U.S. House Votes to Extend Patriot Act 1137
Rick Zeman writes "In the wake of today's 4 dud bombings in London, the U.S. House has voted to extend the Patriot Act by a vote of 257-171. This includes 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on December 31, one allowing roving wiretaps, and another allowing searches of library and medical records."
Another knee-jerk reaction (Score:2, Interesting)
It won't get any better. (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Benjamin Franklin
Re:Hmmm. (Score:2, Interesting)
Terrorism... (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorism is just being used as an excuse for Bush to remove everyones rights.
Ok, here's a question or two... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why extend them?
Or to ask it in a more direct manner, exactly what terrorist activities have these bills stopped since they were enacted? Any?
What's the benefit? How has the Patriot act helped us so far?
Has it done any good at all yet - or is it just rights erosion for the expediency of law enforcement?
Re:Conspiracy theories anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
So we got the CIA and Mossad, Can anyone come up with a third gunman? It is traditional.
In Memoriam Habeas Corpus (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:2, Interesting)
But wait! This is America... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
GOD DAMMIT! (Score:2, Interesting)
"Oh we won't let them change how we live our lives..."
What do you think you just did?
Terrorists are horrible unspeakable evil, but sometimes stupid people in office due just as much damage.
*sigh*
And this is why... (Score:5, Interesting)
One of Osama's stated goals is to destroy, through holy war, America (the Great Satan). One of the things that made us great was our Constitution, that great document which protects our freedoms. Yet here goes the House of Representatives, doing exactly what bin Laden wants: Taking away our freedom. In fact, doing the one thing that Osama can never do. The only question I really want answered is, "House of Representatives: Who the heck are you representing?" Because I don't believe that the majority of America, let alone 60% of us, want the government to be able to get search warrants without a judge's consent. To force us to keep quiet about a search. To invade the privacy of our medical and library records.
And I don't want to hear any BS about 'it will only be used on/against terrorists.' This government, like any other, has abused/abuses almost every power it was ever given. And you think they'll pass up something as juicy, and so easy, and so incredibly tempting to abuse as this? Look at RICO. It was passed so the cops could bust meetings of mobsters. Now it's routinely used against groups of garden-variety criminals.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H L Mencken. Terrorism is a complex problem. We have to pull off a considerable juggling act: We have to try and defend ourselves against terrorists. We also have to make sure that we have a nation that is free and worth defending when we're done. We have to find and assauge the root cause of the hatred, because as Vietnam and now Iraq have demonstrated, superior technology can't defeat a foe with the power of conviction in his beliefs. And we have to reign in our collective ego, and not be too proud to admit that Iraq is a lost cause and that we should leave. And so far, our government is only keeping one ball in the air. The "Patriot" act is an answer that is clear, simple, and dead wrong.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Abba Eban.
"Most Democrats echoed that support but said they were concerned the law could allow citizens' civil liberties to be infringed." translate(BS, ENGLISH) == "The 43 Democrats who voted in favor secretly oppose it but have no spine or willpower to say so."
"While the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Of course not, dumbass. The threat will not recede until we (the Infidels) remove our troops from the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) because that's exactly what Osama expicitly stated! But America won't do that and we all know why.
"The House debate included frequent references to the attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts that killed 56, including four suicide bombers." Hmmm... could it be that THIS is what the London blasts were about?
Ugh... I am disgusted with this government beyond words.
Yah, and.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:::sigh:: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're a little late with that - freedom went out the door, oh, probably a hundred years ago when Lincoln became dictator. One could probably pick an earlier time, such as when John Adams revoked habeous corpus during Shay's Rebellion (if I got the right Adams).
It doesn't concern me any more. In due time, history shows, all empires get their comeuppance.
Your job is simply to avoid getting squashed in the comeuppance. Concentrate on that, not on trying to change history or primate human nature (unless you're working on nanotech.)
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:3, Interesting)
You make one serious mistake.
You imply that "our leaders" are merely mistaken in taking the actions of terrorists as justifications for removing rights. You imply that our "leaders" are merely incompetent.
Trust me - our "leaders" know goddamn well what they're doing this for - and it has NOTHING to do with some random Arab fanatics. That's only the cover story, the excuse. And it's likely they deliberately created the cover story as well, certainly by their policies in the Middle East for the last seventy five years.
The nature of the state is to constantly expand its powers until "everything that is not mandatory is forbidden."
I've described the basic concept of the state many times:
"You give us everything you have and do exactly what we tell you to do, and we'll protect you from the bad people on the inside and outside of our borders - and if there aren't any bad people, we'll make some."
That is the exact essence of the state and every single solitary person who works in it. It stems from the human primate hierarchy which in turn is based entirely on the fear of death. Which means every single human being has to tear down everybody above him and stomp on everybody below him, in order to please his primitive notions of deities who might then grant him more life.
In other words, humans are apes with a slightly better ability to conceptualize and no more control over their emotional states than a chimp.
Nothing but Transhumanism and the appropriate enabling technologies can change this.
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:5, Interesting)
The scary thing is that they're out there watching our government's reaction, gloating, and planning their next wave of attacks to see what sort of reactionary fascism they can goad our government into next. Not only did the terrorists win, but our government keeps encouraging them by doing exactly what they want---whittling away the freedoms of the United States through the politics of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, all in the name of combatting terrorism.
PATROIT act tactics have not worked in Britain against the IRA, or in Israel against various terror groups. They won't work in the United States, either. Unfortunately, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I fear that the American public does not learn from history. If that is the case, may God help us all.
In any case, congratulations, Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, et al. Never in the history of the world has anyone caved to terrorism so thoroughly and completely as the United States in the wake of 9/11. You should all be ashamed, and more to the point, you should all be impeached.
Sorry, but I (we) told you so (Score:4, Interesting)
Thus, the following exchange occurred many times with many different people.
Me: "So you're saying that you think this whole thing might be a bad idea in the long run?"
Them: "Yeah, but don't worry, everything sunsets in five years. The bill will expire and by that point the threat will have diminished to the point where it won't be needed any longer. Chill man. Stop being a Chicken Little about things."
Me: "Don't you realize that once the government gets more power that they are very unlikely to ever give it up again? Do you understand how many times this sort of thing has happened, where temporary measures such as taxes to fund wars, emergency powers and the like end up going on forever?
Them: "You have to wake up to this post -9/11 world we live in now. Things are different, we have to win this war on terrorism!"
Me: "How do you win a war against a tactic? Terrorism is here to stay, and if you let this bill come into law then it will be here to stay. There is zero doubt that reason will be found to keep it and use it as justification for further restrictive bills. Once the ball is rolling on this, it will be more or less impossible to stop."
Them: "Not more of that liberal alarmist BS..."
I had that conversation about 50,000 times, I'm sure many of you did as well. The cliche of a "slippery slope" is a cliche because it so often proves to be true. The PATRIOT Act was never going to expire and never will. Terrorism is too nebulous of a threat to ever go away. It can be brought out indefinitely to justify the permanence of such legislation, regardless of wether it is a truly valuable tool and one that respects the rights of all those who fall under its jurisdiction.
The rumblings of what comes after the PATRIOT Act have been a troubling sight on the horizon for the past few years now. Drafts have been circulated on Capitol Hill. They contain such provisions as being stripped of your natural-born citizenship by executive order upon being deemed an "enemy combatant" and various other items that you can read up on at non-tinfoil sites out there.
I'm not gloating that I was proved right. I'm depressed. I wanted little more than to see 2005 close with the likes of the PATRIOT Act in the rearview. To wake up from the nightmare that we've all descended into. The nightmare that is the kind of world we saw dawn on a September morning almost 4 years ago. Sheer unimaginable brutality delivered by surprise along the sense that worse was yet to come at some point, while we were forced to watch those we had entrusted with our safety play politics with it and make the power grabs that we have always dismissed as fantasies of lunatics on the fringes of society.
The actions of Al-Queda and governments around the world in response, were both examples of dramatic and unexpected reactions to external influences. Hoping that they were an aberration proved to be futile. They are now the new norm.
I think at this time the only thing that I can really say is that when the government pushes more legislation and word starts getting around about a new bill coming through the pipe, do not dismiss it with the usual "It will never get out of committee" or the equally as overused "It will never pass."
If by now, you haven't learned to grasp that you need to expect the unexpected, then the next 5 years look like they will be quite a ride for you.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Interesting)
We're no better than America, make no mistake about it. We have a dark, tainted history of our own to contend with.
Not that I'm ashamed to be Canadian, but some of our past and present is to be ashamed about.
Senate Bills (Score:1, Interesting)
"Earlier in the day, however, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a bill that goes significantly further in modifying the Patriot Act. It would require greater oversight of the Justice Department and would place new restrictions on secret searches and surveillance in terrorism probes [...] would allow people to challenge warrants approved by a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and would require that subjects of secret searches be notified within seven days unless an extension is approved by a judge."
This was an 18-0 vote in a committee which includes some of the Senate's most vocal conservatives (Jeff Sessions, Sam Brownback) and, on the flip side, some of its most liberal members (Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold). Feingold was the *only* Senator to vote against PATRIOT in 2001, and even he found this version palatable.
The bill which was reported out of committee was a substitute for S.1389. Thomas [loc.gov] should have this new version up in a day or two. PATRIOT is going to be reauthorized - that's a given. Accepting this, liberals and conservatives alike should be backing the Senate Judiciary version of this legislation. As the Post notes, it is significantly more contrained than any of the others under consideration.
Call your Senators and Representatives. Support S.1389, the Specter/Feinstein/Kyl USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.
Re:And this is why... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's exactly right. bin Laden has written quite a bit, and you can read much of it. [amazon.com] It's worth reading, because he's quite clear on what he wants to do, and made it clear a decade ago. It's striking how effectively Bush is doing what bin Laden wants.
Note that a similar strategy has been successful against Israel. Israel used to be a liberal, well-governed country. Ongoing terrorist attacks have resulted in hard-line governments, fanatical right-wing movements, and the mainstreaming of what used to be marginal religious positions.
Place blame where due.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It was the left who brought us the welfare state, which gave us a national ID system (they say Social Security numbers aren't part of a national ID system, but it IS a national ID in practice).
It was the left who supported massive government spending that could only be sustained through a government agency that tracks ALL your financial transactions, can request an financial record from any instutution you do buisness with without a judges permission, and can assume you are guilty of a crime until you are proven innocent.
It was the left who demanded that citizens be disarmed in violation of their constitutional rights.
It was the left (Wilson and Roosevelt), that built up our military for foriegn adventures, and who rounded up certain ethnic groups into prison camps (Good ol' FDR rounded up about 20,000 japanese).
It was the left who cheered on the police blowing up children in Waco Texas, and who demanded a whole slew of government programs to monitor "terrorist groups" (see, back then they expected the terrorist groups would be right-wing like OK City bomber, so it was OK to have a police state to go after THOSE criminals).
It was the left who pioneered the concept of "judicial activism" (i.e. Judges "creativly interpreting" the law in order to bring about desired political ends that doesn't have the support of the public to pass into law), which is now being used to attack abortion, or squelch protest.
It was the left that called for draconian police powers to be used against protesters (remember when it used to be right-wing anti-abortion protesters outside clinics who needed to be stoped? What, you didn't think all those laws restricting protest would be used against you!?)
Sure, Bush is a right-wing crazy. But if you are on the left, you have only yourself to blame for the situation. G. W. Bush isn't smart enough or talented enough or popular enough to have brought about some sort of drastic change in American policy since 9/11/2001. Our path to Facism has been paved by the polices and laws of left-wing socialists who have systematicly been disassembling our constitution and our freedoms for years, thinking that they were going to somehow be the benevolent dictators of a new state-run scoialist utopia to America.
Well, suprise suprise, things didn't turn out as you planned it, and now you are running and screaming like this is not somehow your fault.
If people want to be taken seriously opposing Bush , the Patriot Act, etc., etc., then you are going to have to take responsibility for what has happened. The left need to realize, and apologize, for giving all the tools to facism to G. W. Bush. Once people on the left accept their responsibility in this, then we can move on to worry about G. W. Bush.
Reichstag Fire: (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this strangely appropriate. Ideologies, not countries, always seems to be the common threat under which liberties are stolen by states.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:2, Interesting)
Whats happening now won't be felt for a long time (Score:2, Interesting)
The Patriot Act, and Canada's similar (but no where near as bad) Security Certificate Programme, give law enforcement officials the ability to imprision people indefinately without charge or proof or anything of the sort, so long as the government has deemed them a threat to national security.
There has been very few reported cases of these measures ever being used though. So it makes me wonder if the people who were indeed arrested are actuall threats. There are reasons why intelligence communities won't divulge any information. Even the slightest leak could be potentially dangerous and undermine a sensitive operation.
Now, a lot of people are saying that these new measures can be used against any anti government body, whether it be a terrorist, or just someone who is on the other side of the political spectrum. This idea is flawed. It's important to have the opposing political side. It is a risk to have it, but the gamble can pay out if you convince people that the other side is just stupid. We all see the left vs. right debates. The two sides NEED each other for power. They need to be able to show that they are better than the alternative. It's the way they control the mob.
So using the patriot act or anything else of the sort to eliminate opponents just wouldn't work out.
I still question certain government motives however. It's quite clear that north american governments are heavily influenced by corporations . The US turns a blind eye to the economy, Canada subsidizes bombardier and nortel and air canada with billions instead of investing into social programmes. The abuse of the freedom revoking laws would probally stem from such influences, and that worries me the most. Remember when the RIAA wanted to throw in anti piracy nonsense into the Patriot Act? It failed, but it's not the end.
If anything, it's corporate influence that has done more to revoke freedoms than terrorism....
Re:And the pot gets hotter. (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact there are two things you can learn from Hitler:
1) He was a basted, never let it happen again.
2) He went over the top too fast and tried to be too extreme, if he had just turned it down a little notch then many more people would have accepted him. sad but true.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.
And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:
"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"
Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.
But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.
They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now look, I'm no privacy crusader. I just want the government and the people on equal terms. The government in my opinion currently gets a lot more privacy rights than individuals. If for every bit of privacy they took away from us they simultaneously lost an equal percentage of thier own privacy I wouldn't give a damn--how you measure such things is another question entirely.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Wow, how stupid can you get. (Score:3, Interesting)
We used to be able to point and go "look at them silly yanks, isn't it funny" now we're in the same position with insane laws being pushed at us for no reason at all.
Only difference here is they admit it'll cost us £100 (per card ffs), even though we all know they'll do nothing.
If ID cards come into the country then I'll refuse to carry one and won't pay (if it's taxed then theres not much I can do about that). I'll carry my driving licence and my old college ID (both have pictures of me), but nothing more.
These things are as insecure as any other card and can/will be cloned and faked over and over. If I refuse to carry one and am in need of some emergency medical attenction (for example) I highlight doubt the NHS will refuse to fix me up if I don't have it on me. I can see on the other hand it being a lot of hassle to go see a doctor but I'm willing to make allownaces for what I see as idiotic government trying to force something they'll find profitable on us.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:1, Interesting)
We should not be building surveillance technology into standards. Law enforcement was not supposed to be easy. Where it is easy, it's called a police state.
-- Jeff Schiller, 1999-10-12
Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy.
-- Orson Welles
Re:^^give it five minutes (Score:4, Interesting)
It's incredibly good. Even though it's not trying to be bullet-proof the whole time, that doesn't make those points any less valid.
EVERYONE should see it, and at the very least THINK about what it presents. I personally think it's amazingly accurate and expounds upon a lot of what I've had going through my mind lately.
Burn CDs/DVDs of it and give them to your friends.
~Lake
Re:It's for the children! (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you even read the document that you linked to? No where does that document even mention enemy combatants. What it does do is give the President war powers within the scope of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Not the US, not Congress, not the Courts, the President. See "SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES." (My emphasis added) If you'll read that, you should notice that it gives the President complete authority to use any action he deems appropriate even for individual 'persons' so there is no oversight provided by Congress - besides, they're the ones that passed Public Law 107-40! Not to mention the fact that the PATRIOT Act removes judicial review in many cases.
Oh, and the PATRIOT Act does in fact have provisions for detaining people see: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156665&ci
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Interesting)
Ha! I invite you to come on down to New Jersey, where each municipality gets to write their own zoning and planning laws. Yeah, it sounds great.. the local people get to decide what they want their town to be, blah blah.
In reality, it means there are 600+ different sets of regulations that can vary wildly. And this is just New Jersey. Multiply that across 50 states. You haven't reduced ANY red tape.
Furthermore, especially in North Jersey the municipalities are so small that a town may not actually have control over their own town! If, for instance, the neighboring towns don't want to limit development, but a main throughfare passes through the town, they're going to have the increased traffic from the development of the surrounding towns, despite the fact that they have limited development in their own town specifically to avoid this.
I'm not saying local rule should be eliminated. I'm saying that it is not the panacea that it's made out to be. Centralized government avoids these games that municipalities and states play against each other. Take tax breaks.. after 9/11, Citibank was going to move their HQ out of NYC (not due to 9/11.. it was just the timing). To combat this, Bloomberg gave them massive tax breaks. So, the residents of NJ or CT or elsewhere are hurt because Citibank doesn't move (as might have happened with a freer market). The residents of NYC are hurt because not only are they losing the tax revenue (which they would have lost anyway if Citibank left), but they keep the burden of Citibank on their infrastructure! It's a Lose/Lose/Lose situation. Except for Citibank, of course. Some people speculate that Citibank was never going to move and that they hinted at it just to get the tax breaks from the city.