affiliation (and possibly sexual orientation, in at least one case). Then the matter was investigated, by Congress, who couldn't get some individuals to show up to testify, which is contempt of Congress. When referrals for these contempt charges were passed to the Justice Department, they were promptly ignored, on the orders of - surprise - a political appointee of the President whose administration was being investigated in the first place.
Which is all to say, investigative powers are great, so long as the ability to compel testimony and subpoena (and obtain) documents is unimpeded, and that the investigative process is unimpeded and apolitical. What we saw over the last 8 years was the willing complicity of the legislative branch (till 2006, after which we saw some true cravenness), coupled with an executive that felt it was above the law. No simple IG provisions were going to fix that.
Apparently, you are right, but in the parent's defense:
First sentence of the second paragraph.
Without further clarification being given in the entire Fine Article, it is easy to see where his comment(while biased) was not entirely wacked out.
I would put more faith in the site you linked to compared to TFA linked in the summary.
Two Thumbs Up(tm), and a standing ovation from me for:
1. The link with the info
2.* The motivation to double-check the source. That is too rare these days.
Well done!
Having said that, while information and documentation should be accurate, this is a small blip on the RADAR* overall.
Wat's important here for the current discussion is the possibility of increased openness and manner of redress in regards to National Security Letters, and due process.
I'm not trying to demean you or the above applause I gave, just adding some perspective overall. You do point out by example how discussion of a topic can break down into useless partisan flamewars though.
This is apparently what happened.
In my mind, who introduces a bill carries slightly more weight in my mind than the co-sponsors.(although the more the merrier in regards to co-sponsors for a 'wanted' bill-YMMV!)
Again, well done! You have shown admirable restraint with your reply.
*I'm not shouting, it's an acronym.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
First thing I learned in self-defense class in grade 7, never bring a weapon to a fight you don't want used against yourself.
Why is "hate crime" legislation a good thing again? Honestly... why do you care about a person's motives when they beat someone up or kill them? It's assault and murder, all the same. It's all unacceptable, no matter the motivation.
Perhaps I'll stop with my anti-Republicanism when they stop actively fighting my self interest.
If they want me to stop hating them perhaps they should stop fighting hate crimes legislation and preventing me from having all of my rights.
Meaning that your rights are better the somebody else's because you're in some "special" group. So if you get assaulted your assailant should be punished more than if you assault them. Yea, I get your issue with them, there.
Perhaps they should acknowledge that as a citizen, one that pays taxes no less, that I should have an equal amount of freedom.
That's funny, it sounded like you just said you wanted a greater amount of freedom than somebody else - my mistake, I guess. Wait - what's that "hate crimes" legislation that you want all about again?
But then again, we could just pretend like the party doesn't have some incredibly anti-American policies. Perhaps we could then force it into a dogma because clearly people's own self interest must be dogma.
Dogma? Self interests? You lost me. What is it the Republicrats - err, I mean the Republicans doing to you again?
I think it's vaguely ironic that you can't comprehend that people might hate the Republican party on it's merits without being strict partisans.
What's ironic is that you don't seem to be able to articulate anything specific that you think is bad about that party in particular.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Perhaps I'll stop with my anti-Republicanism when they stop actively fighting my self interest.
If they want me to stop hating them perhaps they should stop fighting hate crimes legislation and preventing me from having all of my rights. Perhaps they should acknowledge that as a citizen, one that pays taxes no less, that I should have an equal amount of freedom.
But then again, we could just pretend like the party doesn't have some incredibly anti-American policies. Perhaps we could then force it into a dogma because clearly people's own self interest must be dogma.
I think it's vaguely ironic that you can't comprehend that people might hate the Republican party on it's merits without being strict partisans.
You're absolutely right about the Republican party having anti-American policies. Unfortunately, both of the major parties have this problem. If it were only one of them, then this would have been a self-correcting system.
The one thing I'd like to ask you about is hate-crime legislation. To me, a hate crime is a thought crime because it depends on what the criminal was thinking at the time the crime was committed. It seems to me that if someone commits i.e. murder, we should try them for murder. What they were thinking at the time may help the prosecution to establish motive, but the actual crime is having illegally killed another human being. Otherwise the next logical step is to punish people who have such thoughts whether or not they also committed any other crime.
The problem is we as a culture are not big fans of taking ideas to their completion, to any and all "next steps" to find out at what point they break down. If that point is fairly close to the proposed implementation, then the idea is probably a bad one that will do more harm than good. If that point of failure is a far extreme that is not remotely connected to the proposed implementation, then it may or may not be a good idea. To me, hate crimes are clearly the former case.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I thought the rule was to bring enough to share.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
That was actually the previous introduction, in 2007, which died at the end of the last Congressional session. This reintroduced one is here. It was introduced by the same person, though, so no substantive disagreement with your post.
The 2007 version had 30 cosponsors, who were 27 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The 2009 version has 17 consponsors so far, who are 15 Democrats and 2 Republicans. So I wouldn't say it's hugely bipartisan, especially since one of the few Republicans in both cases was Republican-with-an-asterisk Ron Paul (Jeff Flake is the other).
The Thomas link you give shows that the 2007 version was passed out of subcommittee in 2008 by a 7-3 vote. I'd be curious who the votes on each side were. By which I mean, of course, I want the names of those 3 fellows.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You punish an action, not a thought. If we are in the practice of punishing thoughts, please let me know so I can move to a country that is a little bit more liberal about these things... like China.
You're also more than implying that its not possible for other, non-protected groups, to be targeted based on their race or gender. Is it impossible to have a black man who will beat a white man because the white man is white? Is it impossible that some deranged homosexual exists who hates heterosexuals for simply being heterosexual? Do heterosexuals get protection because its possible that they can be singled out?
You would argue that such people's motivation is hate, which would lead to more offenses in the future.
Also, there is no reason why such a turnabout assault could not be anonymous. What if the white man walked into the projects? What if the heterosexual was in a gay-frequented area of town?
Hate crimes legislation is the very antithesis of the idea of equality before the law that we play lipservice to. As long as such a thing exists or is seriously contemplated, we are enforcing legal discrimination and that is not acceptable.
A beating is a beating. It's illegal already, and there are certainly remedies that exist already for frequent offenders. Why do we need anything else? It's not like blacks and gays are the only people who have ever been beaten for who they are.