ACLU Sues FBI Over ISP Records 663
An anonymous reader writes "One of the provisions of the infamous USA PATRIOT Act is the ability for the government to force companies that hold personal information, specifically in this case, ISPs, to turn over their records without a court order. MSNBC is reporting about a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in secret because of another provision in PATRIOT that prevents public disclosure of these matters. The gag order was dropped when the Justice Department agreed to not take any action against the ACLU."
And now.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And now.. (Score:2, Insightful)
What country is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
> of expanded powers to compel Internet service providers to
> turn over information about their customers or subscribers.
> People who receive the letters are prohibited by law from
> disclosing to anyone that they did so. Because of this legal
> gag order, the ACLU was forced to reach an agreement with
> the Justice Department before a heavily edited version of the
> lawsuit could be unsealed.
"PATRIOT Act"? Damn you, Orwell and your Newspeak!
So the ACLU was suing to protect Americans' privacy from the government prying into ISP customer data. But no one knew about it, since there's another law that prevents the ACLU from telling the public. So they're basically fighting for our freedoms in secret?
It reminds me of that light from the classic show, "The Prisoner" [imdb.com]: "Why don't you just lock us all up and be done with it?"
I call upon the self-proclaimed conservatives who never tire of claiming they're against "big government". Stop for a minute punctuating every sentence with "terrorism," and "support the troops; we're at war!" like some sort of right-wing Speak and Spell. Remember this on election day: Bush believes the PATRIOT Act should be renewed and celebrated [msn.com]. There's your big government, pal.
Sheesh. Someone get me a valium.
No big Change (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to the warerant-mill judges the FBI already have who give 'em out like candy, this just made it official, the FBI has been using the constitution for toilet paper for decades
These are the true defenders of our freedoms. (Score:5, Insightful)
thank you ACLU (Score:4, Insightful)
And don't forget:
"President Bush has been pushing Congress to renew all of the Patriot Act before it expires next year..."
Vote.
Proper rebuttals to the DoJ (Score:5, Insightful)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
So far, We've seen media-described breaches of all of these in the DoJ, FBI, and Military holdings in the military base in Cuba.
Why do we still have this president again?
Re:What country is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
What a horrible choice is left to us come November.
Ted
Card-carrying member? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always amazed at Americans who consider being a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU a bad thing.
Sure, you may not agree with some of the individuals they protect, but it is comforting to know that there is an organization that will protect the rights of anyone, irrespective of personal opinions/feelings/politics.
The USA is supposed to be a country based on the Constitution, and was founded with the belief that every individual has natural rights that need to be protected -- against the government, against the majority, against those in power. These ACLU folks are every bit as patriotic as the folks in the armed forces doing their duty overseas that the current presidential administration loves to trumpet about. To see true patriots go up against the so-called "PATRIOT Act" warms my heart.
Re:What does this mean for Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
They would. I can't imagine they'd feel good about it, but anyone would in that position.
However, the *real* question is, what data could they turn over, if requested- i.e. what do they collect, and what pre-emptive measures do they take against this FBI action (for instance, they could only keep certain data for 24 hours before deleting it... or 6 hours. Or whatever).
RD
Hmm, it's a little bit scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the rest of the PATRIOT act remains or not, we should at least have the right and opportunity to free and open public debate about it.
Hide all the details when you're looking for information, sure, but don't hide the details and criticisms of the act. That is exactly the sort of thing that we all have a right to know.
The Justice Department has already ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the current administration views the Presidency as answerable to no entities, domestic (judiciary, congressional, public) or foreign, they will keep attacking the Constitution as long as they are in power. And they will do this with a free conscience becasue they are incapable of even imagining that anything they do is wrong. After all, God put them in place to do it all.
Re:What country is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I haven't been following too closely, but wasn't all the information already there before 9/11? Come to think of it, law enforcement's best tool to prevent crime is to lock everybody in their homes... oh, wait... where's the dele
facism calling... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the other side of things, it's nice that the government can just barge right in to grab the information that's needed... but... I wonder; if the FBI can demand such information without reasonable suspicion, and without court order, what's the point? To make it faster? More secret? What is it about obtaining a warrant that takes so long that it warrants (pardon the pun) circumventing judicial approval? From what I understand (and please feel free to enlighten me), as long as there's reasonable suspicion, there should be no roadblocks to obtaining a warrant. So what's the point of this portion of PATRIOT? Looks like more government power to me.
Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)
But, I ask you this -- isn't it better to support an organization that does protect the majority of the Bill of Rights vigorously than to let all our rights fall into oblivion? Let's get behind protecting as much as we can -- not tearing down those who don't match up to every one of our expectations.
Sometimes, you have to choose the half-full glass to get anything at all, or choose the lesser of two evils...
Re:Card-carrying member? (Score:4, Insightful)
This means they are really no different than anyone else. Everyone agrees they like the constitution, they just can't agree on which parts are important to protect and which aren't.
If the ACLU would say, we want to protect everything, they would get a lot more respect from me. I support a lot of what they do now, but I think that point needs to be addressed
Re:Cool. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but I've previously gone on record as believing that not all trolls are without merit and have garnered a few troll moddings myself.
besides what makes you think the ACLU has a slated view of the bill of rights
Probably statements like this, taken from their website:
If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
It doesn't even really make sense, it's the sort of "logic" that allows you to justify anything.
I think he got the count wrong though. The ACLU only has 8 ammendments in their version, since they leave out the one that everyone else leaves out as well, the most important one really, since it provides the rights that most people argue we don't have.
That would be the Ninth Ammendment.
That one was put in there to appease the Hamiltonians who argued that an explict Bill of Rights would be used to limit rights by falsely interpreting the specific wording, allowing Congress to make law that the Constitution gave them no authority to.
Looks like old Alex and the boys nailed that one dead on I'm afraid.
KFG
Detainees (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I know for a fact that there were several thousand detainees in the Tri-State area about a year ago who were being held for months without even being charged. I think that qualifies as a violation of habeas corpus.
Then there was an additional throng who had been ordered deported two or three months previously, but who were still being held.
Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ (Score:5, Insightful)
(Not to say that your question is totally without merit, but let's not forget who does what here.)
Re:Card-carrying member? (Score:5, Insightful)
Young Bull, Old Bull. Wisdom. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time, a young bull and an old bull were standing on a hill, overlooking a valley full of cows.
The young bull said to the old bull, "Hey, old bull, let's run down into the valley and maybe we can fuck one of them cows!"
The old bull turned to the young bull with a wizened eye and said "No. We walk down. We fuck 'em all."
Upon hearing this, the young bull was enlightened.
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian. (Score:1, Insightful)
While foreigners may not be covered by this, to argue that they don't deserve rights and are 'terrorists' without any checks or balances is arguably arguably inhumane.
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:4, Insightful)
A) Soviet Russia (USSR)
B) Nazi Germany
C) United States of America
D) All of the above
If you didn't answer C then you are simply a reactionary fool.
Listen, I'm all for fighting for privacy, security, and equal rights, but can we please keep the knee-jerk paranoid comparisons out of the discourse? It doesn't serve any purpose but to delegitimize you arguments in reasonable minds.
Re:These are the true defenders of our freedoms. (Score:2, Insightful)
And sign up for their action lists. Send letters to congress about important freedom items. (Of course, you send them the default form letter and they send you back a form letter. But I'm certain that somewhere someone's counting the number of for and against letters. So they can decide which issues they're not gonna advertise that they're supporting.)
Re:Cool. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, MAYBE you would have a reason not to support them if they actually litigated AGAINST your interests, but if they don't then what exactly is the problem? Any money you would donate would go towards things you would support, none would go against your interests, but because they don't spend money on every case you would want them to you're going to refrain from supporting them? It's stupid, it's illogical, and it's intellectual cowardice.
200 years down the drain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ (Score:5, Insightful)
No person shall be held to answer...
Funny how it doesn't say "No citizen"
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...
Again, it's odd how it says "all criminal prosecutions" and not "criminal prosecutions of citizens"
You might have a point about amendment 4, depending on how you define "the people" The point is, rights are universal. They are NOT granted by the constitution. And so they apply to everyone, just for being human.
Thank you ACLU (Score:3, Insightful)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
The stigma about being a card-carrying member of the ACLU is just that, a negative stigma. It's not something to be ashamed of though. Would you be ashamed of being a card-carrying member of the EFF or EPIC? There's nothing shameful about asserting your rights.
Re:USA PATRIOT, not USA Patriot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention (Score:4, Insightful)
What utter, utter rubbish.
The Government has no, zero, nada right to conduct surveillance of me! Who the fuck do they think they are?
The problem is that people seem to be forgetting that Governments are there to serve the people- not the other way around.
It's Governments that need to be put under surveillance- NOT the public. The problem is that acts like Patriot turn that completely around- and then you get people like the parent poster *accepting* the basic premise of such legislation! Now *THAT'S* scarey.
Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What country is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
"As with most real conservatives, we disagree with the sitting president. What a horrible choice is left to us come November."
As an independent, I'll make a deal with you real conservatives (since I'm a fiscal conservative myself) - if you help us remove Bush/Cheney/Rove this November, I'll in turn vote for whatever *intelligent* *clear-thinking* *moderate* Republican candidate you field in 2008. Better yet, dump the fundamentalist extreme right (the American Taliban) from your party and I'll KEEP voting for you.
I'm dead serious. This admistration is a train wreck in every regard. Even current Republicans must realize the lasting damage that is being done to your own party, not to mention our standing in the world.
A GOP government that noses its way into your private lives, delivers Big Brother to our doorsteps? Gives us insanely huge spending bills and deficits? Stumbles into a needless war? Lies, lies and lies again, baldface lies on critical issues?
If you voted against Clinton, how can you NOT vote against Bush? Clinton got a blowjob. Under Bush WE'RE all taking it in the ass. (Now there's a clever entendre....)
Dude, I want my country back.
Re:What country is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ (Score:3, Insightful)
Who proposed the bill? Who wrote it? Who told Congress that they had to pass it right away without taking time to read it?
Constitution-Friendly "Patriot Act" Possible? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, OK, I'm with everyone that decries the abomination and desecration of the Constitution that the "Patriot Act" is.
Let's move on, though.
Beneath the knee-jerk reaction is a reasonable intention: what can be done to better protect a free society from being victimized by terrorists?
Is it not possible to craft legislation that achieves this goal in a more effective manner with less infringement of individual liberties?
[I've been a fan of Bruce Schneier and his observation that more effective and more economical security policies, for computers and for the broader arena, are frequently overlooked.]
Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that observations will occur and given that crimes will occur, historical observations (even if limited only to fading human memory) will become evidence in the prosecution of crime. Digital observations are cheap, comprehensive (7x24), indefinite (storage) and increasing in scope (cheaper and more mobile sensors).
Therefore
A useful technique is widespread, reciprocal digital signature of observations. E.g. Slashdot generates a log record of your IP address visiting their HTTP server, but the returned page includes a cryptographically signed "receipt" for that log record. That receipt hashes not just your anonymous public key, but a sequence number that is enmeshed with all other Slashdot visitors in the temporal neighborhood of your visit. The authenticity of Slashdot logs is then linked to a random, distributed cluster of witness (visitor) observations.
Watch the Watchers. Audit the Auditors. We are all fallible.
Re:They ignore this one (Score:1, Insightful)
Just like all those gun-toting Americans stood up for American Japanese back in World War II and protected them from being illegally detained and held in American concentration camps?
I'm well aware of your argument. There's a time and a place when having access to weapons makes sense. Perhaps if we gave every Iraqi an AK-47, boxes of grenades, and tons of ammo, Iraq would be a safe society today. And if you and your buddies grabbed your rifles, pistols, and shotguns and decided to defend the constitution by standing up to the injustice committed against that 97 year old, what do you think would happen? I'm guessing the military would be called in and you'd all be facing a firefight with the marines.
Perhaps you think society should be patrolled by ad-hoc police forces made up of its citizens, but we saw how well that worked in the corn fields down south many years ago. I don't think a white hood makes for a good police uniform if you know what I mean.
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone (including grandparent) believes this country is as oppressive as the USSR or Nazi Germany, but when we are having our essential freedoms limited, perhaps we should do something before our country goes that far....
Re:What country is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Taking on Saddam Hussein is not an easy thing to do. In fact, attacking Saddam has already knocked one President out of office and it may very well knock another out. The Bush Administration was fully aware of this when they made the decision to invade."
Bullshit.
First of all, Bush Sr. was immensely popular after the Gulf War. It was his utter failure on domestic policies afterward that canned him. (I served in 'Shield/'Storm and felt honored to do so.)
The current Bush administration believed their own blowback when they made the decision to invade. I *GUARANTEE* Dubya is sitting back with a blank stare at times, muttering about how Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others had promised him Iraqi greeting of flowers and chocolates, guaranteed reelection, a spot in history as the Great Architect of Middle East Democracy. (*gag*)
Why else would his idiot handlers have paraded him around in front of their "Mission Accomplished" banner after his carrier landing? Even his own staff were convinced it was easy and over. And I can guarantee that photo op will be haunting him in the months ahead.
Too bad reality refused to comply with their comic book pipe dreams.
"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W. Bush, September 2001Re:The Justice Department has already ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another article ("Feds: Patriot [sic] Act not used in probe") [lasvegassun.com] purportedly refutes her allegations. Reading from the top, I am again reminded of why I so very much love the news industry and the DoJ.
See? It was all a big misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion by tree huggers and ACLU lovers. Clearly, the DoJ is following both the letter and intent of the PATRIOT Act. I feel much better now.
Continuing with the article...
To quote Jack Valenti, un-fucking-believable. What part of "the U.S. Patriot Act was used to obtain financial information" leads to the conclusion "Patriot Act not used in probe"? Sure, it wasn't used to intercept communications. I'd also bet it wasn't used to wipe their asses either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't used for other purposes!
Given that the average American with a thirty-second attention span reads the headline and maybe the first one or two paragraphs, they'd be left believing the DoJ's claim that it wasn't used in the probe. Period. Which is not true. No wonder people think all is well and we'd be okay if it weren't for some disgruntled Arabs on the other side of the world.
Re:What country is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
So sayeth the official party line.
The truth is that Kerry's voting record in the Senate is even further left than Ted Kennedy's. Conservatives may not like Bush, but they'd definitely not like Kerry. Conservatives screwed themselves in '92 by voting against Bush the Elder (pissed at him for reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge) and letting Perot split the vote, with Clinton winning the election (with less than half the vote).
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:4, Insightful)
In our world, Russia/Germany and the United States are actually on completely opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the freedoms its citizens have. The very fact that we can have this discussion without fear of governmental retribution is evidence of that.
Re:What country is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote your conscience then. Vote for what is right. If everyone did that, don't you think the world would be a little better?
Re:Duplication (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, the situation between the ACLU and the NRA isn't nearly the same as between the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. For 2nd ammendment rights, the first name you think of is NRA. Everybody who cares about 2nd ammendment rights belongs to the NRA.
It is a fact that the ACLU was the first organization to argue for abortion rights. Got that right off the link you provided. Therefore, the ACLU isn't duplicating the efforts of other agencies. The other agencies are duplicating the ACLU with regard to their legal actions.
But, as I said before, the ACLU doesn't provide family planning services, those are provided by Planned Parenthood.
In other words, you got nothing.
Re:You may find the following website useful (Score:2, Insightful)
slashdot's position: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't ignore, just disagrees (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not evidence, that's your interpretation. And it's based on assumption and an inadequate consideration of what the colonies actually were (why on Earth would a colonized portion of land have its own standing army anyway? The country wasn't as old as *I* am when that amendment was written, of COURSE it didn't have a standing army).
Are you beginning to see the problem with stating a position on the issue as unequivocal fact yet?
If you'd like some context, remember this: the colonists weren't fighting a foreign invader, they had just wrapped up fighting their OWN GOVERNMENT. Why should they be assumed to be considering protection from an invading force when they wrote the amendment?
Why is carrying a gun unjustifiable? That's just another wild, emotional statement. You're not basing this on fact. I can respect that you have a position, but I'm not going to think it has any merit if you can't produce hard evidence for it.
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:1, Insightful)
My friend's mother is a hypochondriac. She has a bowel pain and assumes she's got colon cancer. She calls everyone to lament about how she has colon cancer and is on the verge of death. She goes to the doctor, he tells her it was gas, and she laments about how bad of a doctor he was and how he's dooming her to an awful death.
Setting up a comparison like the root poster did is akin to crying wolf. If things do get bad, you've spent all of the capital you might have had by making reactionary comments. The environmental movement is experience the same things today. The disingenuous nature of previous comments (and grade-school indoctrination) about how we are all on the verge of acid rain and on the verge of destroying our planet have made the average person apathetic towards environmental causes, even when the plight might be more important today than ever.
You are much more likely to convince people your position is the correct one (and that is the goal regarding protection of freedoms...right?) by providing an accurate view of the world and not playing on people's worst fears.
Re:Hmm, it's a little bit scary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Absent the pre-PATRIOT safeguards, yes.
Further, this quote from the referenced article:
tells me that the supervisors are being told to be nice particularly to achieve renewal of the act (after which, what then?), not particularly because it's the right and constitutional thing to do.
Re:When it comes down to it... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you also don't mind if they hold you as a "material witness" during the course of their investigation? You don't mind floating the bill for your lawyer? And if you can't afford one (of course the state will provide you with a very competent one to stand for your defense), what about all the time you lose at your job or with your family? Or the unnecessary embarrassment - who's going to hire you from now on? Your name has now been stained unneedingly.
If you want to go through all of that over nothing, be my guest.
Re:What country is this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bull$hit. It's a logical fallacy they are touting there. Just because there hasn't been an attack doesn't mean there won't be one. Not needing a court order to investigate crimes is yet another way for "the law" to bypass the law.
If my vote is effectively futile, here's hoping someone on the inside will help turn things around.
Re:Proper rebuttals to the DoJ (Score:3, Insightful)
One could argue all day about fair trials, and they'd only say "we have no intention of even charging them with a crime; we're holding them as POWs till the war is over".
Yeah, but who exactly have we declared war on? Terrorism? We've declared war on a tactic? How the hell will such a war ever have an end? Seems pretty much like the War on Drugs to me. It will go on forever. If there is no declaration of war and no specific enemy, then how can these people be POWs? How can the administration be justified in holding them until the end of the war when no war has been defined?
Re:Pop Quiz (Score:2, Insightful)
The oppressive laws tend to come before the bullets-in-skulls. Maybe it would be better to address the oppressive laws now.
What's paranoid about it? These tactics are really in use, he's not inventing anything. (hint: that's the point of the story)
Re:Cool. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: missed points all around (Score:4, Insightful)
And let's not even get into the absurdity of the Bush Administration's cynical attempts to invent exceptions to the Geneva Convention, since this thread is already in severe danger of going Bozon-nuclear.
While the USSR and Germany were leftist movements and the US is rightist, the government's promises are the same: that the citizens will be safer and better off if they let the government do what they want. Secrecy only benefits those with the secrets.
Re:What country is this? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK: a) Iraq had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
Osama Bin Ladin, and the vast majority of the hijackers were ***Saudis***. NOT ONE was Iraqi.
As for WMD's, we knew damn well he had no nukes, because we would have remembered that when we SOLD HIM all his weapons.
b) Saddam Hussein was helped into power by the same crew that just bombed him out. This is not conspiracy theory; its history.
When Hussein gassed the Kurds in his country, we *vetoed* a UN motion to censure him, and *increased* our military support to him.
c) Al Qaeda's biggest claim against is, is that we hate and despise all Arabs and will do anything to control their oil.
So, what do we do? We commit an unprovoked invasion on an Arabic country that has no WMD's and no link to Al Qaeda.
In the process, we kill about 10,000 Iraqis.
So in the Arab mind, we have not only proven Al Qaeda right; but, figuring each one has at least one relative, we have just created at least 10,000 more potential recruits for Al Qaeda.
d) It's convenient for us to think, that Islamic countries hate us because they're irrational.
But the uncomfortable historical fact, is that we have been pushing them around, selecting their leaders, and invading them when they try to run their own affairs, since oil was found in the Middle East.
Saudi, Syria, and Jordan all undemocratically oppress and even murder their people. But they have our full support. Turkey has killed more Kurds than Hussein, but don't expect us to even slow our military aid to them.
Until we stop lying to ourselves, and realize why people hate us, we will continually be surprised.
What makes Americans vulnerable ... (Score:4, Insightful)
When the average American hears tales of abuse of the Patriot act, he thinks of ACLU bleeding hearts protecting terrorists. At most, he might be able to conjure up government agents using personal data to catch a tax-evader or getting a list of a citizen's favorite pron sites. He concludes that this isn't so bad if it helps combat terrorism.
We've been taught to think of America being "the land of the free" and having a superior political system to the rest of the world. Therefore, many of us have difficulty making the connection between giving the government more power to go after "bad guys" with the possibility of such powers being used to quell political dissent.
I feel that we are firmly on a road that will lead to an dictatorship in the USA. We've given up important rights and more are sure to follow. Eventually, opposing views will be squashed to the point where only certain "approved" candidates will even be allowed to run for office (ala pre-invasion Iraq).
-- scsg
Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surveillance vs. Records Retention (Score:5, Insightful)
From a human rights and constitutional point of view certain parts of the Act can and should be challenged, but it seems so far that this has not been pursued vigorously.
Re:Cool. (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, here's a clue for you. There have been many more smart people than us arguing the situation for a very long time. What makes you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong?
Now, I grant you that you might be right and the ammendment acutally gives the people as well as militias the right to own guns. Now, how about this? You take my gun from me and I pop a cap in your ass.
In other words, I'm a liberal gun nut, and you're preaching to the choir. I don't care that the ACLU believes different than me, because they have the right to think anything they want, AND they do a hell of a lot of good work that I benefit from.
But, for you to argue that their position on the 2nd ammendment weakens their other arguments is absolutely ridiculous. The 2nd ammendment really has an ambiguous wording, and to not acknowlege that is dishonest. Good people can interpret it either way.
Re:*yawn* (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be willing to bet that the typical Slashdot reader is more informed than the typical Joe on what the PATRIOT Act is and means from the articles here. I am also willing to bet that the typical Slashdot reader opposes (more strongly than the average Joe, at least) the PATRIOT Act. This is an interesting correlation.
As for reading it -- the PATRIOT Act is a very large piece of legal text, and reading the thing in its entirety and original form is not, I think, reasonable to expect everyone to do. It might be a good thing, but I have never read my state's full legal code, even though I am governed by it and could go to jail for violating it.
Re:You may find the following website useful (Score:4, Insightful)
I've twice voted for Nader, but Feingold is one of the few democrats that I'd have no qualms about voting for in a presidential election.
While Russ stands for the common man, it's too easy for the other side to portray him as the worst four letter word in politics... liberal.
I can't tell you how many times I had hoped for a ticket made up of Feingold and Wellstone.
sigh...
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can almost always push something like this through in a time of national fear. In a national emergency, there is tremendous pressure put on legislators to "stand together" with the President and legislative branch. Yes, legislators shouldn't do this, but they *do* do so, and it's not as if the Executive Branch is unaware of it -- 9/11 provided a fabulous opportunity to push through bills relating to limiting civil rights and increasing police powers. The Executive Branch bears significant responsibility here, in my mind, because it was the easiest place to avoid the law modification that took place.
Would the PATRIOT Act pass today, in a more cool-headed environment? I doubt it.
Should the legislators who voted on the PATRIOT Act take some blame? Of course. However, many legislators (from both parties) are now taking the embarassing stance that, yes, they should not have allowed the PATRIOT Act through. It takes a lot to make legislators willing to publically accept blame and reverse positions, and I can't ask for much more from them to be done than what appears to be happening. I have not seen that degree of public support for the limitation or elimination of the PATRIOT Act from the Bush administration.
What if it were written with strict guidlines, would you still not like it?
I'd have to see a revised version. I can't make a claim of support or non-support without seeing what might go through.
I *do* think that there would probably have to be a couple of changes made:
* A replacement PATRIOT Act should be several broken-up bills, where individual power grants are each voted on. The bundling of elements in acts is where most of the abuses of our current legislative system seem to come from, and something that is very disturbing when it comes to altering protections civilians have against governmental abuse.
* I do not think I would agree to an act that allowed judicial bypass for wiretaps, with the following possible single proviso: If the FBI must obtain data *immediately*, the delay of which might pose grievious harm to the Unitd States and cannot afford judicial review, they may obtain the data now and undergo regular judicial review later. Such use would have to be periodically subject to an overview board, and could not be held secret. I doubt that this is a valid complaint, given that current wiretap orders can be granted within the day, but it's one of the few ways I can think of that PATRIOT might fail.
Re:And now.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I just wish there was a viable alternative to Kerry & Bush then I could remove endeavor to from the above statement.