Patriot Act Author Introduces Bill To Limit Use of Patriot Act

wjcofkc writes "In an ironic but welcome twist, the author of the Patriot Act, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is introducing the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill specifically aimed at countering the portions of the Patriot Act that were interpreted to let the NSA collect telephone metadata in bulk. The congressman has been a vocal opponent of the NSA's interpretation and misuse of the Patriot Act since Edward Snowden first leaked evidence of the program in June. On Wednesday, he wrote (PDF) to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that the 'collection of a wide array of data on innocent Americans has led to serious questions about how government will use — or misuse — such information.'"

Comments

shoulda got it right the first time

[themushroom]

Here's betting that it will take much longer to get the anti-PATRIOT passed than the eyeblink it took to get the PATRIOT passed. I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[characterZer0]

I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Voting out all the incumbents.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Vanderhoth]

Agreed, You know the only reason this is being introduced now is because the republican approval rating is circling the drain. Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power. The patriot act should have never been a law in the first place and should have been revoked long ago, one of Obama's biggest public disappointments was that it should have been the first thing he had done when he took over presidency when he actually had a majority in the house.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't want that. The government acted to quickly with PATRIOT, but that's how the Government always acts. No one knew the full ramifications.

And even then, this is the NSA interpreting the law to act in a specific way. It's doubtful people could have forseen that, and now they're trying to correct it. This is how legislation is done.

Legislation, like sausage, is one of those things you don't really want to know how it's made.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

The government acted to quickly with PATRIOT

When in reality, they shouldn't have acted much at all.

but that's how the Government always acts.

No, it isn't. Almost without exception, they always act that quickly only when they stand to gain more power, and in those cases, we usually always lose some of our individual liberties.

It's doubtful people could have forseen that, and now they're trying to correct it.

"doubtful"? Are you kidding me? The PATRIOT ACT included so many provisions that violated people's freedoms and gave the government so much power that there is no way people did not foresee this. Your problem is that you are naive enough to give the government the benefit of the doubt; they deserve no such thing.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[phantomfive]

Your problem is that you are naive enough to give the government the benefit of the doubt; they deserve no such thing.

I would argue this is entirely why we went to war with Iraq. If enough people hadn't said, "I'm not sure, but he's our president so I'll trust him......" then we wouldn't have gone.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[rahvin112]

Well wonder no more. It would be someone at the NSA using the illegally collected data to embarrass a congresscritter from each party. The most effective release would be adultery particularly if it involves some form of "deviant" sexuality. Think along the lines of propositioning a transsexual for sex. Other big winners are use of illegal drugs or sex with a minor.

In fact I pray the next "snowden" does just that.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

We have seen our gov lying to us about EVERYTHING ever since Vietnam, at least.

There is no clearer way of telling a former partner in a positive sum game that you are opting out of that game, are going zero- or negative-sum, than starting to lie to them.

Our gov is not on our side any longer, just the opposite.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent +1 Delusional for ever thinking Obama didn't love the Patriot Act. The man jerks off to it.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwhwahahaha. You really think the population can stop a war started by the president?

People all over the world said this was a lie and a war on false pretenses.
We also told you so many times that Patriot Act was an attack on freedom and liberty.

Basically, we told you so. Heck, on /. even many American told you so. Over and over again, for years.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[atomicxblue]

Well, 11/9 has already passed, so we're screwed

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power.

What do you think Obamacare is? Intrusive? Massive power grab? Enforced by the IRS? Plenty of other bad things?

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

No but it helps when they go after the right targets. They decided YOU the citizen was the target and not the terrorists.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Well, now I'm curious. What would your policy prescription be after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks?

Investigations are fine. Mandating that cockpit doors be secured and shut at all times are fine. Infringing upon people's individual liberties to try to stop terrorists is not fine. Going to war to find imbeciles hiding out in the desert is also not fine.

Are you one of the "Americans should die bravely in shopping malls for our freedom because doing anything is tyranny" camp?

I'm one of those "Security isn't worth it if it causes us to lose some of our individual liberties."

By the way, I hope you don't claim to want a small government.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a symbolic gesture, there is no way the government will allow any decrease in their power, no matter how many new laws are passed to the contrary. Who's going to watch the watchmen? They already routinely lie to congress and any groups that keep tabs on them are filled with hand-picked insiders.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[radarskiy]

Why do you hate the Heritage Foundation?

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Jane Q. Public]

"Agreed, You know the only reason this is being introduced now is because the republican approval rating is circling the drain."

The Republican approval rating? You gotta be kidding!

According to a poll by Wasingtong Times the other day, all of Congress gets just a 5% approval rating (the lowest I have ever seen), while Obama's approval rating was also at a record low (37%).

Don't get me wrong; no doubt Republican approval rating IS down. But so is that of the Democrats... and which one is fighting hardest to go down the drain first is pretty much up in the air.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

Heritage repudiated that plan long ago after rethinking it. They determined it was a bad idea. You should give them credit for being able to do so.

ObamaCare's Heritage

In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:

If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.

Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwhwahahaha. You really think the population can stop a war started by the president?

Bawahaha to you, you ignorant little bitch.

The American population HAS brought an end to a war before.

The war was in Viet Nam. A combination of popular disapproval and revelations
such as were provided by "the Pentagon Papers" did the trick.

You have two ears, two eyes, and only one mouth. Best shut it and start
reading some history. The works of Will and Ariel Durant would be a good place
to begin.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, now I'm curious. What would your policy prescription be after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks?

The smart move would have been to fundamentalyl change US foreign policy and
quit fucking around in countries where the US has no business meddling. Of course this
would go against well over a century of "tradition" as anyone with a rudimentary
knowledge of history well knows.

Are you really so goddamned stupid you believe all the hostility directed toward
the US has happened without a reason ? I doubt it. You know what's going on
and you are trying to spew your lies and propaganda here where you have become
a virtual laughingstock for anyone with the ability to engage in critical thinking.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[riverat1]

I'm one of those "Security isn't worth it if it causes us to lose some of our individual liberties."

That was what was ironic to me. George W Bush said "They hate our freedom." so what do we do? We turned right around and reduced our freedom with things like the PATRIOT Act. Maybe they don't hate us quite as much now.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

No, voting out the Republicans.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[slick7]

Here's betting that it will take much longer to get the anti-PATRIOT passed than the eyeblink it took to get the PATRIOT passed. I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Put all politicians, lobbyists, banksters, major corporate players in prison (like they did in Iceland) , cancel all debts and start over. Ventura and Stern '16.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Do nothing?

Do nothing in a hurry, yes. Any policy affecting millions of people must be done thoughtfully and in the absence of thought doing nothing is preferable. At the very least the Patriot act should've been a bunch of different acts all with very short term sunset clauses.

Too many people think the three letter agencies can do no wrong when in reality they are riddled with corruption and incompetence due to the lack of real accountability. One of the worst things about the Patriot act was that it rewarded the very people who should've been brought to account.

Are you one of the "Americans should die bravely in shopping malls for our freedom because doing anything is tyranny" camp?

You fail to realize that bad behavior comes in many forms and any bad behavior that can affect millions is much more dangerous than behavior that affects only a tiny minority.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[flyneye]

Still yet, if he were in earshot, " Thanks for nothing , fuckbrains, hindsight somewhere around 20/40, eh?"

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Falconhell]

Allowing yourselves to be terrorised meant the terrorists won. Look to he example of the UK who did not panic after IRA terrorism, mostly paid for by Americans. You're all bullshit talk of freedom.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

The terrorist haven't won since they haven't achieved their goal: mass conversion to Islam and abandoning the Constitutional form of government for Sharia law. Bin Laden made that clear in his Letter to America.

The US didn't panic, but it became more serious about dealing with al Qaida after 9/11. There were nearly 3X the number killed in one day by al Qaida in the US as the 28 year campaign of the PIRA from 69-97. That escalation by the US was warranted.

As to IRA funding.

Irish Republican Army (IRA) - External Aid

In the past, has received aid from a variety of groups and countries and considerable training and arms from Libya and the PLO. Is suspected of receiving funds, arms, and other terrorist-related materiel from sympathizers in the United States. Similarities in operations suggest links to ETA and the FARC. In August 2002, three suspected IRA members were arrested in Colombia on charges of assisting the FARC to improve its explosives capabilities.

Obamacare will have a bigger effect on freedom than the Patriot Act.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

Anyone engaged in critical thinking will be engaged in a futile pursuit if they don't have the correct set of facts to consider. Al Qaida is aggressive, expansionist, and imperialist in nature. They want to reestablish the Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1924 with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, expand the areas under Muslim rule, reclaim lost lands, like Spain, and ultimately rule a world of countries under their form of Islamic Sharia law. US foreign policy has little to do with that. If you don't understand that, you need to continue further research since you fundamentally fail to understand their goals and motivation. They are taking the long term view.

These are not obscure facts if you bother to look.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

They hate us just as much. The US is still a nation that is primarily Christians living under the Constitution with very little imposition from the measures taken. Bin Laden's first demand was that the US convert to Islam, and also wanted the Constitutional form of government done away with to implement Sharia law of the flavor they favor. I'm 99.999% certain that hasn't happened yet.

Re: shoulda got it right the first time

[colinnwn]

Bin Laden was a lot smarter than you give him credit for. That is what he said to encite hatred in American people's hearts and allow our politicians to manipulate us. He really wanted America to get our nose out of middle eastern politics. He planned to do this by bleeding us slowly of wealth and influence by causing enough low level mayhem that we remained fearful to overspend on wars and security and reactionary to where we violated our own claimed values. It says a masterfully successful operation.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[syntheticmemory]

Send the lobbyists out on cruise ships and hope they eat something.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Fjandr]

Bin Laden's demand was that the US remove all troops from certain Middle Eastern countries, not that the US convert to Islam.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

Re: shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

Bin Laden didn't make that demand until well after the US was engaged in combat in Afghanistan, so no, it wasn't an attempt to manipulate the US. It is in fact consistent with al Qaida's overall goal of a world ruled by Muslims under Sharia law. You fundamentally misunderstand al Qaida's goals.

You are also mistaken about them only being interested in "low level mayhem," as al Qaida has experimented with biological agents, such as black plague (wiping out on of their own camps in the process), and chemical weapons. They also sought religious permission to use nuclear weapons, which they apparent have, so that they would be prepared in the event that they can make or obtain one. (I believe there were rumors about lost Soviet Army weapons going around during this time.... so who knows.) Apparently it is permissible for them to kill up to 4,000,000 people.

Bin Laden badly miscalculated, much of al Qaida was destroyed even if it keeps trying to rebuild. Perhaps their greatest mistake was going to Iraq to fight the US there. That cost them dearly in personnel, resources, finances, and support in the Arab world. Masterful? No, not even close. Just another fool that thought the West in general, and the US in particular, was soft, decadent, and would roll over. Many other fascists have made similar mistakes.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[10101001 10101001]

What do you think Social Security is? Intrusive? Massive power grab? Enforced by the SSA? Plenty of other bad things?

Seriously, the biggest complaint Republicans seem to have is they (1) offered Obamacare as an alterative to Universal Health Care, (2) figured Democrats would never support, and (3) are finally upset that Obamacare passed because (a) they can't claim they made it, (b) can't get behind it working because it goes against their "government can't do anything right" mantra, and (c) never really wanted people to have any sort of decent health care coverage because to actually deliver on anything good would basically cut off their ability to whine about it.

I mean, fuck, the whole Government Shutdown is *precisely* what the Republican mantra is--to cut off non-essential spending. So, why exactly are Republicans bothering with any sort of effort to fix the problem? Because as long as they act upset, they can whine and cry about the big, mean Democrats. Oh, and let's not forget, the very mantra they support if followed through would put said Republicans out of a job, especially if they realized how unnecessary they are. Non-essential, indeed.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Pseudonym Authority]

Obamacare will have a bigger effect on freedom than the Patriot Act.

No. The two aren't even in the same league. I'm not even going to bother refuting you. If you won't stop ruining America, then just kill yourself, you worthless fascist. Being forced to buy insurance (though not good) is no where near being spied on or being sent to prison for saying something the government thinks is scary. The oppressive techniques of the socialism you so thoroughly fear was not done by drowning people in paperwork, it was implemented with soldiers on the ground, shooting ``subversives'' in the back of the head for counterrevolutionary ideas. Does it take a brain disorder to believe the shit you spew? Do you just take whatever pathetic idea that pops into your head, shit it out into the textbox, and believe it? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Jane Q. Public]

I cannot honestly accept that mystery modder's "troll" rating as anything other than somebody being a vindictive asshole.

I mean SERIOUSLY? "Troll" for saying BOTH the Republicans and Democrats are sucking eggs right now? When polls show it to be true?

I have deserved a "troll" mod once in a great while, but this ain't one of those times.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, the biggest complaint Republicans seem to have is they (1) offered Obamacare as an alterative to Universal Health Care, (2) figured Democrats would never support, and (3) are finally upset that Obamacare passed because (a) they can't claim they made it, (b) can't get behind it working because it goes against their "government can't do anything right" mantra, and (c) never really wanted people to have any sort of decent health care coverage because to actually deliver on anything good would basically cut off their ability to whine about it.

Reality check: "Obamacare" is closely modelled after "Romneycare" in Massachusetts. That's probably not an accident since it should have made bipartisan support easy to achieve.

But the Teapublicans are so gung-ho on sabotaging the current government that they disowned their own brainchild rather than let it get adopted by Democrats. Iwish they'd block the Democrats as ardently on the surveillance issues, and protested against the laissez-faire attitude against perjury before congress, congressional committees, the public, even before secret banana courts.

Why don't they leverage their remaining power where it would be warranted for upholding or reconstituting the constitution? That should actually be a move the public would approve of.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone involved with the writing of, or passing of, this legislation, should not even be in office anymore.. and not because they all should've been voted-out (they should have, though), but because it's been that long since its passing by congress.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[lister king of smeg]

No, voting out the Republicans.

Funny the democrats had no problem approving of it when it was up for renewal. It made it through the democrat dominated senate and was signed by a democratic president a few years ago. both parties are just as happy to screw over the people if you don't see that your either ignorant or stupid.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Voting out all the incumbents.

That would work in a democracy. But after U.S. elections, the "popular vote" is published separately. For example, the "popular vote" for the House of Representatives would have been for the Democrats, but the Republicans lead by a solid margin.

I don't think any other "democracy" gets away with publishing separate accounts of "what the people asked for" and "what the people will get". "Public vote" is a U.S. specialty.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[ron_ivi]

The author of this bill loves it too.

>>> countering the portions of the Patriot Act that were interpreted to let the NSA collect telephone metadata in bulk

Way to distract people by focusing on some archaic legacy communication tool.

Now if his new bill would ban them from mining Google and Tor, you'd be getting somewhere.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[sjames]

That makes Congress less popular than cockroaches, the U.S. going communist, BP during the oil spill, Paris Hilton, Nixon, and on and on.

They can't possibly really think they are doing a good job representing the people.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[sociocapitalist]

I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Voting out all the incumbents.

We could call it 10/12...

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Megane]

That's probably not an accident since it should have made bipartisan support easy to achieve.

Obamacare didn't need or get "bipartisan" support. The Democrats had an absolute majority in both houses and it passed without a single Republican vote. It's as partisan as is possible to be.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?

Voting out all the incumbents.

Get caught by the American public in a major privacy fuck-up.

Draft up some public war cry "anti" bill, glorify it by selecting just the right Congressperson to deliver the new "anti" message coming from Congress, which will likely get a unanimous vote for effect...

...all to appease the American People...

...which will cause a ripple effect with other countries who will pass similar "anti" bills/laws in some sort of mass global intelligence pinky swear...

... in order for every damn intelligence agency in the world to secretly continue to do exactly what the fuck they're doing today.

Remember this was a classified program (and in every government, so you can stop pointing fingers). The UAV sorties and PRISM v2.0 will only attempt to be much better at staying that way.

It's time to step away from the shears sheeple and stop believing the lies. Isn't this rather obvious what will play out, regardless of law? It clearly has to this point. Laws are ignored and abused. The Bill of Rights has become a List of Wrongs.

Tell me o' valiant Congresscritter who brings forth our privacy angel, how the hell do laws effect the lawless? Until We the People stop ignorantly tapdancing around that fucking elephant in the room, laws are about as worthless as the Constitution backing it.

Wake me up when they've forced NSA to recycle their shiny new data centers into massive education computing centers, free to the public and paid for by the buried budgets that have fed intel gathering programs like PRISM. Then we might start to smell a hint of truth from the stink of corruption.

You have to fix the rotten wood here holding up the House. Replacing all the incumbants is like slapping on a new coat of paint.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Send the lobbyists out on cruise ships and hope they eat something.

Send the lobbyists^W congress out on cruise ships and hope they eat something.

Double points for having furloughed the US food inspectors first.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[RabidReindeer]

The American population HAS brought an end to a war before.

The war was in Viet Nam. A combination of popular disapproval and revelations such as were provided by "the Pentagon Papers" did the trick.

And at that, it took years. What they didn't do was prevent it in the first place.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[RabidReindeer]

We have seen our gov lying to us about EVERYTHING ever since Vietnam, at least.

There is no clearer way of telling a former partner in a positive sum game that you are opting out of that game, are going zero- or negative-sum, than starting to lie to them.

Our gov is not on our side any longer, just the opposite.

"Remember the Maine!"

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on your level of 9/11 truthiness, if you include the time and complexity of executing the the attacks into the mix of passing the patriot act, then it may not have been exactly an eyeblink. Assuming the "controlled demolition" crowd believe what they say, then that could mean that the 1993 bombing was part of the whole plot. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm - search link for 1993. Dun dun dun. If nothing else, it's a lot of interesting coincidence.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Jawnn]

Mod parent +1 Delusional for ever thinking Obama didn't love the Patriot Act. The man jerks off to it.

How inconvenient for you must be that fact that in 2005 then-Senator Obama was one of the few who voted against extending the wiretap provisions of The Patriot Act. This, shortly after the abuses of those provisions had first come to light.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[j35ter]

Uh dude, I fully agree with you, but this guy is just the average 'Murrican. Met em a lot last year in the midwest, ready do wipe out the ayatollahs in Iran (Nevermind they can not even find Iran on a map); the same type of people who keep GW Bush pics on the wall because Hussein Obama is not their president. Oh, and they think that Obamacare is socialism and fascism combined etc. etc.

That made me turn my back on the US after a year and return to Europe, here at least I can choose the country and the political system I want to live in. It makes me feel sorry for some very fine American people I met there, and had to leave behind!

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[riverat1]

I left off the tags on my last sentence.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[riverat1]

That should be the "sarcasm" tags.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[cold fjord]

It doesn't really matter. The Patriot Act had little effect on the freedom of individual Americans, and they still hate us and our freedoms either way.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[anagama]

This is a third party doctrine issue. The 3PD conflates "perfect secrecy" with "reasonable expectation of privacy". The 3PD is the rule that if you share info w/ a third party, even if that party promises you confidentiality, and even if they never actually breach your confidence, then the Feds can just have the data because the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at all (you have no reasonable expectation of privacy). Even Justice Sotomayer is starting to think that the 3PD is outdated. See her concurrence, specifically, the paragraph starting at PDF page 19: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf

If the 3PD disappeared, all of this stuff would have to go through a 4th amendment analysis and a third grader could demonstrate it fails to comply. The only reason Section 215 of PATRIOT Act has the effect it has, and all of these programs are "legal" -- is the 3PD. Take that away, and it's all unconstitutional. Fail to address the 3PD, and any proposed reform is fig leaf.

As for Irony, the Feds are hell bent on getting Snowden, but if the rules that apply to people applied to it, it would have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents he released because the Feds shared that info with a third party, namely, Booz Allen Hamilton.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[fyngyrz]

What would your policy prescription be after 9/11 and the anthrax attacks?

1) Armor the cockpit bulkheads. 2) create separate door for pilot entry. 3) no connection to passenger space. 4) only communication from passenger space is a large red button marked "pressing this button requests pilots to land at nearest medical facility."

That's it. No need to screw US civil rights or plane travel or write a PATRIOT act or anything. The PROBLEM was terrorists -- organized criminals -- using aircraft as directed kinetic energy weapons. That problem could have been 100% solved by the above.

As it was, we spent a huge amount of money and lost a huge number of US soldiers, and hosed travel and stomped on our own civil rights. Monumentally stupid. We should have spent that money making our infrastructure better, highways safer, healthcare better, etc. Instead, we used it to support the military industrial complex at ZERO benefit to ourselves (excepting the fat cats who own said MIC.)

WRT anthrax attacks -- normal legal procedures were sufficient for them too, although perhaps some automatic gear to detect bio and chem agents in the post and package services would have been appropriate. We'll always have wackos. It's not worthwhile to turn our country into a caricature of the soviets at their worst because someone, somewhere, has lost their marbles. Freedom comes with risk. You eliminate the risk, you've eliminated freedom. That shouldn't be acceptable to anyone but the purest cowards.

Re: shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Citing the Washington Times, the equivalent of Fox News in print, is hardly persuasive evidence especially since NO other objective polling firm has produced similar results. So, polling methodology matters, or maybe you should go take a few lessons from Nate Silver. The Republican ship is taking on water. It was already leaking. Now it is sinking over its own inability to be anything remotely like reasonable.

Lest you or others forget, the Senate passed a budget and requested a conference committee 18 times only to NEVER get a response from the one without a backbone, Boehner! So that said, it is beyond suspect to start saying you have to have one after you step foot in your own pile of crap that you have accumulated being obstructionists and frankly economic terrorists for over four years.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[steelfood]

That's just rhetoric, to get the masses to follow. In reality, Bin Laden wanted the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. He was combining Muslim malcontent with the U.S., and especially religious zeal, to his own ends. And while merely being malcontent would make people wish to act, zeal causes people to act without thinking. The zealous will kill themselves for their cause if they believe their actions will gain them entry into paradise for their afterlife.

Re: shoulda got it right the first time

[bdenton42]

the whole Government Shutdown is *precisely* what the Republican mantra is--to cut off non-essential spending.

Which is why I don't understand why one of the first bills they passed (unanimously even) was to guarantee backpay for all of the Federal workers which negates any possible savings.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[PrimaryConsult]

Eh, the lack of connection to passenger space is a bad idea:
1. Pilots need to use the restroom. I have seen a flight attendant take the pilot's place briefly in order to facilitate this (it would suck if the copoilot has a heart attack while the pilot is in the can and no one can open the door). A bathroom up front would be needed.
2. On longer flights pilots need to eat. Having redundant cooking facilities for two guys up front would waste valuable weight. If you require pilots to eat lousy food you are going to have lousy pilots on longer flights.
3. On even longer flights, pilots need to sleep. At this point we have a crew of 4 with two beds all in the "cockpit" section.
4. Captain Sully facilitated the evacuation of his plane in the Hudson when every second mattered. Having only flight attendants (sometimes there's only one) evacuate a plane while the crew gets a quick escape goes against the idea of "the captain goes down with the craft unless the last man is out."

The lack of communication is also a bad idea: a flight attendant may need to tell the pilot to shut off a breaker to prevent a fire - if all they can do is tell the pilot to "land now" a simple wiring problem could result in a fireball because it takes longer to land. And if the breakers can be controlled from the passenger space, well, why are we locking the cockpit up?

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Pseudonym Authority]

Good, stay in Europe. You're an idiot too.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

congressman has been a vocal opponent of the NSA's interpretation and misuse of the Patriot Act

I agree it is simply a PR attempt, but seeing how pathetic voters are they will continue voting for the idiot. I really, and many also thought, Obama would add restrictions, rewrite a new bill, or even get rid of the Patriot act. Obama is trying to do things in a productive matter, but Prepubicans are insistent on sabotaging the country and if it isn't them its the Demonrats.

In all fairness because of his skin color and his Muslim background if he doesn't do anything that supports this "war on terrorism", he is a terrorist sympathizer and helping them to destroy America (the irony behind the right wing saying that, while there side continues to destroy the country, really both sides at work destroying the country) Now he is being blamed for allowing NSA spying on citizens, and for not downing the Patriot Act.

Catch22 cycle...

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what the fuck happened to him? He didn't veto it when he had the chance, even just to take a stand. Furthermore, he has defended the NSA on numerous occasions. If you believe him (or just about any other politician in general) to be one of the 'good guys,' then you are sorely mistaken.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[pnutjam]

Really wish I had a mod point for you....

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[pnutjam]

Which doesn't mean they didn't try to get bipartisan support.There are plenty of obvious attempts in the current law, but you would ignore the beam in your eye while you try to pick the splinter out of your companions.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[fyngyrz]

Resolving all of this is trivial compared to the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted on the congressional and judicial stupidity that is the patriot act, the wars, and all the side effects. You're not looking at the big picture.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[nobodie]

I have to say, regrettably, that while I have, in the past, not supported the idea of "voting the bastards out" it has now come to the point where that is the only solution to the problem. My only fear is that because of the gerrymandering of the districts in th elast 50 years we might end up with the same morons whether we want them or not, which will lead to the false impression that we actually wanted them back again.

But we must begin now, to prepare new people for the 2014 campaigns. Step forward and take control of your party, whichever one it is, at the ground/grass level. Today!

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Uberbah]

I cannot honestly accept that mystery modder's "troll" rating as anything other than somebody being a vindictive asshole.

Yawn.

I mean SERIOUSLY? "Troll" for saying BOTH the Republicans and Democrats are sucking eggs right now? When polls show it to be true?

Maybe it's for claiming that a 5% rating is in the same boat as one seven times higher, or for citing the right wing Republican rag, the Moonie Times. Which is about as credible as citing the right wing Democratic rag, DailyKos.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Dabido]

The opposite of 9/11 is to kill Osama Bin Laden ... but, you know. Doubt that will happen again!

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[BranMan]

Yep - I advocate a CLEAN SWEEP - vote out every single incumbent of both parties. Every one. If someone is running unopposed - simply do NOT vote for them. Do not check that box on your ballot - let them get reelected with 300 votes out of 300,000 voters. It would at least send them a message - and send a message that anyone, anyone at all, can get in as long as they are not the same congressmen we currently have.

Re:shoulda got it right the first time

[Uberbah]

Heritage repudiated that plan long ago after rethinking it.

You mean, after it got embarrassing for Republicans to be frothing at rage at Obama for passing their own plan from their own think tank, so they had to backpedal.

You should give them credit for being able to do so.

If he's a partisan hack with zero temporal awareness, maybe. Heritage was just fine with their plan, years after it had been signed and implemented in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney. But in 2011, after Obomneycare was signed into law but years before it was implemented, they post a mea culpa?

Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Government isn't bad. Bad government is bad.

Re:Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but tools given to one are (ab-)usable by the other.

Re:Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

So you put measures in place to prevent the bad. Not so very complicated. Except that we've been told that our forefathers knew everything and we shouldn't presume to know any better. Stop first past the post voting, for example. There are many other ways to vote, all mathematically demonstrably better, but we still use the worst possible voting mechanism around. Eliminate the Hastert rule. Eliminate bicameralism. Support a multi-party form of government. There are a million things we could do, collectively, to make things better.

Or we could adopt your defeatist attitude - one that has come to define our generation, and makes me ashamed to be part of it - government is bad. Just get rid of it. They're all the same. There's nothing we can do collectively that is any good. What a sad an pitiful way to view the world.

Re:Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Government isn't bad. Bad government is bad.

Wrong. Government at best is but a necessary EVIL.

Re:Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

So you put measures in place to prevent the bad. Not so very complicated.

It is complicated. You cannot always trust the government to provide oversight, and in cases like with the NSA, it is simply a pipe dream. If they have the power to spy on everyone, they will do exactly that, and history has a long line of governments doing similar things.

There are simply certain things that the government shouldn't be involved in. Molesting people at airports, spying on nearly all communications, sending people off to free speech zones, etc. Putting measuring in place to 'prevent' the bad will often not work.

Re:Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Anti social turds like you are evil. Government makes sure that turds like you get squished back into the earth where you came from.

Re:Sanity

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason government does these bad things is because government is badly managed, and badly constructed, not because government itself is inherently complicit. Government can be improved. If you drive a broken down car, do you conclude that 'cars are bad'?! Or do you buy a better car?

Re:Sanity

[jopsen]

Yes, but tools given to one are (ab-)usable by the other.

Tell that to the NRA :)

Re:Sanity

[Fjandr]

And how do they do that squishing? By being evil.

Re:Sanity

[Maudib]

Government is bad government.

Re:Sanity

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

The reason government does these bad things is because government is badly managed, and badly constructed

It does these things because it is run by humans. There wasn't a single government in history that didn't suffer from rampant corruption, and that's why we must not give the government certain powers at all.

not because government itself is inherently complicit.

But it is. There is no way you can harass citizens at airports, harass citizens at borders, harass citizens randomly, ship citizens off to free speech zones for sending messages that you disapprove of, get into pointless wars with multiple countries, spy on everyone, install surveillance devices on random people's property, and do a host of other nonsense without being inherently complicit in the violation of individual liberties.

I admit, it's cute that you're naive enough to believe the government can be trusted with even half as much power as it has now, but such mentalities aren't going to help us fix the underlying problems; the government simply shouldn't have as much power as it does now. We do not need regulation (Which won't work, as the government will never be able to police itself, nor does it want to; especially with something as secretive as the NSA, since the public can't watch it.); we need the government to lose the powers that can easily be used to violate individual liberties.

If you drive a broken down car, do you conclude that 'cars are bad'?!

Cars are inanimate objects, you fool. Humans are easily susceptible to corruption (especially those in politics), which is the problem; your analogy simply doesn't hold.

Re:Sanity

[Kalriath]

And for the love of god, put election boundaries in the control of an independent authority?

(Here in NZ, the electoral boundaries are controlled based on sheer population, as determined using results of the census and implemented by the independent Electoral Commission, which even has the power to prosecute the government for violating electoral law).

Guess we'll see where Obama really stands...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but we already do, don't we?

In favor of bigger, "better", more-overweening government.

Re:Guess we'll see where Obama really stands...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a 'single individual' problem anymore -- it's systemic. Anyone who's blaming Obama for 'everything' (or some variant of everything) is deluding themselves into thinking that anyone else who could have been elected would have been in any way substantially different.

Can't be done

[Overzeetop]

As has been pointed out to us in the last three weeks by the GOP, you can't simply "correct" what's wrong with a law, you have to repeal it ENTIRELY. Nothing short of that is acceptable. Even if there are things that are useful, the whole bathtub must be thrown out because to simply change the parts which are not working would be to admit that the Law isn't the end of civilization as we know it.

I'm with the GOP - repeal it entirely or I'll hold my breath until I pass out. Or something like that.

Re:Can't be done

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Even if there are things that are useful, the whole bathtub must be thrown out because to simply change the parts which are not working would be to admit that the Law isn't the end of civilization as we know it.

The entire law is actually garbage.

Re:Can't be done

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how much Obama railed against the Patriot act when he was in Congress, you would think he would have made that a priority in his first two years as President. With a solid Democrat majority, he could have amended or done away with it. Yet, he and Democrats did nothing. Which should be the first clue that both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the very large and very powerful bureaucracy. It is nearly impossible to reduce the size and spending of government.

The system is going to have to crash before things change. Unfortunately that is the history of the world as we know it. Change only happens violently.

Re:Can't be done

[dAzED1]

the problem with your sarcasm is that the entire law, as someone else said, is completely garbage (I'm just being a bit more verbose). There is nothing to salvage in the "patriot" act, nothing at all. The Affordable Care Act, on the other hand...well, the items which were serious process problems have already been worked through or that money has already been spent. If they didn't do something in the ideal way but the non-ideal way is already done, well, fark it - move forward ($635M for the portal and backend interfaces, I'm looking at you).

Re:Can't be done

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with the GOP - repeal it entirely or I'll hold my breath until I pass out. Or something like that.

I hadn't heard the GOP was calling for the repeal of the Patriot Act. I googled "repeal patriot act" and all I got was a democrat from NJ. I did some more searching and found about a vote to extend it:

The House measure, which was sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and required a two-thirds majority for passage, failed on a 277-to-148 vote. Twenty-six Republicans voted with 122 Democrats to oppose the measure, while 67 Democrats voted with 210 Republicans to back it. Ten members did not vote.

I've looked at a number of similar votes and every single time, the GOP has shown more support for the Patriot Act than the Democrats. Every time.

If the GOP has finally flipped on this issue, I'd love to see an official statement about it (aka link please).

Re:Can't be done

[nojayuk]

In June 2013 67 Democratic and 214 Republican Senators and Representatives voted for the most recent reauthorisation of the Patriot Act. The GOP doesn't seem to want it repealed going by those numbers. Maybe you should push to get more Democrats elected instead.

Re:Can't be done

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, NSA is now the most powerful entity in all history, as it has the largest DB of blackmail material.

The phone CDR data alone allows identifying patterns of calls, e.g. married man with gf, ... Add to that all the other DBs the gov has access to, and NSA can decide who gets elected to every PTA, school board, sheriff, ... in the country.

If NSA exists past another election cycle, it will be because it is making good use of its DB. One of the NSA whistleblowers said NSA is watching SC justices, members of congress, administration, ...

Re:Can't be done

[johanw]

Well, remember how the Soviet Union went down? They went banncrupt due to their enormous military spendings. That hap[ppened to every large empire that has not been conquered by an enemy. The same is happening to the USA now. In a few decades the US empire will probably collapse as well. I hope for the sake of its population that the US remnant will not start another civil war to keep the parts that declare independence under their rule.

Re:Can't be done

[sumdumass]

I think you give Obama too much credit. He saw how to exploit this just like he saw how to exploit the IRS and use it against his political enemies. Obama railed against raising the debt limit when he was senator calling it unpatriotic and now he insists on no negotiations to lower the deficit as a condition to raising the debt limit. (yes, I know that is a political add, but it has Obama's own voice in it).

Despite amending or doing away with it, Obama could also through legitimate power as the head of the executive, ensure that US agencies used the power the Patriot Act gave the government in ways that we would not be concerned with today. Instead, he used that same power to expand the surveillance and even justify that expansion through the Patriot act.

He and the democrats did nothing because they saw it as a way to increase their power and objectives. They took the ball and ran because they wanted to. If you look at how Obama was elected to senator, you would see that It has nothing to do with being beholden to anything other then their ideology. The entire Obamacare debacle proves this. Harry Reid himself called the medical device tax a stupid tax yet he refuses to consider anything to repeal it or any changes to the Affordable Care Act out of ideological persistence.

Yet, I have no problems with believing either side will attempt to be against the other side when they are in power. It's all ideology if you ask me.

Re:Can't be done

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Maybe you should push to get more Democrats elected instead.

Better yet, don't vote for Republicans or Democrats, and look at the amount of people who voted for the Patriot Act the first time around; almost everyone in congress voted for it, which shows their true colors.

Re:Can't be done

[fustakrakich]

The entire law is actually garbage.

Not to the people who sell comfy chairs!

Re:Can't be done

[nojayuk]

It's the law of the land now. To repeal or alter it will take a vote in the Legislature comprising majorities in favour in both the House and the Senate plus a signature by the President. There are complications in that process (supermajority for cloture required in the Senate, possible veto by the President, possible override of any veto by Congress etc.) but that's how it's done in the US, as prescribed by the Constitution. Electing more and better legislators who would vote to repeal or modify the law is up to you and those who consider it important. Going by the votes on the Act over the past few years if you want to work to elect candidates who might do your will then supporting the Democratic Party is probably your best choice.

I'm not an American, by the way but I was in the USA when 9/11 happened. I met with a group of young US citizens a few days afterwards and we talked about the panic that was gripping the US and wondered when things would get back to normal. I prophesied the period of headless-chicken panic (attacks on Sikhs, National Guard soldiers at airports etc.) would last about six months and I was told I was crazy to think it would last that long. This was the USA we were talking about, after all.

Re:Can't be done

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold your breath until you die I hope.

Re:Can't be done

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Going by the votes on the Act over the past few years if you want to work to elect candidates who might do your will then supporting the Democratic Party is probably your best choice.

Both parties have shown that they hate freedom, so voting for either Republicans or Democrats is simply inadvisable.

Re:Can't be done

[Anonymous Coward]

It is just more of the same: lawmakers passing laws to make sure they keep their jobs. There are currently enough laws on the books to be applied to virtually every crime. Tacking on "with a computer", for example, really helps prevent the same crime that is already going unenforced? Srsly?

Re:Can't be done

[Fjandr]

Unfortunately, it's almost certain they'll declare war on secessionist. At least the first one or two, anyway, until they are so broke they can't pay the military and generals start selling black market weapons on the side.

Re:Can't be done

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading after you cited the bullshit nonexistent IRS "scandal". Anyone dumb enough to buy into that scam isn't worth the read.

Re:Can't be done

[Antonovich]

Really? None of you who modded this actually got the joke? I'm not even American!

Re:Can't be done

[dunkelfalke]

There were many reasons for that, military spending was just a small part of it.

Re:Can't be done

[sjames]

Republicans complaining about the deficit is rich considering that the last 2 Democratic presidents got it down to zero only to have the succeeding Republican blow it back up again.

Obama already has the deficit falling again.

I'm not particularly happy with either party, but The Ds seem marginally better than the Rs, much like the flu is better than west nile.

Re:Can't be done

[Anonymous Coward]

i'll see your repeal of affordable healthcare act and raise you a repeal of patriot act and subsequent, related legislation.

BOTH need to go, but both parties won't come together to get it done.

Re:Can't be done

[sumdumass]

I never mentioned any IRS "scandal". I say the administration exploited the IRS and use it against his political enemies. If you think that is a scandal, it says much more about what you think about it than what I do.

I can understand why you chose to reply AC instead of logging in to a psudo anonymous identify that could follow you around a bit. Everyone who reads your "I don't want to believe something so I won't read it- insert ad hominem" diatribe is more stupid then any other time in their life during the 2 seconds it takes to read your reply. It sure is a good thing stuff like science doesn't follow your line of reasoning else we might still think the world if flat and the moon chases the sun across the sky in a game of tag every day.

I can't help but wonder if the reason you posted was to lower everyone else intelligence if not just for a few moments just so you wouldn't feel so abnormal. Well, if that is the case, you didn't have to do something like this, most educated people have enough compassion for the lesser intelligent people like you that we do not look down on you. So I guess you might just want to change who you hang out with.

Re:Can't be done

[Patent Lover]

Even if there are things that are useful, the whole bathtub must be thrown out because to simply change the parts which are not working would be to admit that the Law isn't the end of civilization as we know it.

The entire law is actually garbage.

Especially the part getting rid of preexisting conditions. We need those or else insurance will have to actually pay bills.

Re:Can't be done

[gmhowell]

Unfortunately, it's almost certain they'll declare war on secessionist.

Puhleeze, can you show me precedence for something like that?

Re:Can't be done

[Uberbah]

To repeal or alter it will take a vote in the Legislature comprising majorities in favour in both the House and the Senate plus a signature by the President.

Or: just let it expire rather than constantly re-authorizing it. Then either the House, the Senate, or the White House call kill it, barring a veto override.

Re:Can't be done

[Uberbah]

I say the administration exploited the IRS and use it against his political enemies.

And saying you're repeating debunked right wing BS that's been a Zombie Lie for months. Hint: groups on both the left and the right were scrutinized - as they should be to prevent corruption and slush money - and in fact the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one.

While you wingers are running around making up stupid bullshit, Obama's getting away with literal (drone) murder.

Re:Can't be done

[sumdumass]

You saying it is debunked or calling it right wing doesn't make it not true. I linked to emails where the administration and one of the irs head disclosing private tax data. The dates are before the lawsuit which is over the IRS giving private information to a political group apposed to their position. The private data given to the political group included donar information.

Why don't you pay attention instead of playing a fool for for a lost cause. The administration got access to private information and the IRS gave that information to political groups unlawfully and that information was used unlaefully. Fo a damned google search on it if you want sources other thrn i provided.

Re:Can't be done

[Uberbah]

Since you skipped it the first time, here it is again:

Hint: groups on both the left and the right were scrutinized - as they should be to prevent corruption and slush money - and in fact the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one.

Why don't you pay attention instead of playing a fool for for a lost cause.

Why don't you give up the partisan tribalism that's killing this country. The IRS has all of two political appointees, and the one in charge was a Bush appointee. Why don't put down Glenn Beck fauxrage for a while and pay attention to the fact that both parties are coming for your job, your rights, and your retirement, none of which have anything to do with the IRS, or Fast & Furious, or whatever other crackpot squirrel that's been dangled in front of your face this morning.

Re:Can't be done

[sumdumass]

Why are you ignoring what i said then substituting what you want to make this about, then srgue sgaisnt that rather then anything i have said?

You csn try and scold me when you find out ehat was acyuslly said. In the mean time, stop blindly spouting shitt about something completely different from what i said and trying to claim it somehow discredits me. Normally, i would slam you lack of reading comprehension about now but it is obvious you didn't even read what was posted or linked to and are operating on kneejerk protect the line to save the administration bs. Save your polititard trolls for someone else

The thing created turned on its creator

[Rooked_One]

in a sense.

The retardlicans created the patriot act so they could do "this and that," but now that the dummycrats have been using it, the rerardlicans think its bad.

Now, sit back and realize the people making all of these decisions are your elected officials.

Re:The thing created turned on its creator

[magsol]

Or perhaps someone independent of his/her political affiliations believes this will truly improve things for America and its citizens?

Yeah, I couldn't keep a straight face either.

Re:The thing created turned on its creator

[NoKaOi]

Or perhaps someone independent of his/her political affiliations believes this will truly improve things for America and its citizens?

Obviously improving things for the US and its citizens would never be a Congressman's motivation, however, it is rather refreshing that a politician is doing something to brownnose his constituents rather than brownnosing corporate campaign contributors.

Re:The thing created turned on its creator

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all possible that it was designed for a set period of time, and the intent was to get it through quickly to respond to the emergency and then think about it ... nope, had to be partisan politics.

Re:The thing created turned on its creator

[Anonymous Coward]

The retardlicans created the patriot act so they could do "this and that," but now that the dummycrats have been using it, the rerardlicans think its bad.

You really can't use a proper name like Republicans? Sorry to tell you, but Democrats voted overwhelmingly *for* this Wonderful Testament to Freedom too. Not once, not even twice, but multiple times.

The only retardicans I see is the ones that keep voting in the clowns. There is a saying around here - sometimes you have to throw the bums out, even if they claim to be part of your political spectrum. If you are unable to vote any incumbent out, then all you have is totalitarianism.

This is why America is still great,in my mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Not afraid of change, and constantly improving itself.

Re:This is why America is still great,in my mind

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Not afraid of change

How comical! How comical!

Re:This is why America is still great,in my mind

[wjcofkc]

In some cases the only reason we are not afraid of change is because we are terrified of the present - because we turned a blind eye toward what led to that present. Other times we are not afraid of change because we are oh so very royally pissed off at the present. Often it's both. In the final instance we are not afraid of change because it means more bandwidth, better graphics, new medicines, and the promise of low orbit vacationing. When we are afraid of change that must happen for the improvement of our society, that change is accomplished through picketing, civil disobedience, propaganda, rioting, and violence.

Fear and anger...

[djupedal]

The villagers with the pitch forks and torches were just as angry at the doctor as they were the monster he created.

Yo Dawg

[Anonymous Coward]

I herd you liked patriot act so we put a patriot act inside your patriot act so you can.....

See sig

[fustakrakich]

See sig say

See sig say by the sea shore

Huh?

I don't understand. The Patriot Act is working perfectly. Corrupt law written by corrupt people. American voters approve.

Øر٠ØرÙ

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a Republican! Øر٠ÙÙ Ù...Ø ØÙØرÙSÙ ! ~ ~ ~ ! ! ! ! !

Pandora's Box

[cookYourDog]

has been opened. There will be attempts at legislation, but there's no removing the purchased influence, consolidated power, and vested interests that grew as a result of the Patriot act.

When Obama vetoes this

[Kohath]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because it's always been Bush's fault. I mean that in two senses. Firstly, it is Bush's fault. Secondly, those who don't *also* blame Obama and Congress are so disconnected with reality that no matter WHAT happens, it will be Bush's fault.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[phantomfive]

Yes, but if that happens, Obama will suck just as much if not worse.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[NoKaOi]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

Yes. Bush was the one who got it passed. He was the one who lied to us about what he would do with it. Obama is simply working with what Bush left him. He wouldn't lie to us the way Bush did. He told us he would end warrantless wiretapping, he told us he would close Gitmo, he told us he would bring the troops home from the Middle East. What? Gitmo is still open and torturing people without due process? The NSA is tapping everything without due process? Troop levels in Afghanistan have more than tripled since he took office? Nevermind.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's Bush's fault. That doesn't change the fact that Obama will be just as bad.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush murdered all the dinosaurs so their bodies could be turned into oil over hundreds of millions of years and make his Halliburton buddies rich.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Princeofcups]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. There's a difference betweet Sauron who forged the ring, and Frodo who didn't want to give it back after using it a while...

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would still be Bush's fault for passing it.
No, it would not let Obama off the hook for continuing it.

At this point, Obama is just as responsible as Bush for continuing it along with every other president that comes after them that has the opportunity to get rid of them and doesn't. Actually, Obama will still be MORE responsible than the presidents that come after him as he go in promising to remove them and instead continued them.

But the lions share of the blame is, has and always will lie with Bush as he created it and pushed it at a time when the nation was distracted as it would never pass any other way. What we have now is the very embodiment of the saying "A bad law can fail a thousand times, it only has to pass once".

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clearly no longer a problem with any individual. It's systemic. Anyone who could have been elected would have done nothing substantially different, and it's very unlikely that whomever is elected next will either.

It takes a lot of power (money and other forms) to get someone elected as president -- mostly the same money and power that it's taken every time for the past several decades.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[russotto]

Yes. There's a difference betweet Sauron who forged the ring, and Frodo who didn't want to give it back after using it a while...

So I was trying to think about who would be Gollum in this scenario... and came up with Dick Cheney. We're doomed.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

It's clearly no longer a problem with any individual. It's systemic. Anyone who could have been elected would have done nothing substantially different, and it's very unlikely that whomever is elected next will either.

It takes a lot of power (money and other forms) to get someone elected as president -- mostly the same money and power that it's taken every time for the past several decades.

Yeah, don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[M. Baranczak]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

It's a moot point. The bill will never make it to Obama, the Republicans in the House will kill it.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. There's a difference betweet Sauron who forged the ring, and Frodo who didn't want to give it back after using it a while...

So I was trying to think about who would be Gollum in this scenario... and came up with Dick Cheney. We're doomed.

Doesn't that mean Dick Cheney falling into a river of lava while holding a rolled up copy of the Patriot Act?

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[WiiVault]

Totally agree with you except for Gitmo. His opponents tried to make it sound like by giving those bastards a trial and bringing them to NYC that somehow everybody was in danger, and they were gonna get off easy (in NYC yeah right). If I recall for whatever reason he doesn't have the authority to force the issue because he can't bring them to the states without congress.

That said he is a coward who did the base minimum to say he tried when people called him on it. If he had pushed back against the fear mongering and reminded people that only that the justice is a conviction not indefinite detention he might have been able to do it. Hell if anything I would have pushed the point and reminded people that if we ever plan on charging them it would be better to do it soon instead of letting them sit in limbo until some future date while the evidence gets lost and witnesses disappear and then we really are stuck with having to hold them forever. Plus how do you defend that one to our allies. Um yeh we don't really have enough to convict these guys every since Mohammed Kablewie died in that hunger strike last year. And nobody can find the taped confession. But we can't let them go.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[M. Baranczak]

Diane Feinstein as Grima Wormtongue, Edward Snowden as Frodo and John Boehner as Jar Jar Binks.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Anonymous Coward]

he told us he would close Gitmo

Oh, he is doing his best to drain it. Instead of kidnapping, torturing and holding for years without due process, suspects are nowadays preferably killed without due process along with a few dozen bystanders using drone attacks.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[sociocapitalist]

When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?

The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.

It's not mutually exclusive. One is at fault for allowing it in the first place and the other is at fault for allowing it to continue.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[cold fjord]

The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.

The Patriot Act would have gone away if it hadn't been reauthorized, so no. It is all Obama at this point.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Patch86]

A quick reminder that most (if not all) of the inmates claim that they are innocent, and we know for a fact that the authorities don't have enough evidence to convict most of them to the normal civil standard (or they would have just convened a court and done so). So, for one, let's remember the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty". And for two, you've got to think to what will happen if you ship these guys to New York, put them on trial, and they're acquitted and free to live their lives like normal people in America. Will they be safe and protected on the street? Will people be happy living next door to a former Gitmo inmate? What about the severe egg-on-face for the authorities if the guy they've had in solitary confinement for a decade is given the "completely innocent" stamp by a court- will heads roll?

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[gl4ss]

obama and dems(and repbs) already extended patriot act.

anyhow, if past act names are anything to go by then something named FREEDOM must be laced with some extreme loop holes for cuffing freedom.

stopping patriot act would have been very easy by not extending it.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Reziac]

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
  --Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Uberbah]

If I recall for whatever reason he doesn't have the authority to force the issue because he can't bring them to the states without congress.

That was the charade set up when they "blocked" funds for transferring prisoners. Obama can operate vast spy programs outside of Congressional oversight (Senators learn about this stuff from the paper first) but cannot do a prisoner transfer without express legislative approval first? When he didn't need approval to start a war with Libya and claims he can do with Syria?

As Sam Seder says, "That's Bullshit."

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[mcgrew]

Johnson was one of the worst Presidents in my lifetime, I certainly wouldn;t quote that loser.

Re:When Obama vetoes this

[Reziac]

I agree about Johnson; that's part of why I use that quote: It pulls the rug out from under the people who would otherwise insist that I'm just hating on Democrats.

Common sense does not apply

[s.petry]

This is the mess we have put ourselves in in the last 30 years. Bad laws are not repealed, and due to case law limitations they are nearly impossible to repeal. By our own insane laws, the only way to fix things is to pass laws which modify law.

If you think this is crazy you are not alone. A Lawyer would probably spit nails at this, but the corruption we see in Government has also been happening in Law. Except that in Law it has been happing for much longer. The corrupted Government could never have become so entrenched in a clean legal system.

We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits. We also need to get rid of numerous corrupt judges and justices, and start doing what you suggest in repealing laws. One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.

Re:Common sense does not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when Congress passed the Patriot Act before it was completely written? I can't find the old Slashdot articles where this was discussed, but I did find this:

Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent
April 09, 2003
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/04/09/1534234/congress-to-make-patriot-act-permanent

Re:Common sense does not apply

[Sarten-X]

One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.

Case law is what determines the current valid meaning of the written laws, as precedent. Get rid of case law, and all the clarity of modern law disappears. Goodbye, privacy. Free speech? Well that still probably applies to things you say, but nothing written online... or maybe it's just going to cover the use of your wine press. After all, it was Supreme Court cases that established our current interpretations of these basic laws. "Freedom of speech, or of the press", as written, really only covered printed documents and verbal speech, and the "unreasonable searches" in the Fourth Amendment meant physically going through a person's personal effects.

Without the baseline of case law, the vague written law is no help in determining what's legal or not. You could be arrested for anything, and it must go to court for a judge to decide. Older similar cases can't be used as precedent, so the prosecutor could argue any crazy theory he wants, and know that he'll be able to at least present evidence... but evidence standards are based in case law, too, so the judge has no reason to reject evidence that, for example, showed up at the police station's door with a note saying it came from your car. Let's hope the jury is on your side, but since you're defending yourself against someone who's well-trained in the art of convincing people to believe a story (because, without case law, that's the prosecutor's whole job), your acquittal is unlikely.

Sure, getting rid of case law would make the written law easier to understand, but practically useless.

Re:Common sense does not apply

[icebike]

By our own insane laws, the only way to fix things is to pass laws which modify law.

Nothing in our laws prohibits repealing laws, and it is done all the time.
There is nothing in Case Law that holds any sway over the actions of Congress.

Of course, if a president who ran on a platform opposing the Patriot act hadn't switched his position once elected it would be a lot easier to get a majority in Congress. Is there even one person who doesn't believe both parties would rush to repeal the Patriot act IN TOTAL the minute the president asked them to?
Anyone?

Re:Common sense does not apply

[s.petry]

Case law is what determines the current valid meaning of the written laws, as precedent. Get rid of case law, and all the clarity of modern law disappears.

No it doesn't. Case law allows the presentation of a similar case to make ruling without addressing the merits of the current case. The wording of a law is what defines that Law, or at lest what is supposed to define the law. Case Law allows the courts to not make decisions, it allows them to use similar enough previously decided cases to determine every aspect of a current case (without accountability for previous rulings right or wrong, hearing the current case and evidence, etc..).

On the surface, this saves time in court. What it did however is allows shitty rulings to be passed down the chain.

No, it's not useless. We use case law currently to make it difficult to repeal laws (in addition to other things) because cases have been ruled previously that claim "you can't repeal this law". When those cases are sited, judges can drop making a ruling and rule exactly how the previous case was ruled.

Re:Common sense does not apply

[guises]

We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits.

The thing is, term limits would make repealing laws much easier. The problem right now is that repealing a law which was passed by someone who is still sitting is tantamount to admitting a mistake, something a politician is loath to do. Once all of the people who passed the law in the first place are out of office it becomes much easier to get rid of it.

Re:Common sense does not apply

[Anonymous Coward]

A Lawyer would probably spit nails at this, but the corruption we see in Government has also been happening in Law. Except that in Law it has been happing for much longer.

If lawyers would spit nails at all this we wouldn't be in it.

Re:Common sense does not apply

[Sarten-X]

cases have been ruled previously that claim "you can't repeal this law".

[citation needed]

The legislature handles repealing laws, and the legislative branch isn't subject to precedent from the judicial branch at all.

What you seem to be confusing it with is a judge finding a law unconstitutional, which is a totally different matter from repeal. A judge may indeed choose to rule on whether a law is itself wrong, but that is a separate matter from the "merits of the case". Depending on the jurisdiction, it sometimes can only happen in the appellate court, which is restricted to matters of procedure, rather than evidence. The trial court answers the question "Did the events happen like the prosecutor says they did?" and the appellate court settle the matter of "should this instance be exempt?".

This means that you can argue that you should be exempt because the law is wrong, and the court could agree. On the other hand, the court could have, for example, already examined the law and found it to be right. Regardless of your particular case, the problem isn't likely the law itself, so there's no reason to waste the court's time with yet another mundane example of the same reiterated redundancy. Your parents lied; you're not special.

In contrast, the legislature can repeal a law for any reason or none, at any time. They wrote the law in the first place. Perhaps society's expectations have changed, or some case has illustrated a need for a new codified exception, or the law was broken to begin with (as with the USA PATRIOT Act) and the full ramifications weren't understood when it was rushed through.

What a Scam

[Anonymous Coward]

First he gets to grandstand for "protecting our freedom", then he gets to grandstand for "protecting our privacy".

Kind of like Dick Cheney: first he makes millions destroying Iraq then he makes millions rebuilding it. Then repeat.

Captcha = "bilked"

Re:What a Scam

[VortexCortex]

I believe the term is: Demagogue

The interesting thing is that the people's votes don't actually matter, you'll just get more of the same elected under a different banner. If you want to affect any political process you must be loud and obnoxious and show how foolish and corrupt your opponents are. Sadly the most high minded and rational folk think this behavior beneath them and so make poor Activists; Thus they are effectively cowed.

Do not toss red and blue tokens into the wishing well of infinite depth, you only become a statistic for the legitimization of oppression. Take a look at the system, analyze what inputs cause desired outputs, and realize you need to make some noise and get dirty damn it!

Re:What a Scam

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing is that the people's votes don't actually matter

If voting changed anything they would make it illegal.

innocent Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

as compared to the rest of the world. If you are not American, you are not innocent. I see what you (they are) do(ing) here. Thanks a bunch.

Re:innocent Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

as compared to the rest of the world. If you are not American, you are not innocent. I see what you (they are) do(ing) here. Thanks a bunch.

Well, do the American's appear to you like they have eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? They can't tell one from the other, so they are apparently a people free from Original Sin.

Pandora's box..

[Cyrjax]

Now that they've opened it, it would be easier to shave a lion in Africa during the night with a pocket knife than close it!

Re:Pandora's box..

[celle]

"it would be easier to shave a lion in Africa during the night with a pocket knife"

      Wow! Now that's a picture. A Bugs Bunny(or other character) cartoon of that could be interesting.

BBBBBBBuuuuttttt Snowden = deviant

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they didn't catch this fucker sooner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/us/cia-warning-on-snowden-in-09-said-to-slip-through-the-cracks.html?_r=2&

Then nobody would be the wiser.

Freedom!

[Anonymous Coward]

A Law (called freedom) to Increase freedom... to repeal another abused law (Patriot act) dose that make him unpatriotic? And like the patriot act if you vote for it, you are for freedom but unpatriotic.

I dont see this going anywhere, the problem isnt the laws its the check and balances (oversight) that was put in place to stop these abuses.

(2012 FISA Orders Up, National Security Letters Down, No Surveillance Request Denied: According to the 2012 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Report, the Department of Justice submitted 1,856 applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a 6.4% increase over 2011. Of the 1,856 search applications, 1,789 sought authority to conduct electronic surveillance. The FISC did not deny any of the applications, although one was withdrawn by the Government) Source: http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/

Re:Freedom!

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

I dont see this going anywhere, the problem isnt the laws its the check and balances (oversight) that was put in place to stop these abuses.

The problem is with the law; you cannot seriously expect the government to provide oversight for itself.

Great law name!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the USA NUANCED BALANCE BETWEEN ENSURING THE ESSENTIAL LIBERTIES OF THE PEOPLE AND COLLECTING SUFFICIENT INTELLIGENCE TO DETECT THREATS TO THE SECURITY OF THE NATION Act.

Dear Slashdot, I'm not yelling, I am merely constructing an acronym, the details of which will not fit in the margin of this comment. If you could see what the full name of the bill was, you would be so impressed, you would vote for me immediately during the next election.

Re:Common sense ... clarity of modern law

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had a discussion ( in a social context ) with a gentleman who was experienced as both a prosecuting and a defense attorney. After patiently explaining that my 'common sense' interpretation of a point of law was utterly incorrect, he informed me that my 'understanding of the law was "imperfect" '.

Be that as it may, Authority none-the-less expects perfect compliance with the law. I find your use of the word "clarity" somewhat ...er... puzzling.

Add then linear meters of (dead tree printed) law books at the federal level alone, then state and local law, then regulations and other non-"law" with, none the less, the force of law...

"Clarity" not the first word that comes to mind.

posting AC, odd that CAPTCHA is 'sadists'

Are you daft?

[Anonymous Coward]

He tried to close Guantanamo Bay - he signed the fucking executive order - and Congress moved to defund the effort.

That set the tone.

Re:Are you daft?

[gl4ss]

He tried to close Guantanamo Bay - he signed the fucking executive order - and Congress moved to defund the effort.

if the president can kidnap, shoot people from the sky and start "conflicts" without asking the congress but can't close an internationally illegal domestically-loopholed prison camp that's fucking expensive to run... then something is pretty fucked up.

(he could have done it, but they would still be stuck with the problem of what to do with people they imprisoned with flimsy evidence and can't send anywhere, and most definitely don't want to send them to usa..)

Re:Are you daft?

[Anonymous Coward]

He tried to close Guantanamo Bay - he signed the fucking executive order - and Congress moved to defund the effort.

if the president can kidnap, shoot people from the sky and start "conflicts" without asking the congress but can't close an internationally illegal domestically-loopholed prison camp that's fucking expensive to run... then something is pretty fucked up.

Just because the U.S. fancies affording itself a rabid pitbull terrier for walking in public every four years does not mean it let's it run its affairs.

Yes, cause apathy wins elections!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no wait, it's Green party fucks, right? Or Libertarians? Or [insert a worthless third party here].

Fuck you.

Re:Yes, cause apathy wins elections!

[AlphaWoIf_HK]

Oh no wait, it's Green party fucks, right? Or Libertarians? Or [insert a worthless third party here].

It's whichever third party you agree with. Republicans and Democrats have had their chance, and they've shown that they both despise freedom.

Better idea

[fnj]

Simple. Repeal the fucking thing in its entirety. Declare victory, if that's what it takes to float your boat. Then repeal it as the abomination it is. Let the rule of law return as it was. Yeah, the US wasn't a perfect garden of eden even before 9/11, but it was a hell of a lot better starting point than it is now.

Bush II and the Republicans blew it...

[Anonymous Coward]

When Bush II started messing with Gitmo, kidnapping supected terrorists in foreign lands, and more importantly, taking away US Citizens Liberties, I had a warning for anyone who would listen: President Hilary Clinton.
No one listened. Yes, Hillary didn't become the next President. But geese! Here we have Dems that thinks the Repubs are Neanderthal throwbacks and Repubs think the Dems are dope smoking queer Satanists, and there is enough paranoia to fill a 10 aircraft carriers, or one Washington politico or "news commentator's ego. And what do they do? Do they ever think of the loaded gun they are handing to the next person in the White House? Do they ever think the next person in the White House might, duh, not be in their own party--i.e., one of the enemy?

Just you watch. Eventually, a Republican, maybe some Tea Party-er, will get back in White House, or not, but if they do, then the Dems will be crying "oh shiiiit."

===
Around 2003 I heard some scholar on the radio, can't remember who, who had researched out US reaction to every war since, I dunno, the Trojan horsey thing. Good example was Japanese Americans in WWII. The American response always included going after suspected enemy 'moles' or agents, based on their ancestry or other visible identifier. Go after meant at the least restricting their rights, at most lynching them with or without local police involvement.
Then, in a few years, since restricting some people's rights worked out so good, there followed a general restriction and limiting of everyone's rights.
He also was of the opinion that few saboteurs we ever caught.

No one listened to him, either.

 

Good BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

White House wants to expand Patriot Act to all levels of USA society.

For instance. Obama wants to have a machine bio-metric system up-and-running in 6 months to "challenge" workers at any company in the legal domains of the U.S.A. to swear allegiance to the U.S.A. or be forfeited to local and Federal detention and arrest and loss of citizenship by arrest.

"A good citizen is a trusting citizen and a trusting citizen is the one we want", Obama was hears to speak.

An advisor offered that "trusting citizen" is an individual who "trusts" on blind faith alone. All others would by necessity be euthanized.

But "euthanize machinery" needs people to "euthanize" the "non-trusted" citizenry! So, on this level, its a jobs program plain and simple, the White House Official explained with gleeful joy and obvious delight.

Yes!

It is very true: Obama hates legal U.S.A. citizens and thinks day and night on how to kill them all.

Poor Obama. His end is near.

Sensenbrenner Video

[jamesl]

Jim Sensenbrenner spoke at the Cato Institute on October 9, 2013. Video and podcast here ...
http://www.cato.org/events/nsa-surveillance-what-we-know-what-do-about-it

land of the brave

[faargenwelsh]

it is so ironic that this whole debate seems to be limited to the protection of people who happens to have US citizenship, and not for the protection of people, period.

the main argument - "'collection of a wide array of data on innocent Americans has led to serious questions about how government will use â" or misuse â" such information" presumes that it is OK to spy on all the others.

but why?

I am Ukrainian and live in France; I've never set my feet on American soil, and am not involved in any kind of terrorist activity. Still, my phone conversations are intercepted by ECHELON, my e-mail - by Prism and alike, all the data google, microsoft and other US companies have on me, is also available for US government to access, to collect and to store without any limitation at all.

And even the most active privacy activists in the US seem to only be bothered by innocent Americans, and not innocent all...

*sigh*

Xzibit's summarizes

[Kevin Fishburne]

Yo Dawg, I herd you like freedom, so I put freedom in your patriotism so you can be free while we watch you.

Creator of out-of-control killer robot

[multiplexo]

builds new killer robot to keep other killer robot in check. News at 11.

What a fucking piece of shit

[multiplexo]

James Sensenbrenner should introduce legislation to repeal the PATRIOT act and then resign from office and forfeit all pension benefits.

Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

All the comments here make a lot of sense and in addition, it didn't help that many of those who voted FOR the Patriot Act never even read what was in it. This was a prime example of knee jerk reaction before knowing what was being voted on. Further, the Patriot Act has been allowed to morph into a monster that should have had its head cut off long ago.

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll hate the game and the player both, tyvm.