Slashdot Mirror
Congress Makes Deal To Renew Patriot Act For 4 Years
airfoobar writes "A four-year extension to the highly controversial Patriot Act is set to be rushed through in the coming week." Techdirt has its usual trenchant critique. I hope it's not unpatriotic to raise doubts about "one of the critical tools the intelligence community has to keep America safe."
Of Tyranny.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
So when do we get to question the necessity of this thing? The war in Iraq has been over for awhile (more or less, in theory, not that that had anything to do with the origins of the Patriot Act anyways) and now Osama bin Laden is dead. I realize that the government would like to keep it in effect forever just because of the power it grants them, but shouldn't they at least have to come up with some kind of new excuse by now?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid=14107454
It's only unpatriotic if you don't stand up while your country slowly degrades.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
SUVs kill many more Americans every year than died in the September 11 attacks. And yet we are willing to sacrifice our freedoms to ostensibly prevent terror but are not willing or wanting to do anything to prevent those monstrosities from killing a massive number of innocent people every year.
Monstar L
Looks like for this and the tax breaks for billionaires our Congress is going to pretend it isn't permanent, but still make it last forever with endless extensions.
Kinda like copyrights too, I suppose. I was just referred to a site that had the individual tracks of "Gimme Shelter" so you could hear the details of what was going on, but this recording from 42 years ago had been pulled down because of the copyrights.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I write letters, I sign petitions, I talk to my friends about this stuff, and I vote. But it's things like this that are starting to make me want to throw up my hands and say, "Fuck it.". Fuck you, congress critters. I truly hope that the bastards proposing and vote for this legislation rot in hell.
In two days it will be judgement day anyways.
Can I have your toys?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The most unpatriotic thing would be to ignore the existence of any flaws. Oh wait...
Powers like this, once given, are pretty much impossible to take back. Your assertions to violations of your constitutional rights don't matter, the Supreme Court is okay with the Patriot Act, it's a done deal. That said, it's not the end of the world, and none of you will ever be personally effected by this law and you know it and to claim otherwise is laughable.
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.
It's an initialism, not a word. "Patriot" has nothing to do with the Act.
"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." -- Jefferson
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Jefferson
...go pray at the apple store... as if hybrids dont crash...
Apparently Questioning the (claimed) continuing necessity of The Patriot Act has been declared UnPatriotic.
Lather/Rinse/Repeat.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
... same as the old boss. And don't expect the Democrat Senate to vote it down or Obama to veto it, just because they're not Bush Republicans.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Not that it really matters any more. I doubt even the supreme court bothers to read the constitution or declaration of independence anymore.
People have undeniable human rights/liberties. And it doesn't matter if you are a citizen or not most of the time. If you are here legally or not.
The fourth amendment is very simple. It provides simple oversight, a paper trail and accountability. What is so difficult with getting rubber stamps? A judge in this manor represents little better than a notary.
We need to get more Democrats into office this next election to get rid of the Republican majority in the Senate so these evil bills won't get passed!
It is hilarious. The pattern is the same around the world. Every time there is an election the politicians from the different parties pretend to be on opposite side then when they get in to power they do exactly the same thing.
There is no democracy in this world. If your vote is one remove from the law which will govern you, separated by the impediment of a so called 'representative', you can forget the will of the people.
towards completely destroying America in order to make sure that America is safe?
How can we get rid of every politician who votes for this?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Of course is is unpatriotic to question any security measures that a government feels it needs to do in a time of economic, political, and military crisis. Trains with people in them? Don't know what you're talking about... but I am sure the government has the best interest in our pure and noble society at heart... don't question, don't think - merely recognize if a government needs to violate your civil liberties to make you safe, it is done in your best interest.
DISCLAIMER: The above was sarcasm. I am not advocating that we distrust everything the government does and make it an "us versus them" situation - but when talking about surrendering liberties for security, we should be very careful. There is a time to scrutinize and question, and there is a time to sacrifice. However, I have always seen the victims of 9/11 as the sacrifice of a free and open society... but instead our society decided they would rather give up their freedoms in turn for feeling safe. In other words, they died for a lifestyle that our country no longer stands for.
Any chance Obama is going to veto this? He's Mr. Change-You-Can-Believe-In, right? Waiting on the change...
I realize that the government would like to keep it in effect forever just because of the power it grants them, but shouldn't they at least have to come up with some kind of new excuse by now?
Has the Federal Government ever backed away from more power, at least since the Jackson administration? There's not much you can do at the Federal level except watch it crumble under its own weight, but come join us in New Hampshire where we're fixing government from the bottom up. These folks will help you get here: http://freestateproject.org/
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
...if Obama had been elected.
If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
...but vote third party. The Republicans love this stuff, and deep down the Democrats clearly do as well.
Let's stop enabling them.
It's more patriotic to question the so-called "Patriot Act" than it is to go along with the thing. The motives of those pushing this act forward should be questioned.
clancey
Nobody is really surprised right?
All told, there is now about 2-3 Trillion in revenue going to a huge bureaucracy now that is supposedly protecting us from Mr. Goldstein. If any of you actually think that this will be peacefully dismantled, I you are living in a dream world.
Folks it is time to face the unpleasant facts, this government is not going to stop there, it will continue. If any of you out there are angry, I would advise you to be very very careful about what you say and do moving forward because we are way past the point of making any sort of changes using the voting box.
Meanwhile we will have endure:
1) Endless wars...Pakistan is now up to bat.
2) 1/3rd of the human population in the US on food stamps. At the rate it is increasing, half of all Americans will be on public assistance in just 4-5 years.
3) Rampant destruction of our currency by foreign interests.
4) Our cities crumbling, once shining jewels of industry and innovation and opportunity for the future of children, now destroyed by this government and its policies to the fascist corporate state. Our youth will know no security, will own no home and will have no food let alone a career.
5) Congress is plotting with the centralized agricultural fascists to make it illegal to grow food. This government has blown up levies and damns and has siphoned away millions to destroy private farmland to protect commercial real estate for the bankers. Meanwhile food prices have hit record all time highs in wheat, corn and more Americans everyday can't feed themselves.
The Europeans get it. The Icelander's got it. Americans unfortunately don't get it yet. I am left wondering when they will?
Maybe when half of the population is on food stamps, will that be what it takes?
Watch your kids die with rationed health care?
Maybe it is the 27 trillion in currency maniuplation illegally transferring the wealth of the country to the Black Nobility in Germany, Great Britain?
Maybe it will be the fact the brightest spotlight this year in jobs was McDonalds hiring 50,000 workers?
Or maybe watching our wife and kid be sexually molested in public by the TSA?
Or maybe, just maybe....it will be when the government declares everyone in the USA a terrorist if you disagree with these outcomes?
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Anyone who voted for this abomination the first time should never have been allowed back into office. We're such sheep.
...that all of these complaints about the Patriot Act having no meaningful review in committee or otherwise before it was passed and ditto with the current extension didn't happen when Obamacare was passed with an admittedly unreviewed 2000+ pages of legislation.
The true test of Obama's character is whether he resigns this terrible law. He campaigned hard against the wiles of Bush and Cheney; let's see if he'll repeat the same behavior that he once eschewed.
says it all. Eric Holder wants to keep it alive. And you thought you were voting for hope and change! Suckas.
In the unsurpassed words of Hermann Goering as cribbed from http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
That quote alone was worth winning the war, for which America was justifiably proud. Gosh it's hard to remember that far back.
All my life I struggled to identify myself on the liberal/conservative axis. It wasn't until I read Tibshirani and Hastings on PCA that I figured it out. The choice of principal component is often rather arbitrary when you have a cluster of aligned traits. In other words, the axis of ideology can be projected in many different ways, most of which are valid to the same approximate degree. When you subtract out whichever one you pick first, you've grabbed most of the explanatory power of the entire bundle.
One meme about conservatism is that it is more threat sensitive. I don't agree with that. Conservatism is more sensitive to threats from without. Liberals are more concerned from threats from within. In one case, you want to defeat the Nazis; in the other case your wish your own society not to become the Nazis by succumbing to the same Patriotic tendencies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm with most of /. on here but you have to understand that it's not really all that controversial in the context of the vast majority of American voters -- i.e. in the context that ultimately counts. We tend to surround ourselves with people that are ideologically similar to ourselves (not a bad thing) but when we then mistake our particular choice for the populace at large we get a myopic view of the whole political spectrum (bad).
This isn't a partisan complaint. I used to live in rural Idaho and was shocked to be confronted by some (not all) residents there didn't realize how far to the left of them much of the rest of the country was. Similarly in Boston I am continually shocked not by the lefty politics but by the complete lack of perspective that some (not all) on the far left have regarding how far out of the mainstream they are.
I wouldn't for the world give up having a country with widely diverse viewpoints, which I think are essential to a healthy democracy -- I'm not out to make us all fickle and bland. Rather, I just want people to get a realistic handle on where there views on a particular topic fall relative to the other electorate. This is descriptive/empirical matter, not a normative/evaluative one -- it doesn't make you wrong to be to the left or right of 70% of the country on some topic but it is foolish not to be aware of where you stand.
See, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1893/poll-patriot-act-renewal for details on where Americans actually stand. Of course, I would still like to see it defeated, but I'm skeptical that will happen given the poll numbers -- after all, it is a representative government (modulo some unconstitutional elements enjoined by the courts) and even if the votes aren't directly related to poll numbers, there is strong coupling.
Read it. The great majority of the PATRIOT ACT is common sense - things our law enforcement has done for decades (without issue) when pursuing drug lords. Many of the overreaching pieces were taken out long ago. The sensationalism of the tinfoilers around here never ceases to amaze me.
NSA CS man: government twisted my algorithm
its from a few days ago.
if you explained to the average person that part of the reason they are patting down babies at the TSA is because of the patriot act, they will begin to understand it.
if parts of the PATRIOT act applied to gun owners, they would be outraged.
parts of the PATRIOT act apply to librarians, they have been outraged.
everyone, in general, in america, supports their own civil liberties, and when they understand that civil liberties in general are under attack, they can come together once in a blue moon.
because thats what the PATRIOT ACT modification of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act says.
It is saying, essentially, that if you break certain parts of the Computer Fraud act, you are a terrorist. Not only are you a terrorist, but you can be prosecuted under RICO law, like a mafia member.
oh, and then there are the hundreds of thousands of national security letters sent by the FBI to libraries and ISPs. is that 'common sense'? how many terrorists have they caught that way?
. . . who hates acronyms that were obviously created before picking the words that the letters stand for? I mean, really. At this point, why bother with an acronym? You might as well just give the damn thing a real name.
I prefer to be sedated on the couch, eating Doritos and smoking grass.
It's not going to take anything, load us up the next bowl of grass, puffing away in poor mans 3rd world paradise that was once the USA. Hey at least the Ganja is good, it comes from Canada!
American get their rights violated, we have no public healthcare (unless your in this country illegally that is), our economy is in shambles, government is a tiny group of people who run everything and only care about their posistions in office, decisions are made by large coporations who donate large sums of money to campaigners, our education system sucks, the government wastes money left and right, were in debt up to our eyeballs both as individuals and as a nation and a dozen other things because we as a people dont do anything. We let the government walk allover us and we dont care about anything but our own lives.
American people are to afraid of losing what they have and are afraid of their government so we dont do anything.
We let the fbi break in peoples home and physically assualt them and tarnish their names with words like pedophile when they are 100% innocent with no real proof. They tax people into debt, they let lenders and banks put people into further debt and we dont do anything.
If the millions and millions and millions of people in this country, hell if 1/5th of this country were to stand up to the couple hundred people who run this country shit would get straightened real quick. But it wont ever happen because people dont in this country want to work together and are afraid.
Why would you care if old 'Hope and Change' does anything about revoking the patriot act? it's not like the alphabet soup agencies are going to stop spying on people and wiretapping without warrants if they don't have a law to back their actions. There needs to be some legislation that gives teeth to laws that protect our constitutional rights from federal actors. Bush jr. has admitted to the illegal federal wiretapping program, and I have yet to see a single person go to jail. If some federal agents see jail time because they didn't get a warrant, perhaps that will give people pause in their zealous attempts erode the constitution.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
They'll repeal it the second we get Osama.
The Constitution actually empowered government to do all these things, rather than chain it down. So what's plan B? When can we admit that the Constitution failed? Can we go back to something a little more decentralized, like the Articles of Confederation perhaps?
We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since the law came into effect. I'm not saying correlation is causation...
We haven't had a Martian elected president since then either, but somehow I think the two are pretty well unrelated. However, even that counter-argument is giving you too much credit, because not only is your conclusion false, but your premise is false as well. Since the poorly-named PATRIOT Act went into effect, we have, in fact, had some well-known terrorist attempts (underwear bomber, the kid who wanted to blow up a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Portland, IIRC). The underwear bomber was thwarted because 1) his explosives didn't work and 2) the people on board the airplane beat the living crap out of him (which, I believe is a far, far better way to handle terrorist attacks than giving power to unchecked government bureaucracies). The Christmas Tree kid was just flat-out stupid.
...but I think claims that the law hasn't prevented at least one American death pretty dubious.
So what? I think that the FBI and local police forces are probably more than capable of detecting and catching would-be terrorists without subverting the Bill of Rights, and I think that I'd rather run the risk of the 1 in 20-30 million chance of dieing in a terrorist act than run the risk^Wcertainty that a government not bound by the law WILL eventually abuse its own populace. It's happened throughout history; it can happen here, too.
They don't need a new 'excuse' because it's not being used to monitor the porn you're downloading and I assure you the Government has bigger fish to fry.
I'll ignore the assumption that everyone on-line is downloading porn 24x7, since we all know what they say about assumptions. However, given that most people have things they would like kept private, even if it has nothing to do with sexual fetishes, and given that a Google search will turn easily turn up many, many news stories of LEO's using public records for personal gain (IIRC, there was a story here in Anchorage a few years back of LEO's using their access to criminal records databases to dig for dirt on political candidates), your "assurances" really aren't worth squat. The moment you become "interesting" for one of any number of reasons, you suddenly become that big fish that "government" wants to fry.
Sure they may be snooping your traffic but the law says they can so any claims you make about it being a violation of your constitutional rights are useless.
Even by /. standards, that's an incredibly inane position to take. You do realize that the "constitutional rights" you so easily dismiss ARE the law, don't you? Congress can pass whatever law it wants, and the President can sign the bill, but if it violates the Constitution, IT AIN'T LEGAL! Right now, we're basically just waiting for some of the laws to be challenged in court, and GWB did a pretty good job of making that a difficult proposition by dragging people who might have had a case to overthrow the PATRIOT Act off to Guantanamo and denying them their day in court. While I'm no fan of Obama either, he at least starting putting some of these alleged terrorists on trial.
If your post is any indication of how blase and naive the American public has become, it's no wonder our country is so effed-up.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
The irony here is that roughly 40% of the people modding you up (statistically) will go out and vote for a government with ever expanding powers.
Goodbye Constitution, What the fuck.
Sure they may be snooping your traffic but the law says they can so any claims you make about it being a violation of your constitutional rights are useless.
No, that would require a constitutional amendment. You cannot revoke constitutional rights with laws, thats the whole point of having them.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Come on, really. The only thing that changed after the 2008 election was the drapes in The White House. No legislative changes happened then, and none occurred after the 2010 election either. There has not been a single bill yet signed by President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama that President Bush would not have signed.
Not. A. Single. One.
Even the so-called "Obamacare" bit - although a better name would be The Health Insurance Company Bailout Act - that the people on the radio love to bitch about, was written by republicans. It drove more consumers to the big businesses that both sides of the aisle embrace with open arms.
PS to slashdot. I love all the conservative ads featured here. I'm glad to see you are so unbiased. I see yet another townhall.com ad featuring a picture of President Lawnchair, asking if I support repealing "Obamacare".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Actually if you interpret the constitution literally the Federal government doesn't have those powers. All it took was getting Supreme Court Justices who interpret the constitution to mean what they want it to regardless of what it says to circumvent the entire document.
"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." -- Jefferson
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Jefferson
Jefferson said neither of those two "quotes".
You need to rethink your sources of information.
Only if they vote for a Republican.....or a Democrat.
"We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate." -- Jefferson
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -- Jefferson
Neither of those quotes are Jefferson's.
I point it out not to make you wrong, but because he should not be misquoted to push an agenda.
Have you read the Federalist papers? The whole reason Hamilton advocated the Constitution is because he wanted a strong federal government. The document was not meant to limit federal power. It was a great expansion of power, clearly granting them the authority to tax income, control the issue of money, and regulate commerce.
Personally, I wish the anti-federalists had prevailed and the whole thing was scuttled.
I can't believe they called it the patriot act too. Fuck the US. We don't have rights, we have privileges that are taken away when it is convenient.
Kill yourself.
13 people killed at the Fort Hood shooting, Plane crash into a Texas IRS office, underwear bomber, time square car bomb, a variety of Pipe Bombs at mosques, bridges, park benches, recruiting centers, 1 killed at the Little Rock recruiting center attack, 2 dead at the Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting, suicide bomber in Dalton, Georgia, a few dead at the Wells Fargo Bombing in Oregon, and the List goes on.
And we should all raise a huge stink about it violating our rights. A highlight of the controversies. Using the Patroit Act to gather one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from customers, or indefinite detainment.
...unfortunately. It's good politics. Our country has shifted towards authoritarianism. Cops have increased powers to violate your rights and get away with it if they, say, accidentally kill you or your dog. Corporations also have the same power to violate or by force of lobbying, repeal regulations. We've all surrendered personal freedoms for the sake of security.
This slide isn't going to stop because Congress decides to stand up for individual rights. The change will start when people start demanding our rights back. Believe it or not, politicians do respond to pressure from the voters because they don't want to give up the limos and sycophantic admiration.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I know that Denny Green said "An assumption makes an ass out of you and me an umption." That said I think I can agree with your post 100%
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
that.
Read radical news here
And I wanted so much to come visiting again. Right now the exchange rates are such that I could afford an extensive trip around the places where I've been before, and to new places. (The US was a great place to visit, but I don't want to live there. )
"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."
The answer is simple - amend the law to fix the parts that need fixing. It's done all the time. Good grief.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Does this mean you are unpatriotic, citizen?
I love how you Americans choose these cheesy, forced acronyms to name bills and laws that make it sound as if you are being a traitor or evil if you don't agree with them. You deserve better than this, you really do.
Land of the free? I dont think so.
With this comment, it is the third time something about this: http://kongdonkey.wordpress.com/ is posted here (one submission-story, and two comments),on
slashdot. Now, granted, it is quite difficult to read, but it is so only because of possibles objections. What is shown there is that the Congress has
surprisingly limited powers as to the effectivity of its outputs. That is so because upon return of some Bill, Order, Resolution or Vote by the U.S.
President to the Originating House – on account of his disapproving it – there usually follows a repassing of that Bill, Order, Resolution or Vote by the
Congress. But this process, amounts to a Vote necessitating both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Should it be that both aggree with a majority
of two thirds of each of them to pass the Bill etc. they must present this `Vote of two thirds' to the U.S. Pres. (because of I.7.3). Note that a presented
Vote may just be the awareness of the Pres. of that Vote's consequences. So what happened so far, as concerning Bills, etc. that were returned and yet, at
last made Law or effective, seems to me to be legal only because the U.S. Pres. did not disapprove that `Vote of two thirds' discussed above. That is, did
not return it to the Originating House within ten Days after being aware of it (Sundays excepted).
involved a repel of the patriot act.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
No, the guy that have the most toys when he dies wins.
These are not fuzzy, harmless stuffed animals we are talking about. This is the organization holding the special right to employ physical force against you as their business model. We are talking about the most dangerous, most destructive force that could possibly exist.
the intelligence community has to keep America safe from the Rule of Law and Privacy."
In the first quote Jefferson is obviously referring to the fact that in original America only rich white landowners could vote. Jerfferson's slaves, lovers and just general employees could not participate. He wasn't saying people could participate and were just too disengaged, he was admitting that in America most people were not even allowed to participate even if they wanted to.
"Republican" is generally synonomous with "politically conservative", and thus NOT "expansive government powers". For instance, I will note the recent attempt to cut a chunk out of the budget by the Republicans, which was fought tooth and nail by Dems. WHAT they were trying to cut isnt that relevant, as it would have been fought tooth and nail no matter what it was. Or the semi-recent healthcare bill, which was fought tooth and nail by republicans.
Now, there are times Rs will vote for expanding government powers, particularly in what is percieved as "wartime", but they are still more "small government" than Democrats, by a long shot (though Im not sure I can see a republican actually voting to get rid of existing powers, just to vote against new powers).
When Americans are more interested in Dancing With The Stars than the way their government works, this is what you get. Network Television - Feeding American Morons since the first reality show.
Windows assumes you are an idiot...Linux demands proof.
Seeing (and hearing), IS believing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As_9DXMwJ1Q
vs. your statement here:
5. I don't take anyone who can say "Congress is plotting with the centralized agricultural fascists to make it illegal to grow food." seriously. I would love to see some evidence of this, because there is none. by hsjserver (1826682) on Thursday May 19, @08:14PM (#36186600)
Try HR 875, HR 2749,The "Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009" which the person in the video above speaks of.
Unless you've already written, called, and emailed your congressperson, stop bitching here.
I've told mine in no uncertain terms that if they support this extension, I will not only not vote for them in the next election but will do everything I can to convince others to do likewise.
Here's the letter I sent:
Senator ___,
It seems obvious that the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights is the basis for our great society and for inspiring other societies to be great.
In my opinion, The PATRIOT act has been the single worst piece of legislation in curtailing both the spirit and letter of those rights, and where it has been able to be challenged in court, the court agrees with me. Most provisions have not been able to be challenged in this way not due to their legality, but due to the secrecy that they are implemented under.
If liberty and justice are the founding principles of this country and the guiding principles of the Constitution and the 4th amendment, it is quite difficult to support a representative who would seek to extend this legislation.
For this reason, I believe the ending of the PATRIOT act is the most pressing issue we have, and if you act to extend the act without massive overhaul, not only will you not receive my vote come next election, I will do everything in my power to convince others to vote against you also.
Steve Pinkham
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Yay 4 more years of groping and probing by the TSA. Bin Laden wins even after death.
I'm not trolling just utterly disgusted by Washington.
Hope is the currency of fools
Only terrorists would want to block this legislation. If you don't like it then get out of America. We don't need your kind.
During the Bush administration spending and creation of more govt. agencies went out of sight. Bush wasn't a conservative, he was a radical. The problem is that they keep adding more and more bureaucracy and never seem to trim out the old. It just piles up higher and higher becoming ever more unresponsive, existing simply to survive and grow spending larger and larger sums of money.
I always thought Burr did us a favor. Still Hamilton's idea of strong central government is nothing compared to what is envisioned by our lords...uh...leaders in Washington today.