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."

41 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Four More Years by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of Tyranny.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Four More Years by Ironchew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At least we can count on both the Republicans and Democrats to stop their partisan bickering for a moment, and reach across the isle in solidarity to screw the American public over.

    2. Re:Four More Years by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently you haven't heard about the Hope and Change he's going to bring us.

    3. Re:Four More Years by ArsonSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do we really need to wait until it gets that bad? Can't we at least try to stop it before hand? They passed this once, they took over healthcare and now passing this again. perhaps we should see the signs of Tyranny and stop it in the beginning rather than wait for people to have to die.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Four More Years by Squiddie · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's altered the deal. Hope he does not alter it any further.

    5. Re:Four More Years by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 3, Funny

      He did bring Hope and Change. He brought the hope that things would change. That's close enough, right?

    6. Re:Four More Years by petsounds · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's nothing wrong with optimism. Our country was founded on it (along with slavery and the genocide of natives). But you are placing your optimism in a failed party system, instead of individuals. The Democrats and Republicans have both had their chances to turn a new leaf and do the people's will, but their entrenched interests are set in a self-winding clockwork of greed, power, and obligation. When they act in the banner of "national interests", it is the interests of their campaign funders, partisan base, lobbyists, and future employers in which they act, not the interests of people at large who they supposedly represent.

      Obama was a last chance for the Democrats. I think most of us not under the influence of corn syrup and reality shows wanted to believe that Obama was somehow an internal revolution in the Democratic party; someone to whom only the people he was accountable to. But then we saw the bank bailouts, the tacit approval of Bush/Cheney crimes, the defense of wiretapping and assassinations of US citizens, the abandonment of a promise to close Guantanamo, the frail response to the "Arab Spring" revolutions, and in those revolutions we saw ourselves. Except that we don't seem to yet have the unified anger against the systemic violations of liberties to rise up in any meaningful way. Not when people like yourself are still clinging to the ghost of Kennedy.

      The only way we can move forward as a country, and avoid a kind of Romanic crumbling of our nation, is organizing around a third party. A third party that represents and addresses the people, not corporations. This is only possible if we leave behind the ridiculous social bickerings of abortion and religious contentions and unite as a wide swath of Americans against the entities and individuals controlling America. But maybe I'm just a dreamer.

    7. Re:Four More Years by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, let's wait until they pen us up then see what we can do about it. Sounds like a plan. You go on and piss away your rights, I'd like to keep mine. No, we aren't under tyranny but if others had your attitude we would have been long ago.

    8. Re:Four More Years by Local+ID10T · · Score: 4, Funny

      no no no

      He changed the deal. Hope he does not change it any further.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    9. Re:Four More Years by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Come back to me when you're forced into a camp

      The thing about camps is that it's kinda tricky to come back to you from one.

  2. When? by Daetrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:When? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It going to get extended forever.... Like Syrian "state of emergency", which was in place for over 20 years.OR Egypt, when it was active since 1967 - 44 years!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#Egypt

      So yes, "Patriot Act", 10 years and counting!!

    2. Re:When? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Better, the National Security Act of 1947.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947 - that established the CIA and started giving legalized spying huge budgets.

    3. Re:When? by scotts13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It going to get extended forever.... Like Syrian "state of emergency", which was in place for over 20 years.

      Here in Pennsylvania, we still pay a special tax enacted to pay for repairs following the Johnstown flood in 1889. Once they get hold of power OR money, they never let go. Ever.

    4. Re:When? by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since the law came into effect.

      So if we do suffer another terrorist attack will they give up the Patriot Act as something that didn't work? Or will they demand more concessions? Are you suggesting that we can never regain lost rights, only lose more of them? (And i realize that that might be a political reality, but it seems like you may think that's the way it ought to be, which i disagree with.)

      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.

      Uh, are you confused about your nomenclature, or are you actually unaware that a law can not circumvent a constitutional right? If i claim it's a violation of my constitutional rights and a lawyer can convince the Supreme Court that i'm correct, it doesn't matter how many laws have been passed about it. (Well, barring another Andrew Jackson of course.)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    5. Re:When? by Bemopolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And now you know why those of us who opposed the PATRIOT act when it was initially proposed opposed it. And were called terrorist sympathizers by FOX News and the like on top of it.

      Nothing dies slower than a bad idea.

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    6. Re:When? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And why everyone should appose progressive ideals no matter what party they come from.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    7. Re:When? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It going to get extended forever.... Like Syrian "state of emergency", which was in place for over 20 years.OR Egypt, when it was active since 1967 - 44 years!

      scroll harder

      "During the Watergate scandal which erupted in the 1970s after President Richard Nixon authorized a variety of illegal acts, Congress investigated the extent of the President's powers and belatedly realized that the U.S. had been in a continuous state of emergency since 1950."

    8. Re:When? by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We haven't had a terrorist attack in this country since the law came into effect. I'm not saying correlation is causation, but I think claims that the law hasn't prevented at least one American death pretty dubious.

      One could rephrase that argument a bit and say, "we haven't had a single terrorist attack since Apple released the iPhone, since the Chinese river dolphin went extinct, since Twitter was started, or since barefoot running became the next fitness fad. I think claims that these things haven't prevented at least one American death are pretty dubious." Logically, how is crediting the absence of terrorist attacks to the Patriot Act any different? Where's the evidence that these programs are any more effective at preventing terrorism than, say, slaughtering freshwater dolphins?

      What would be evidence of the programs' effectiveness is pointing to a case where a credible threat- that is, a well-organized terrorist cell, with a practical plan and the expertise and materials to carry it out- was detected first by the domestic surveillance program. I'm sure the program's defenders would argue that it's all top-secret hush-hush stuff and that's why they can't point to any examples. But it seems to me that if the program actually worked, it would be a good idea to put the evidence out there, so that (a) the Americans would know that the program worked and would support it, and (b) the terrorists would know that the program worked, and would be deterred. Where's the evidence that all this domestic spying has actually prevented anything?

    9. Re:When? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Considering domestic spying has been mostly directed at leftist dissidents (Martin Luther King Jr, War Protesters, 'Communist sympathizers' etc...) I find it odd that you would be considered a progressive cause. Doubly questionable since most of the people *fighting* the Patriot Act in the first place were leftist progressives.

    10. Re:When? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because the Supreme Court says you didn't, and they, not you, determine that answer.

      Back in the day, the Supreme Court said that slavery is perfectly constitutional, since slaves don't count as "persons" (and thus don't have rights).

      Just because SCOTUS says black and white, war is peace, and freedom is slavery, doesn't make it so. They're just people, as corruptible as anyone else, and with their own personal agendas.

  3. The more things change the more they stay the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    "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."

    - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid=14107454

  4. Patriotism by rogueippacket · · Score: 3

    It's only unpatriotic if you don't stand up while your country slowly degrades.

  5. Obligatory stat by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Obligatory stat by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or swimming pools.

      In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents.

      http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

    2. Re:Obligatory stat by bug1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If all that years drowning victims died in just a couple of hours, would swimming pools be more dangerous ?

    3. Re:Obligatory stat by element-o.p. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just shows you why you shouldn't trust statistics. 3443 is in exactly the same ballpark as the number of people who died on 9/11 (which I believe was your point). How many other people died in the U.S. in 2001 of terrorism? You might include the Anthrax victims, but that was just a handful of people (I don't have the exact number, and I'm honestly too lazy to look it up), but that number is trivial compared to the 9/11 death toll, so for all intents and purposes, we can call the number of people that died in 2001 of terrorism in the U.S. to be roughly 4,000.

      So, if you want to consider a yearly sample, that's 3443 deaths in swimming pools to 4000 deaths due to terrorism...pretty much equal...makes me think that maybe we should pay roughly the same amount of attention to deaths in swimming pools as we do to terrorism.

      But you argue that the death toll on 9/11 happened in a few hours. Okay, that's true. So somewhere on the order of 1,000 deaths per hour, then? Yes, many died in the initial four plane crashes, but the WTC didn't fall for a while longer -- call it four hours from the first impact (again, I don't remember the exact number, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but this is close enough to make my point). In swimming pools, that's (3443 deaths / year) * (1 year / 365 days) * (1 day / 24 hours) = 0.39 deaths per hour. Whoa! That means that terrorism is roughly 2500 times more common than deaths in swimming pools!!! Obviously, we need to spend much more time combating terror than we do combating deaths in swimming pools!

      But wait...we can look at it another way, too. Since 9/11, we've had the Ft. Hood shootings and a several other attempts, but the numbers are essentially unchanged since 9/11; there have been no other terrorist attacks in the United States that caused even one order of magnitude less deaths than 9/11. By that metric, then, it's roughly 4000 deaths due to terrorism in the U.S. in TEN YEARS, meanwhile, roughly 3000 people per year are dieing in swimming pools. That means you are approximately nine times more likely to die in a swimming pool than in a terrorist act in the U.S., and by that standard, GPP is correct: when compared to any other mundane risk we accept without thinking about it, the time, effort, money and liberty that we are throwing away fighting terrorism is absolutely absurd .

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  6. I really must learn to write the Congress Critter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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

  7. Vote Democratic Party! by superdave80 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

  8. Veto by Animal+Farm+Pig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Any chance Obama is going to veto this? He's Mr. Change-You-Can-Believe-In, right? Waiting on the change...

  9. Re:Meet the New Boss by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He's not exactly the new boss. It's been years.

    Anyway, how many voters outside the slashdot crowd are even aware the patriot act is still with us let alone oppose it? That doesn't excuse Obama or any of the Democrats, but it's never going to go away until more people start caring about it. Rather than bring up that saying year in year out, why not, oh, I don't know, do something to raise awareness about it?

    I mean, I guess that doesn't get you slashdot karma...

  10. Patriot Act Renewal by hackus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Patriot Act Renewal by hsjserver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Pakistan is not, nor never will be up to bat. They have nukes, and that's a good deterant. The military there knows they need us as we need them. Our combat in Afghanistan and Iraq will end, though we'll probably have an influence there for quite some time (as we should, we broke it, we should fix it) 2. The increased use in food stamps is due to continued economic stagnation of the middle and lower class. The recession will end, the numbers will go down. Food stamps are useful for creating economic growth. For every $1 of food stamps creates ~$1.40 in economic growth while the economy is slouched. 3. What? No. China is manipulating their currency to keep exporters in their country happy, which is why they have out of control inflation. We need our dollar to lose some value in order to increase exports here, and restore jobs (the lack of which is the main reason for economic troubles here, not debt). 4. Our cities are crumbling, that's why we need a renewed investment in infrastructure. It creates jobs and has a stimulating effect on local economies. It will cost us, but it will cost us more if we don't. 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. As for blowing up levies? Which is harder to replace and costs more money? Farmland, or cities? It was a tough choice, but the answer is clearly cities. Commodity prices always go up, that's the cost of countries like China and India entering the first world, and freak weather damaging crop output in the Ukraine. Also, rationed health care? What? I didn't realize it was a scarce good, and for many Americans rationing would be an improvement, as they have zero health care now. You're a fucking clown pal.

  11. patriotic acts by epine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:patriotic acts by shadowofwind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The choice of principal component is often rather arbitrary when you have a cluster of aligned traits.

      That makes sense. Though it seems that for the traits to be aligned, they must be different facets of the same trait.

      Conservatism is more sensitive to threats from without. Liberals are more concerned from threats from within.

      Granted that the sensitivity to 'threats' is directed differently in Liberals and Conservatives, the within/without division doesn't seem to me to stand up very well. For example, conservatives are obsessed with the cultural rot that they call liberalism. That's a threat from within. They're also at least as afraid of expanded government power as liberals are, but they're concerned about it in different areas.

        It seems to me that the whole liberal vs conservatism ideological split is not much more than a costume for a power struggle. Conservatives don't worry about government power when they see it acting in their own interests relative to those of other groups. Likewise for Liberals. Yes there are cultural an psychological differences, but these don't seem adequate to explain the actions or rhetoric of liberals and conservatives. Bush was hated by liberals, but most are merely disappointed in Obama for advancing the same policies. Likewise people like Bill Clinton, Obama, and Janet Reno have been hated by conservatives for things that they have only mildly criticized in people like Gringrich, Bush, and Rumsfeld.

  12. "Highly Controversial" is a bit myopic by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  13. right and left are upset about the police state by decora · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. So wikileaks are terrorists and mafia? NSLs? etc? by decora · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  15. Relax everyone! by feepness · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They'll repeal it the second we get Osama.

  16. Are you fsking insane? by element-o.p. · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Your post is so full of holes and dubious logic, I don't even know where to start, but here goes anyway.

    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?
  17. Re:Obama and the senate are irrelevant... by cavreader · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do you know that right before the US got into WW2 FDR unilaterally instituted wire tapping across the country. At the time both political parties had just passed a law to specifically prevent wire tapping and they also passed the neutrality act at the same time. FDR was able to barely skirt around the neutrality act with the lend lease program even though it was obvious to everyone exactly what he was doing. For the wire tapping he did not even try to cover it up. He wrote a letter to the Justice Department basically directing them to use wire tapping, Congress be damned. He performed these acts because he personally believed the US was going to have to fight in the war and as President it was his responsibility to make sure the country was prepared. The political parties and ideology of that era were dead set against getting involved in the war. The anti-war protesters back then makes today's anti-war protesters look like full blown war mongers. FDR made these decisions even though he knew it was a impeachable offense. The animosity he attracted against him make today's Bush 2 detractors and critics look like hearty supporters. Chances are if the US had not gotten in the war he would have been impeached and certainly would not have been be elected to 4 terms. The bottom line is that the outcome of the war validated his actions and turned him from being called a dangerous law breaking no good President who was violating the constitution into being called one the best Presidents of all time. The amazing thing, at least to me, was that Carter, Bush1, and Clinton were asked if they would have would have made the same decisions and accepted the same risks that FDR made and all of them said they would. Even Carter!! I guess the point is that the constitution should be adhered to but it is not a suicide pact and some situations call for bold actions and today's complaints about us losing our rights is not anything new.