Congress Expands FBI Powers 954
Dave writes "Well, since the Patriot Act II never got off the ground, looks like Congress has done the Justice Department a favor, according to Wired News, and added in some of the most controversial provisions into a non-descript intelligence spending bill. Now the FBI can subpoena information about you from practically any business or organization - without approval or permission from a judge, and with a gag order on the targeted organization. These spending bills are generally considered confidential and usually are not subject to public debate, so despite the far-reaching implications of these new powers, it's not being publicized like the Patriot Act was. Time to get out my patriotic hat and pin before it's too late."
who can stop this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:3, Interesting)
threaten to vote against him
start donating to his campaign when he does something right
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
How far do you want to go with this? And are you imagining the probable unintended consequences while you make that decision?
You could disallow donations to political offices, but continue to allow people and groups to advertise for politicians they approve of, in which case the current practice of "people give money to candidate or party, which buys political advertising with it" will just get replaced with "people buy political advertising directly". Washington will still be ruled by money, but now it'll be exclusively money from large contributors who can afford commercial time, instead of individual contributors.
You could also disallow whatever you define as "political advertising" entirely, in which case (aside from the obvious First Amendment problems) people's opinions will be influenced by "the news" instead, and the segment of money which rules Washington will be restricted further: to those corporations large enough to own news outlets and slant the reporting they provide.
It's not as if your Senators are whoring for campaign contributions to pay for their new mansion or yacht; those campaign contributions pay for the propaganda that gets fed to voters before election day and keeps the best funded candidates in office. Any attempt to limit that propaganda will just end up as a limit on free speech. If you want to reduce the influence of money on politics, the only way to do so is with an informed electorate who will be less susceptible to expensive advertising when deciding who to vote for. What's worse, producing an informed electorate will have to happen from the ground up. You won't find any easy "campaign finance reform" answers: try and anticipate the unintended consequences of "matching funds" type ideas (hint: most involve increased barriers to entry for independent and third party candidates), for example, and you'll see why.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Vote against them? Sure. But the way the elections are structured there are only two viable candidates, and the opposition will come up with someone who is even worse. Condorcet voting would solve this, but is there any belief that we'll ever see that, even at the local election level?
I find myself perpetually amazed that some people are able to actually be in favor of even one of the candidates that we are presented with. Most, however, are just choosing the lesser of two evils, and knowing as they do so that they are still choosing evil. This appears to happen all the way from the local level up to the federal level, but the degree of evil increases as you get one person "representing" a larger and larger populace. I suppose that it's better than the local baron fighting the folk in the next barony over, but it sure isn't good.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look at all the various checks and balances in the constitution (and the Bill of Rights), it does a wonderful job of restricting Powers and ensuring that each branch of the government has some way to control the others... except that Money can be used to override all of them.
Sure, you have to have a majority vote by representatives to do thing X, but since those with the most money are leaning on the reps, guess which way the votes go?
Yeah, the judicial system doesn't accept bribes... but the dockets are done via percieved urgency, and again money makes a thing seem more important, or can make lots of other things jump ahead of a thing.
The executive branch might be ok, but in each place that government money is controlled, private funding and personal wealth of the members can be used, and thus again ensure that money wins.
Until some way to control the amount of money spent on a given bit of legislation (or to bury it) is found... that will be how things work. The only hope of the common man is that ENOUGH of us all stop spending LONG enough to have a noticeable impact on the wallets of these people. Not an easy thing to do in this day and age.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Americans are restricted in what we can give to candidates for office. However, we can donate either a very large or unlimited ammount to special interest groups, which can donate large ammounts or just run ads for a certain candidate. Attempts to restirct this have actually lost in court, up to the supreme court (highest court in the USA) because such restrictions violate free speach.
Instead, we have "quid pro quo" laws which make it illegal for elected officials to actually do anything which favors the people they have accepted donations for. The standard of proof seems to be, basically, a direct link between the donation and the action. Obviously, proving this is absurdly difficult.
Example: anti-abortion group seeks to donate money to candidate. They just ask around until they find someone in a tight race who is anti-abortion. They give that person money. Person wins and votes against abortion rights. Obviously, there is no case here. The person already decided what they felt and then took the money. Sure, they might have been more vocal, spent more time or effort or pulled in more favors for abortion than they would have otherwise.
Other example: energy company wants tax break. Donates to a candidate who has no background in energy policy at all. Perhaps has never voted on an energy bill. Candidate wins and pushes for tax break for energy company. How can one prove that that is not what the candidate origionally believed? Most likely, the candidate is anti-tax to begin with. Aren't they all?
Discussion of this issue in America has become exteremely jaded. On NPR (national public radio, in America) on the fairly conservative finance program (Marketplace) I have heard repeated references to business "getting what they are paying for" from congress, and repeated references to "bought and paid for" politicians. I don't listen (radio/tv) to much coverage of congress, but I have heard Democrats accuse Republicans of quid pro quo, to which the republican simply replied your side does it, too.
Further, ads from special interest groups (SIGs) in favor of a candidate are not supposed to have any input from that candidate. This is apparently violated constantly.
These politicans should be beyond reproach, yet most are obviously taking bribes. How can we change that, and stay within the constitution?
1. Force politicians to recuse themselves from any decision in which they have an interest, including having an ad run for them by an interest group.
1a. All ads for a candidate should be subject to veto by that candidate.
Want a pro-abortion SIG to endorse you? Fine. You can't vote on any abortion issues for the next term of office.
2. Ads run against a particular candidate must pay to provide equal time to the candidate, available directly after the ad, to rebut the ad without pentalty of recusion on the topic, e.g. without regard to (1) above.
2a. If any significant connections can be made between the candidate and the ad run against the candidate, the candidate forfits the reply time. Instead it would be used to indicate the connection.
This is needed to prevent candidates from putting up "straw man" arguments against themselves and then attacking such ads in the free time allowed. Now, you might think that's crazy but actually this happens already in City of Los Angeles politics.
3. Disallow corporations from any form of political donations or speach. Corporations do not have the right to vote, only real people do, thus there is precedence for disallowing them political speach.
Sure, you can make an organization to promote any political cause you want, say the environment. You can take donations from anyone you want. You can run ads for any candidate you want, discussion them and the environment. Then they have to recuse themselves from any votes on that topic, b
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which differs from the current situation how?
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know we have a wonderful history of attaching riders and pork barrel legislation in congress, but isn't it about time we took steps to abolish such things? I have a hard time seeing any benefit to such practices anymore. Bills should address a single problem, should be clearly named/described, and should always be made available for public analysis - The U.S. government has much more capacity to ruin the lives of U.S. citizens than any band of "terrorists" ever will, there is no justification for refusal of public disclosure of laws or proposed laws affecting U.S. citizens, period. There is no valid reason for a spending bill to have this kind of legislation attached, period.
In relation to this bill, I fail to see how having this additionaly capacity will help prevent "terrorism" moreso than what the FBI already has. Lack of information was not the problem in 9/11 - lack of correctly addressing the known information was. In any proposed expansion of powers such as this one should have to affirmatively answer the question "would the powers in question, if granted, have prevented an event like 9/11". The answer in this case is no, thus indicating ulterior motives for this legislation, and subsequently the undesireability of the proposed legislation.
Then again appealing to common sense seems to have become a waste of time in regard to the U.S. government.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunatly, if you rise up against the US Government, you are a terrorist, and such a movement would likely be crushed by the military, which is mostly right-wing. A guerilla war against the government and popular uprising would be required.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The key here is that unarmed civilians marching in large numbers are a whole lot more difficult to shoot at than a bunch of loonies with guns.
But then, it means that americans need to get off their fat asses, which is not going to happen any time soon.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:3, Insightful)
My job ISN'T to stop citizens from revolting, it's to protect the constituition. I'd hope many of my follow soldiers would recall stuff like Kent State and do what is right rather than what they're told. As far as I'm concerend our government is going WAY to far with the crap it's coming up with. That's why first of all, I'm going to VOTE. It's not going to be for a democrat, but I wish ther
Re:who can stop this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to Lincoln.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Only in New Hampshire:C'mon up, the snow's just about to start.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:3, Informative)
Plus New Hampshire is the new home of the libertarian Free State Project.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like getting a choice between Windows ME and Windows 98SE.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans are evil, Democrats are stupid. Bipartisanship means something stupid AND evil...
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Never ascribe to evil that which can just as easily be mere incompetence. (or something similar).
I think both parties are stupid. True evil actually requires a degree of intelligence, which I certainly haven't seen from either party.
--Jeremy
As someone once said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:3, Informative)
(Just FYI: While a little less than 50% voted, it only took 17% of eligible voters to actually elect the President)
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
One told me I was insane for caring. "This went on in the 1950s and nothing bad happened why should you care now?"
Another said, "Well, I have lived a bit, traveled, moced about, have and have had friends on both sides of the law, have worked inside and outside of law enforcement, have been the victim of FBI intimidation when fighting racial hate crimes, have a Criminal Justice degree and completed half of law school, and with all that still find myself a free and able individual with nothing to fear from the law. So, no, I don't think you are being realistic."
When we have people that honestly believe this is for their benefit it will only get worse. It is truly a sad day when people choose to ignore history and believe that flag waving, rights waiving, non-sense that is fed to us daily by a near facist government.
Just my worthless
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
We are being told what to do be a single entity (the current regime), we are having the FBI look into demonstrations and their leaders as to stop possible terroism during those (and of course it is under the guise that it is for the good of the people protesting), we are told to go to a country and fight for its freedom to protect our own, and I don't even want to get into the racial profiling going on everyday regarind terrorism.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Interesting)
They can only acquire information that exists... As more people and organisations become aware that this is happening, more information will become "disconnected" - for example, ISPs will only record that Mr.Sixpack paid $X for Internet service, but there will be no record of the websites he visited, or the people he exchanges email with. Corporate policies will require that logs of all kinds only be kept as aggregate numbers, if at all.
Alternatively, people will realize that you can fight fire with fire, and every possible item of data will be recorded, on paper, so that if the Powers-That-Be subpoena information, they'd get a response that would make SCO's million lines of printout look trivial.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Over half of the citizens of the US don't vote, so they HAVE COMPLETELY CONSENTED to being fucked in the ass by their politicians.
So who are we going to blame for this? Let's start with the people who don't vote.
Re:who can stop this? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Did you vote? Did you do your best to become informed about the issues and candidates?
- Do you know who your representatives are? Do you know what they stand for? Do you know their voting record?
- Do you give money to organizations that support your beliefs?
- Do you give money to politicians that support your beliefs?
- Do you volunteer to support those groups or politicians?
People will tell you that you can't make a difference, that democracy is for the rich, that the elections are fixed and the candidates are identical, so voting is moot anyway. Those people are trying to control you; to make you so numb and so confounded that you do nothing. Listen to those people, and you are guaranteed to not make a difference."By the people, for the people" means that WE are in charge of running the country, and we as a people have been asleep at the wheel for too long. Democracy works best when the citizens do their best to participate. Conversely, it works poorly when people feel disenfranchised, get an "I hate politics and refuse to pay attention to it" attitude, and watch TV instead.
Four Boxes. Use them in the order specified. (Score:5, Insightful)
*applause*
Our society can be changed (for better or for worse) through the use of four boxes. Soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.
What the kook you're replying to so desperately needs to understand is that there are some Damn Good Reasons why the four boxes are intended to be used in the right order.
Re:Four Boxes. Use them in the order specified. (Score:5, Insightful)
We get gun control laws first, because noone "sane" would notice - they never get that far because it's not that bad yet.
Then, once there's enough gun control to make armed resistance too difficult to pull off, they start neutering the jury - re-working laws so jury notification can't happen, and twisting the legal system's procedures around until only idiots and sheep can get appointed to an actual trial jury.
Then they start disenfranchising everyone, finally moving on to trickery and outright ballot manipulation to get their way.
Then they start going after the protesters.
Sneak up slow enough, and you won't even be able to tell what's happening - after all, it's not like it's much worse than our parents had it, right?
So.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll probably disappear now that I posted this, because I'm sort of enemy fucking combatant for disagreeing with the abuse of power...
Absolutely Fabulous! (Score:5, Funny)
I back this 100% (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Damon,
Time to move to Canada... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am saddened and ashamed of our government. While I don't expect to like everything the government does, I do expect to have a government that operates in the open. Otherwise we're no better than the corrupt regimes that we criticise.
M
Re:Time to move to Canada... (Score:3, Informative)
Now, having glanced through the article, there is not even a show of the vote. Are you going to tell me that every member of the Congress who voted for this is in a conspiracy with the Executive Branch?
Everybody should just relax (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everybody should just relax (Score:4, Funny)
When you say... (Score:5, Funny)
Too late? I'm afraid I have to tell you that it's a few years too late. Ashcroft has already subpoenaed your purchase records, and already knows that you don't have that there patriotic hat and pin, now, when it really counts.
Sorry, bub, but you're screwed.
Conservatives Sell Out Again (Score:5, Insightful)
All of this conservative rhetoric about the government as a bunch of jack booted thugs, and now, they go and do exactly what they claim to oppose.
After three years of total Republican rule, we have the largest and most intrusive government ever. So much for limited government and free enterprise out of the so-called party of limited government and free enterprise.
Re:Conservatives Sell Out Again (Score:5, Interesting)
If, however, you view the singular goal of the Republican party as the expropriation of taxpayer wealth for the enrichment of the entrenched industrial elite, and all of the cultural conservatism and libertarian rhetoric as tactics to achieve this goal, then this has been the most successful Republican administration ever.
Re:Conservatives Sell Out Again (Score:4, Insightful)
You left out the systematic undermining of the constitutional separation of powers, the co-option of the media into the ruling elite, and widespread voting irregularities, but other than that, it's a pretty good summary. I'm also hardly the first one to mention it (see http://www.michaelmoore.com or http://www.deanforamerica.com).
Re:Conservatives Sell Out Again (Score:3, Informative)
I suppose the Smurfs and Dr. Evil also figure in somehow to this vast cauldron of deception and subversion too, eh? I mean, if they can hide such a large operation for that long, they can surely integrate fictional evil scientists and blue midgets too, right?
Hee.
What you can do about it (Score:5, Informative)
ii) Join the ACLU.
iii) Convince your employer to destroy all non-essential records of employee or customer transactions.
iv) vote, and convince all of your friends to vote, in the next federal election cycle.
v) If all else fails, vote with your feet. Canada is close by.
Re:What you can do about it (Score:3, Funny)
v) If all else fails, vote with your feet. Canada is close by.
As a Canuck speaking: "EX-cellent..."
No.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'm tired of being so certian that I'm right that I sit smugly back an do the bare minimum (if anything at all). Those radical hippies have turned me off on politics, but maybe
Not enough people care enough to make this stop (Score:4, Interesting)
How can we help put the implications of things like this in face of more people and move them to action? It seems like an impossible task...
Re:Not enough people care enough to make this stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Spot on comment about Joe Sixpack. What will get his attention is when all those NRA-endorse politicians start sneaking in gun control under the guise of "protecting us all from terrorism."
Just a big fat MHO, but I think those silly yellow-orange-red alerts are just as terrorizing to the American public as some dude hiding in a cave in southeast Afghanistan.
Timely (Score:5, Informative)
Given this recent revelation [smh.com.au], I'm sure everyone is ready to trust the FBI with greater power and lesser accountability:)
It's really a shame though. I know a lot of the people working there are quite professional and care about doing a good job and protecting the Constitution of the United States, the ideals that make America a good place.
But after the legacy of Hoover misusing the agency many decades ago, evidently missing the boat on predicting the 9/11 catastrophe, the last thing they need is this kind of power handed to them by higher ups. Those superiors are political appointees with a vision for enforcement that shares more with authoritarian states than with the principles America was founded upon.
If I was a mid-level bureaucrat in the FBI, I'd make efforts to establish accountability policies, citizen review boards, etc. even if the current administration doesn't think they're necessary.
If they don't this, then they can be assured of getting tarred and feather during Congressional hearings 5-10 years from now, much like what happened to the CIA in the late 1970's.
Bomb (Score:4, Funny)
Now, imagine that each time this entry crosses the Internet, government keyword parsers are triggered and the entire TCP session gets flagged for later review.
Reload often for maximum government annoyance!
John Titor at work...again (Score:4, Interesting)
The link to that site has been posted quite a few times in /.'s discussions. He claimed that he was a Time Traveller from 2036. Among the "predictions" he made back in 2000, was the Black hole research at CERN, the Chinese Man mission, the Iraq war, the Columbia disaster, and most importantly the VAST increase in powers that the US Government gave itself to suppress citizens.
The last one supposedly leads to a US Civil war in 2004. I might have laughed at his posts in 2000, but with these more and more frightening developments, I can't help but wonder.
An interesting read nevertheless.
Re:John Titor at work...again (Score:4, Interesting)
Want more disturbing news? Bush just signed a $401.3 billion defense bill. (Defense? Attack? whatever...) Included in the bill: "Lifts a decade-old ban on research into low-yield nuclear weapons and authorizes $15 million for continued research into a powerful nuclear weapon capable of destroying deep underground bunkers."
from http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/24/bush.ap
Getting a Democrat in there won't suffice... (Score:5, Insightful)
American Dream? (Score:3, Insightful)
(That may sound like a troll if you haven't read the.. what's it called? oh ya.. Constitution)
Thank God For The 2nd Amendment (Score:5, Funny)
And when the 4th Amendment no longer protects your privacy or your suff.
Thank God we have the 2nd Amendment to tell our elected representatives that enough is enough.
It's time to put "... from my cold, dead hands" back where it belongs.
Re:Thank God For The 2nd Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
The issue isn't the arms, the issue is to get enough people to stand up. The world just saw a peaceful revolution in Georgia the other day.
Try that instead. Get a million people walking unarmed to the White House and take it over. If they start shooting at unarmed civilians, then you know you live under a tyranny, and other tactics may be in place. But before you've tried that. talking about a violent revolt is just wrong.
Re:Your Semi-Automatic Will Not Be Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, the "piddling attacks" in Iraq ARE upsetting the current regime. If the US can't keep order there, imagine trying to keep order in a vastly larger country, and more important, maintaining Big Business (tm) in such a condition of "piddling attacks".
time-limited disclosure (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, time-limited disclosure. If the FBI think that I'm channeling funds to a terrorist organisation and want to get hold of my paypal records to check on that then fair enough. And if they don't want me to know that they've tried to do it, then fair enough too. Until they establish that I'm not a terrorist. At which point, I want to know what's been happening. So have time-limited secrecy. By default, any use of these powers could be disclosed 3 months (say) after it occurred, unless the investigators have appealled to a higher authority to keep it secret.
Frivolous abuse of power is then discouraged (because every investigation that fails to find anything interesting is published) and systematic abuse of power is at least partly discouraged (because if you want to cover up what's happening, you're going to have to get a judge to agree to it after 3 months).
Very nice. (Score:5, Interesting)
1) FBI can subpoena information about you from practically any business or organization
2) without approval or permission from a judge
3) a gag order on the targeted organization
4) spending bills are generally considered confidential and usually are not subject to public debate
5) not being publicized
Goddammit, why is it that so much of the science fiction I read is coming true? Just recently, I decided to read Starship Troopers, where the whole damn book is about how the 20th century democracies failed leading to a system that voluntary military service had to be completed before a person became a citizen.
I won't even mention 1984 (oops) or Farenheight 451 (oops again!).
This shit has been predicted for over 50 years, now! The visionaries spoke and were ignored.
New Topic name needed (Score:5, Funny)
CB
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Free and democratic? (Score:5, Interesting)
What bugged me was that he feels he needs to keep saying it. Ever notice that China is officially the "People's Republic of China" despite very little representation for or by the people? Then there's the "Democratic Republic of Congo", which isn't democratic. And let's not forget the "Democratic People's Republic of [North] Korea"--a 2-for-1 deal there.
My 2 cents: the more someone feels the need to use rhetoric to hammer a point, the less that point happens to be true.
Go out now and buy lots and lots of guns (Score:4, Troll)
The number of protesters will continue to grow year after year after year, until what happened in the soviet union in georga happens here. People will get tired of the bullshit and getting no straight answer and with the goverment giving itself ample time to play with the system.
Seriously, think california's ballot system will be fixed by 2k5? I sure don't. How long can a geek keep a stupid person fixated?
"We want electronic voting."
Nerd: Sure, I'll make it.
1 year passes
"Um...you didn't do it right. We want it to check for security and work properly when tallying."
Nerd: The tech is still developing. Give it another year.
1 year passes
"Still isn't working properly."
Nerd: I'll get on it right away
Yet another year later
"We want you to print out the ballot to proove it tallies correctly, some landslide elections look suspicious"
Nerd: Ok, but it'll take awhile for everyone to change their systems, give it 2 years.
2 years pass for the implementation of printers.
"but now the ballot is printing out with the correct vote but it isn't being tallied, I want it to be tallied too."
Nerd: I didn't know you wanted it to be tallied, ok.
"Um..now it's stored on an insecure medium and broadcasted on an insecure medium, and the votes are still coming in wrong. Fix it."
Nerd: Ok, but I'll need another few years to fix it as well.
2 more years pass.
"Um, now the master server isn't working right, can you fix that?"
Nerd: Sure. Gimme a few months...
And by this time, everyone loves a certain party and the other party is somehow out of power. But nobody cares, all the elections are fixed and nobody said "that's enough, fix it and fix it now or we're going back to regular ballot until something that works comes along".
So do something about it now, pussy! (Score:3, Funny)
You want to revolt, then grow a spine and do it. Stop yapping and act already.
Each television season gets increasingly boring, so we could do with a good high farce or slapstick comedy, even if its on the news.
Oh, and I already own lots and lots of guns, so watch your back for the counter-revolutionary terror, Sparky. ;-)
Definition of "financial institution" (Score:4, Funny)
Seems a bit all encompassing to me. I think I sold lemonade at a "financial institution" on my street corner when I was six.
We've since gotten rid of all of our records of transactions. I hope the FBI doesn't come looking for any of them.
Freedom and Terror lecture by Prof. David D. Cole (Score:4, Interesting)
"Freedom and Terror: September 11th and the 21st Century Challenge Freedom"
by Professor David D. Cole, Georgetown University Law Center
Real Player stream [umich.edu]
The lecture is available by webstream on demand:
http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/webstream.htm
For more information on the Academic Freedom Lecture
Series please see:
http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/AFL/afllecture.html
----
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't trade unionists.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemoeller, Lutheran Pastor.
tacked-on legislation (Score:3, Interesting)
[quote]Justice Department officials tried earlier this year to write a bill to expand the Patriot Act. A draft -- dubbed Patriot II -- was leaked and caused such an uproar that Justice officials backed down. The new provision inserts one of the most controversial aspects of Patriot II into the spending bill.[/quote]
Why is this process allowed? Why can an article that is completely unrelated to the bill be tacked on, and passed as a whole? "A spoon-ful of sugar helps the medicine go down", I suppose.
Methinks tactics like this should be outlawed, as it can create a conflict of interest: "I don't really like section Z of this bill, but if I don't pass the rest of this bill my constituents will be livid and throw me out of office..."
Re:protecting self (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't realize that Bush was in Congress.
Re:More? (Score:5, Interesting)
don't trust me. trust the sf chroncial
fbi scrutinizing anti-war protestors [sfgate.com]
choice quote:
Particularly chilling, he said, was the use of the phrase "training camps'' to describe instruction on nonviolence given to demonstrators. That phrase is often used to describe terrorist training sites.
i predict with these new powers the fbi will be surveilling all suspiscious "training camp" attendees such as major league baseball players.
Re:More? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apples and oranges (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm... leave it to the FBI to see a "human chain" as a threat. Here's another one:
So let's see here: we can't videotape the cops because they feel "intimidated," but of course the same doesn't apply to police, who routinely videotape [ftaaimc.org] activists. In fact, videotaping and photographing the police is essential to stopping police repression [ftaaimc.org] of peaceful protests.
And using the internet to "raise funds" and "coordinate activities" is suspicious?
I guess I should just turn myself in.
Re:More? (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference, of course, being that "hippies" that set fire to things have committed a punishable offense and drawn the justified attention of law enforcement. Peaceably assembling, however, whether you, the FBI, and anybody else who thinks the government should be allowed to run amok likes it or not, is not a crime and, therefore, law enforcement has exactly NO business poking its nose into those peaceful demonstrators' lives. Milling about with the protestors to make sure they stay in line is one thing. Actively engaging in snooping into their lives is not only quite another, it's highly disturbing behavior from a government that's growing less and less interested in what "the People" care about and what their best interests are.
What do you mean by "some proactive measures"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fine with the cops PROACTIVELY having vehicles strategically placed to remove any individuals who break the law.
I'm fine with the cops PROACTIVELY having cells set aside for possible law breakers.
I'm fine with the cops PROACTIVELY having riot gear assigned prior to any demonstrations.
I am NOT fine with cops spying on citizens that have NOT broken ANY laws.
The laws that we HAD were a result of past abuses by the authorities.
Now we're seeing those protections removed.
Do a google search on:
fbi bomb bari
Educate yourself about your government's activities.
Re:More? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see this reference as too far off.
Yea, blocking people from going into a federal building and blowing one up. That's pretty much the same thing, huh? While we're at it, I suppose you're going to tell me that stealing a candy bar and killing the shop owner are about the same thing, right?
Re:More? (Score:5, Insightful)
When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;
When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;
When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf."
Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
In reference to the Nazi governments
policy towards 'dissidents'
Re:More? (Score:5, Funny)
> When they came for the socialists, I was silent, because I was not a socialist;
> When they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest, because I was not a trade unionist;
> When they came for the Jews, I did not protest, because I was not a Jew;
> When they came for me, there was no one left to protest on my behalf."
>
>Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984) In reference to the Nazi governments policy towards 'dissidents'
Now if only they'd come for the trite and the histrionic :-)
Re:More? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully they'll come for the carelessly apathetic first.
--
There are three kinds of people:
Those who make things happen.
Those who watch thing happen.
Those who wonder what the hell just happened.
Re:More? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More? (Score:3, Informative)
Think I'm kidding? It happened [pmachinehosting.com] in the southern part of my state. Indiana is very very very right wing, so this doesn't surprise me. I had to move to Indy to get away from the bible beating do-as-we-say-or-go-to-hell crowd.
yeah, I like hyphens, they're fun.
Re:Hmm... weren't the Lutherans Nazi cheerleaders? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which makes it more relevent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you assume that belief was still held by Lutherans in the Nazi era and specifically by this Pastor, that only makes the quote more poignant.
You must not only stand up for the freedom of those groups who you aren't a member of, you must also stand up for the freedom of those groups who you don't like.
Re:More? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, jackalope, that the US Constitution was set up *specifically* to avoid the type of government that the current administration is turning into. Given a paranoid executive, an ever-expanding budget, and completely unfettered ability to act, any government investigative organization will inevitably begin to maintain files on every citizen of that country. The potential for blatant misuse and corruption is enormous and, again, one of the things the Constitution was specifically designed to prevent.
However, since the Constitution appears to the current US government to be only so much ancient toilet paper, this comes as no surprise. What remains encouraging are a few semi-enlightened souls in Congress who seem resistant (although not nearly enough for my tastes).
Re:More? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More? (Score:5, Insightful)
KGB = Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (Committee for State Security, USSR)
It's not a matter of if the files will be seen by people.
Re:More? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the US they'd have elected him to office!
Re:More? (Score:5, Insightful)
ALL of them could be locked up for being "corrupt". But the police chose to only arrest the one man who was too "liberal". Amazingly enough, all the other corrupt crime bosses got a pass.
I say this to illustrate what is wrong about "law and order" police states. It all depends on who the leaders choose to prosecute. With careful selection, you can eliminate all your political enemies, and reign supremely corrupt forever.
Who of Enron is in jail? Seven billion stolen by fraud, stolen while the administration cheerled them on and blamed hippies for shutting down power plants. But somehow, the Justice Department has time to raid a cathouse in New Orleans and slam Tommy Chong in federal prison for selling plastic tubes.
It all depends on who you choose to see committing a crime. The crew who enabled Enron in California kicked out the only man who fingered them as the guilty party, and now control the governor. Wanna bet the Enron lawsuit gets dropped now? No criminals exist if no one prosecutes.
Re:Vote for Republicans. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are for less government regulation remember? (oh wait)
They are for less spending. (oh wait)
They are for the little guy. (oh wait)
You know, for those reasons and others, I voted Republican in '96 and would have again in '00 if my car hadn't broken down on election day. I voted for the guy in my district (Jack Kingston) that voted yes.
At this moment, I am ashamed of saying that. It's as if the entire purpose of the Republican and Democratic parties have shifted completely to the opposite since Bush was elected.
The Republicans are now the liberals, wanting to change every damned law in a way that contradicts their original purpose so they can micromanage people's lives. The democrats are now the conservatives fighting to keep the laws as they were intended. God, even Bob Barr (R-GA) joined the ACLU after losing his district in the redistricting of Georgia.
Anyone wondering why this is a big deal, you need to ask yourself one question. What does the Justice Dept have to hide that makes them so determined to avoid citizen oversight? What are they doing that the people won't like?
Here's a list of who voted yea and nay. [house.gov]
You have completely missed the point. (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless if anyone has been
Re:This is blown way out of proportion (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you make legal what was previously illegal, it's not a violation anymore.
That's what people are complaining about.
Re:This is blown way out of proportion (Score:5, Insightful)
* Not defending the actions of Jose Padilla (whatever they may have been), just believing he should have the right to a fair trial like every other citizens
Re:This is blown way out of proportion (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone guess Zero? Because thats exactly how many violations there have been.
I don't think very highly of the ill-informed knee-jerk reactionaries and scaremongers that tend to populate every YRO story here, but I don't find this rebuttal to their rhetoric any more convincing.
We can't know whether the Patriot Act powers have ever been abused or not. All we can know is that zero abuses of the Patriot Act HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED.
No matter how many eyes it has on it, Open source software can still contain bugs. Open government is no different.
I still think they're both generally better than the alternatives.
Re:who's more paranoid? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are lying [truthout.org].
Re:Just remember everyone... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that I agree with you on that. Americans are pissed and I think they'll stay pissed. They still feel particularly misled about going to Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein from selling WMD to terrorists. No WMD have turned up, and the evidence linking Iraq to US-terrorism are weak at best (however, if I recall correctly, Hussein was offering a $60,000 stipend to families of Palestinian suicide bombers hitting Isreali targets). Furthermore, Americans are pissed that Bush went into Iraq, guns ablazin', with no exit strategy other than to ask Congress for more money -- this is still leaving a horrible taste in the mouths of voters (it will continue to unless he fixes it). There is also the matter of Cheeny hiring his former firm to take a large chunk of rebuilding Iraq with no RFP issued. Americans are sick of his rhetoric -- every time this guy is asked the tough questions about Iraq, he spews out the same "I don't know anyone in their right mind who thinks the world would be better off with this guy in power". His response doesn't answer the question, and all that it does is makes it clear to me that in Bush's mind, the ends certainly justify the means.
In order to get re-elected, Bush will have to pull some serious rabbits out of his hat. Specifically, he'll have to show some pretty convincing evidence of WMD in Iraq and get Iraq settled with the majority of our troops out of Iraq with an Iraqi government in power.
Unless he fixes these issues, there's no amount of campaign spending that will erase the memory of Bush's fuckups in foreign policy. He's got all the rope he needs -- I'm certain that he'll finish the job of hanging himself. After a presidency like this one (the next year notwithstanding), you must think that all of your fellow countrymen are a bunch of assholes if you think that they'll vote for this guy again. Living in America my whole life (and being an American), I've met a fair number of other Americans in a fair number of regions. Most of the ones I met seem like pretty nice, intelligent people. I sure as hell hope for my sake that they can put 2 and 2 together on this one. I think that they will.
PS -- FWIW, I don't think that we'll do much better with Democrats in the White House.