ACLU Campaign Challenges Patriot Act

Nept sent in a pointer to this story about the ACLU starting a media campaign challenging the PATRIOT Act. Good to hear.

Yes!

[Junky191]

From the article: Ashcroft: "I consider it my job as attorney general to make sure that this and all our freedoms endure"

Which freedoms endure exactly? Ones like not being able to round up US citizens and hold them in perpetuity without charges? Or maybe the freedom to be free from unreasonable search & seizure?

Sorry, but the only freedom I see consistently protected is my country is the freedom to use as much damn oil as you please.

Re:Yes!

[ztc]

That quote is taken a bit out of context. Depending on how you read into it, he may actually be saying that he believes its his job to ensure freedoms such as free speech endure (which the ACLU is exercising.)

The whole quote is:

"I'm glad I live in a country where the ACLU can criticize me and vigorously debate the issues," Ashcroft says. "I consider it my job as attorney general to make sure that this and all our freedoms endure."

Re:Yes!

[lambadomy]

I don't see any context issues here. In "this and all our freedoms", "this" refers to freedom of speech, and "all our freedoms" should refer to every other one, including ones that were taken away or changed by the patriot act.

Re:Yes!

[zoobee]

"I'm glad I live in a country where the ACLU can criticize me and vigorously debate the issues," Ashcroft says. "I consider it my job as attorney general to make sure that this and all our freedoms endure."


My take on this statement is of a cynic. Ashcroft, the divinely inspired AG of US of A, reeks of hypocisy here. If he were that concerned about the preservation of our *freedoms*, why is then that he is suggesting citizen spying schemes such as TIPS? why is that Patriot Act was rushed through the house and the senate? Why is it that he's hell bent on protecting the 2nd amendment, right to carry/own a machine gun so to protect your house, but yet has all begun chipping away the protections of the 4th?

It's about time that patriotism is applied where truly needed: i.e. protection of the good will of the ideals of the framers of the constitution of US of A.

Re:Yes!

[junkgrep]

I don't have any problem with the idea that people should be able to own guns. What boggles my mind is that, in the face of pushing the limits of other constitutional protections, he refuses to impinge on the _privacy_ of gun ownership. For someone who doesn't even think there is a right to privacy, this is certainly a very new and creative reading of the constitution. We can track car ownership, but not ballistic fingerprints of weapons or gun sales? What the heck does that even have to do with the second amendment? Where does it say "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed... nor any data collected on the use of these arms?" There are reasonable efforts to protect people from eroding away the second amendment, and then there's flat-out nutty paranoia.

Re:Yes!

[Galvatron]

You've been watching too many movies. Markings on bullets fired one after another from a single gun are not totally uniform. It can be used, in theory, to narrow down potential suspects, just as a smudged fingerprint can. Just as with a smudged fingerprint, however, often juries will ascribe more weight to such evidence than is really warranted.

Also, they are absurdly easy to alter. Simply firing a couple hundred rounds will change the markings such that they will no longer match the first bullet fired.

I'm not a scientist either, but I did take an intro to forensics course once.

Re:Yes!

[will_die]

It is not really the taking of the rifling marks, it is the database of gun owners that upsets people, and what it could be used for in the future. Before you say that is will not happen, take a look at SSN as a simple example. Originally it was not suppost to be used for anything except for keeping track of payments and payees, now it is being used by the government to track down people who owe money to other people.
While it may sound silly to compare bullet rifling to to track imprints in some ways they are the same. Granted track tires start off very similar to each other, however over time both tires and rifling marks change. If you fire many rounds it changes, when you clean the barrel you change it, if you switch out the barrel you are definatly going to change it. So you would have to have people to supply rifling print, ever so often.
When you hear about the court cases, most of them get the gun within a shot or two of when they want to match the bullet, and even in that event they do not have a 100% accurary rate. With this system it would impossible to track down someone who was planning something, aka the virginia sniper, it would have some minor benifit when tracking down unplanned attacks, and other system such as gun registration already do this. Even with this system you would need to meet court standards which are higher then system would have.
Overall this system has more problems then benifits, it ranks right up thier with the idea of putting small plastic markers in all explosives, and fertilizers that came up after the oklahoma city bombing.

Re:Yes!

[Fat Casper]

Using rifling information from all firearms would certainly allow us to narrow down the possibilities of a given bullet strike. I can't see how this idea would be objectionable to gun owners.

The tire tracks are right on. There is already caliber, which helps narrow down possibilities. "Fingerprinting" will just be a waste of time. It's too easy to change- so easy that changing it will become a standard part of buying a gun. Not for evasion, mind you, but upgrading or something. It gets "fingerprinted" at the factory, then the store can sell & install "high performance" firing pins and extractors, maybe with a "long life" barrel.

Ain't interchangable parts grand? This is objectionable to gun owners for the same reason the DMCA and PATRIOT act are to you. You aren't a terrorist, so you resent your email being read. You resent not being able to legally watch DVDs in Linux. Gun owners don't like government control any more than you do, and guns are a lot more final than software. Guns threaten the government, even if it's only government types who own them. It's kind of a real world balance of power. They're more motivated and effective than the /. crowd and the ACLU. They see threats a long way off and work the system to keep them from being passed. You could learn a thing or two from them. I don't see why that would be objectionable to you.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yes!

[Fat Casper]

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong -- are you saying that the government perceives private gun owners as a threat to its own well-being?

You aren't reading me wrong, but you aren't reading me quite correctly. Guns don't threaten the government as an institution. Guns threaten people. I'm a friendly guy, but there are circumstances where I'd happily shoot someone. One thing that gun people say is "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well believe it or not, big government doesn't restrict your rights, people restrict your rights. People say no. People go to court. People bankrupt people.

Owning a gun is having the ultimate "pocket veto." You can't do (X) to me because I'll shoot you if you try. Go ahead, Mr. Bureaucrat. Legislators might be isolated in the capitals by Disney's money, but if I violate a law, an actual person is going to have to come see me. That person is threatened by my right to own a gun- he doesn't know if I have one or not, but he knows I might. That provides a counterweight.

Getting back to fingerprinting, why the hell would I commit a crime with a gun that could be traced to me in the first place? People that fucking stupid are going to get caught quickly anyway. This fingerprinting thing is just more feel-good legislation because the big government Democrats feel threatened by people who own guns.

Re:Guns threaten the Government.

[deanthebean]

Ask the guys who fought in Vietnam what a militia is capable of. They know.

Re:Please explain

[Wyatt Earp]

If you find a shell casing, often it will tell you nothing other than the caliber.

AKs use a shorty 7.62 or 5.45 caliber round, there are about 45-70 million AKs world wide, so if you find that casing, you are still dealing with a haystack. Some American makers are switching to the AKs 7.62 beacuse the rounds are cheap.

ARs typically use a 5.56, as do other NATO standard battle rifles and Isreali made rifles. I'm going to ballpark a number here and say there are 15-35 million rifles out there firing a 5.56.

The shooter in the DC area is using either a 5.56 or a 5.45 caliber rifle, I've heard both on the news and the police have shown both an AR and an AK on the news as the weapon being used.

Now, a bullet will get you more information, but with the sheer numbers of weapons out there in the US-Canada-Mexico pushing the 300-400 million range, even if you get a bullet that you can run ballistics on chances are high than they won't be using something in your Database.

An example, I have a 54 year old Remington Model 8 in .300 Savage which fires great, it's not going to be in a Database since all the databases proposed are for licenced gun sales and new weapons.

As for the arguement that cars are licenced but guns aren't, well cars aren't meantioned in the Constitution now are they? If the 2nd Amendment is going to be infringed on, then why shouldn't we licence printing presses or computers? Both are capable of being used against the common good of the people.

Re:Please explain

[nharmon]

Don't forget that cars don't have to be licensed unless they're intended to be driven on public roads.

Re:gun ownership privacy

[srmalloy]

So, where exactly in the second amendment does it say that "people could have armed militias?" Where does it say that the militia is there to "check" the government? The oh so short second amendment reads as follows.

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. - Ammendment II of the Constitution

Notice the "well regulated" part? Also, notice that "Arms" is a proper noun? That means that WE can decide what regulations to place upon gun ownership and militias and WE can decide what the definition of "Arms" is. Do fully-automatic machine guns and rocket-launchers count as "Arms?" They most certainly are, but them being prohibited doesn't counter the 2nd Am. because "Arms" is defined by the individual States and by Congress itself.

Unfortunately for your premise, you are misinterpreting the term 'regulate' as 'controlled, restricted, or governed by law or rule'. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1. To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2. To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3. To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4. To put in good order.

The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The third definition is also inappropriate, because regulation for accuracy or function is somethiing that is done to the arms, not the militia.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper No. 29 [loc.gov], described clearly what a well-regulated militia entailed:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?

Re:gun ownership privacy

[Tassach]

Very eloquant and completely correct explanation of what "well regulated" meant to the Founding Fathers.

Which just goes to show you that when Ashcroft. .

[kfg]

read the Bill of Rights he made it all the way up to . . . One. Either that or his mother simply told him, " Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you," and he listened to his mother for once.

His appreciation of, indeed his very awareness of, the remaining nine seems to be shakey at best.

He certainly stopped reading before he got up to Four. The courts are finally starting to bitch slap him around a bit over this. His response? Ignore court orders.

Yeah, there'a a guy who believes firmly in the rule of law. Right.

KFG

Re:Yes!

[yamcha666]

Amen, brother!

I here you all the way. It is really sad seeing many things we were once free to do put to shame by our Gov't lately. Things like RedHat and the DMCA; MPAA and the college student; RIAA and personal copying. Or how about saying what you want to say? These days you gotta be careful with what you say. Else you might find yourself surrounded by a bunch of FBI agents.

I blame a lot of this on the Bush Administration, but I also blame America and its citizens.

Coopers_Dad (slashdot.org member) once said shortly after 9/11:

"What is the true definition of patriotism: driving around with a flag flying off a pole mounted to the cab of my truck
... or ... fighting to insure that my personal freedom, privacy, and civil liberties are left intact once the troops come home.

So when are we going to fight back America? It's the pre-Revolutionary War era all over again.

Re:Yes!

[cheezedawg]

I like how every single example that you blame on the Bush administration predates his presidency.

Re:Yes!

[DaytonCIM]

I like how every single example that you blame on the Bush administration predates his presidency.

True. But it is the Bush Administration, Ashcroft and Rice specifically, that are very open in their support for lessening the freedoms Americans have enjoyed for a long time. And all of the Administration's actions are done under the guise of "protecting our security."

Scary

Re:Yes!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So when are we going to fight back America? It's the pre-Revolutionary War era all over again.

Go read a history book, please. The events leading up to the Revolutionary War were far more serious than the things you're talking about. Consequences from disputes over the various taxes led to conflicts over due process, quartering of soldiers, and other fundamental differences. Let's review the facts.

1764: the American Revenue Act (a.k.a. the Sugar Act) puts a hefty tax burden on the American colonies
1765: the Stamp Act is passed, and Greenville decrees that colonists who violate the act will be tried in Admiralty courts rather than civil courts
1767: the Townshend acts mean further taxes, and, more importantly, the suspension of the New York legislature until a dispute over quartering British soldiers is resolved
1768: as violence between colonists and colonial officials increases, British soldiers are deployed to restore order in Boston
1770: five colonists are killed and six injured in what would come to be called the Boston Massacre
1773: 50 colonists, dressed as Indians, respond to the Tea Act and the ordered breaking of a boycott by staging the Boston Tea Party
1774: the Coercive Acts, in response to the Boston Tea Party, decree that the port of Boston is to be closed, that that the government of Massachusetts colony be dissolved and replaced by Crown rule

It was pretty much all downhill from there.

I'm all for keeping a watchful eye on the state of my government and my nation, but let's not lose our sense of perspective. The events that led up to the Revolutionary War-- crippling taxation, military governments, armed soldiers occupying entire colonies and being quartered in the homes of ordinary citizens against their wishes-- were orders of magnitude more serious than anything that's going on in America today.

Re:Yes!

[junkgrep]

Of course, you're leaving out a few key facts that give things a more balanced picture.
-Taxation of the colonies was much lighter than even British citizens at the time: despite the fact that the British had spent tremendous sums to build and administrate the colonies, as well as fight the French and Indians. Representation wasn't even a serious issue to anyone: it wouldn't have mattered.
The colonists of course felt that the war and its costs were Englands fault for dragging the colonies into it: but any American could complain about the taxes necessary to finance huge war spending today and be just as laughed off.

-When you look at the people who organized things like Tea party, you get a rather different view of their activities: they weren't average colonists fed up with the British: they were smugglers angry that cheap British tea was cutting into their market.
-The Boston Massacre is not what it became to be popularly portrayed as. Yes, british soldiers opened fire on colonists... but it was in the midst of a riot incited by drunken colonists who then starting hurling clubs at the soldiers. It certainly wasn't an excuse to open fire, but then it wasn't any sort of planned action either: it was the reaction of some soldiers in the midst of chaos, without orders.

Which is not to say that the British were good guys. But let's face it, neither were they the cruel tyrants hated by the populace at large that they were portrayed as. The revolution was largely organized by local elites who wanted power and monetary freedom, and it was far from popularly supported. Almost as many colonists fought for the British as against them for goodness sake, and only about a third of the population even supported the idea of revolution (a large chunk were pretty much indifferent to the whole affair).

Re:Yes!

[SkulkCU]

There was one officer standing guard. A mob taunted, and attacked him, and 8 that were nearby came. Shouting "Kill him!", the mob threw everything nearby at them: ice (there was a foot of snow on the ground), oysters, stones, trash. Knocking one to the ground, they continued to hit him as he tried to get up. The one "commanding" officer present was acquitted in the first trial. Clearly, he gave no order to fire. In the second trial, 6 of the other 8 were found not guilty, and 2 were found guilty of manslaughter (and were branded on their hands).

If that was the result of a trial in Boston the same year that it happened, don't you think it might be a mischaracterization to call it a massacre?

Two things:

1) "Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." . . . "Do you expect that he [the officer, amidst a mob attack] should behave like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy?" Public reaction to the outcome of the trial was intense, but there were no riots.

2) This is not to say that this was a good event. Clearly, there were some primary causes. "Soldiers in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one. They are wretched conservators of the peace." And, I do disagree with the poster you were responding to, to some degree. I think he's not giving enough recognition to the widespread resentment towards the Brits. This was not an isolated incident of violence. The 'Lobsterbacks' met more than a bit of violence in Boston. And while nobody enjoys paying taxes (as I think is the poster's implication), those resentments were legitimized entirely by the lack of representation. Some of the first realizations of modern democracy in England came as a result of the king using local representatives to legitimize his taxes (or at least the local figures using taxes to get recognition and power..) Supposed citizens were being denied that right. That painting/engraving/etching by Paul Revere [tigtail.org] may have been factually inaccurate to the events, but it displays much more perfectly the popular perception of what was happening. It, and the Massacre, and other extreme acts are important not because of the truth of the events, but because of the 'larger truth' that they seem to typify about the crimes that were being committed against an entire nation. Certainly not every persons motivations for supporting the US Revolution was completely altruistic, (and maybe that is all the previous poster was trying to communicate), but many of those people that were cautious of a war grew to approve the seperation more strongly with each failed (ignored!) attempt to offer the king a peace, and as soldiers came to live in the homes of Americans.

After all, a war was eventually fought, and enough support was found to beat the kings men. The soon-to-be-United-States managed to start a Navy, and organize the militias into a force that beat the Brits. They beat the Brits. The success in the face of that immense obstacle says something about the determination of the colonies, doesn't it?

I'm just saying, I don't necessarily give the Massacre itself nearly as much importance as I give it great weight to tell us about the mood of the people.
Etc.

Re:Yes!

[florescent_beige]

What about the non-US citizens? Check out this. [canada.com]

Insightful?

[jeramybsmith]

About as insightful as Daily Show banter that sounds remarkably the same. Are me and the poster the only people who watch that show?

Again I find the same problems. People still have their blinders on. The US has reached a sort of catch-44 and we are trying to work our way through it. We are, carrying out attacks against a non-national militant group. Ergo, we have no country to declare against. So what are the rules? How do we proceed? What happens when we capture these enemy combatants? Are they POWs ? Are they to be treated as citizen criminals? What do with "cell" members we find in or midst? They aren't foreign national spies exactly. They haven't committed any crimes. They aren't even exactly enemy combatants (or at least not yet). I think slashdot should keep up posting technology stories and leave stuff like this to us grown ups who actually think these things through. This is a difficult time and we are adapting (slowly) to the implications of new kinds of warfare.

only a terrorist would say that..

[Anonymous Coward]

i think they are terrorists (as all people who oppose oppressive things are), but at they are at least not part of the alPopstar network,who at this very moment are trying to release another "copy-protected" Celene Dion CD into the very heart of America.

They've been busy.

[XorNand]

The ACLU is also challenging the involvement of the US military in the DC sniper case, as reported by CNN. [cnn.com] The "depend the Constitution" ad campaign mentioned is $3.5M large, which includes a million dollars worth of TV ads in 10 markets

Whoot! Keep it up guys!

Re:They've been busy.

[Bios_Hakr]

Seems strange that they want to prevent the people who know how to stop snipers from helping. As long as the assistance is purely technical, I have no problem with it. Now if the military was setting up roadblocks and detaining citizenz, it'd be another matter.

Re:They've been busy.

[XorNand]

I can see how most people would think that the military getting involved is a bad thing and the ACLU is an overactive bunch of liberals. However, you have to understand that it's a slippery slope to tread on. US law enforcement agencies have vast resources available to them to deal with situations such as this. The military is a sledge hammer by comparison. Or to quote the movie, The Seige: "The United States military is a sword when what you need a scapel". The only thing these orginizations have in common are guns.

Re:They've been busy.

[mesocyclone]

The military is a sledge hammer by comparison. Or to quote the movie, The Seige: "The United States military is a sword when what you need a scapel". The only thing these orginizations have in common are guns.


This is utter nonsense. The military has all sorts of capabilities beyond the ability to exert large amounts of brute force. Many of these are technical means which are not available to other agencies.

US law enforcement, for example, is unlikely to have aircraft that can track thousands of targets at once (like JSTARS can), but this may be exactly what is needed to sort out a fleeing sniper from the rest of metropolitan traffic.

That is only one example of many capabilities the military has. These have no relationship at all to a "sledge hammer."

As far as slippery slopes go, there are very few areas of human behavior where there are clean boundaries. Almost everything we do involves "slippery slopes" with something innocuous on one end of a continuum and something horrible at the other. Thus the slippery slope argument is a silly way to look at things. It is simply an excuse for extremism - to stay at one extreme end of the continuum - and is often used to substitude for actual reasoning.

Re:They've been busy.

[Maserati]

Personally, I think JAG should launch a parallel investigation on the suspicion that current or former military personnel are involved. The military has its own law enforcement units, and they have a legitimate excuse to get invovled.

Re:They've been busy.

[mskfisher]

they did question a recently-discharged Marine who'd had sniper training...

but keep in mind that the shots that have been made so far aren't terribly difficult - it doesn't require formalized training. i'd say that most anyone could learn to hit a man-sized target at 100-150 yards with a few hours' practice.
this most recent shooting was a head shot, sure - but from 30-40 yards. that's practically point-blank, when dealing with a scoped weapon.
sure, there are techniques that are most easily picked up through directed training... but most people give this guy too much credit.
if the shots were 500+ yards on a windy day, then i'd start to assume the guy had some serious training under his belt.
urban sniping isn't that difficult. we're fortunate that not many people have undertaken it thus far.

Re:They've been busy.

[AntiNorm]

Seems strange that they want to prevent the people who know how to stop snipers from helping. As long as the assistance is purely technical, I have no problem with it. Now if the military was setting up roadblocks and detaining citizenz, it'd be another matter.

There's a reason why they are preventing these military personnel from helping, and a good one too: the Posse Comitatus [uscg.mil] act. Basically, it prevents military personnel from doing most civilian law enforcement tasks except when authorized by Congress. Congress would essentially have to declare martial law in order for these people to be able to help out, and as scary as it may be, the current situation there does not warrant martial law.

Re:They've been busy.

[mesocyclone]

Too bad you didn't read the very article you referenced. It directly refutes your argument in this case.

Here is the relevant portion:

Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests).

Re:They've been busy.

[GMontag]

Goot point. Note that the Congress Posse Comitatus already has the rules in place too. It is not a situation where a special bill will be required whenever a plane needs to be launched.

BTW, the restrictions are not fuzzy either. When I was actually in uniform, we could drive/fly civilian law enforcement wherever they needed to go, but we could not even so much as direct traffic (on civilian streets) when we got there. Same with other missions.

The National Guard could fly BATF/DEA/local cops all over, but firing a weapon other than in self defense, even to destroy contraban, was prohibited.

In this case, the military is flying an airplane around and cops are in the plane getting information on suspected vehicles gathered by the military. Can't get into much more of a support role than that.

Re:They've been busy.

[packeteer]

Well this is a tought issue. There is nothing inherantly wrong with the military helping police the nation in certain situations. I disagree with the military helping enforce our laws (and thankfully so do the foudning fathers) but its not always bad. There ARE situations where martial law can help. In a situation where public safety to a majority of people is at risk its ok. Like if there actually was a major outbreak or terrorism (im talking major like we are unlikely to see) i would not have a problem temporarily living under martial law.

The problem here is that i dont believe public safety is at risk. Sure people are dying but really not many. The bigger problem is that the news is all over this and it keeps the shooter going. People have been canceling trips to the area and people in the area have been running from their car doors into stores as if it will help them. A person is more likely to die in a plane crash on the way there than the be shot while there, and if they are driving in a car jesus thats insanly more likely to result in injury or death than a sniper.

The military is only getting olvolved to calm peple down and give them a false sense of security. With less effort is spent on tracking this guy down we could just let him go about his business and work on the countless other violent crimes. It sounds cold and i dont condone leaving this guy alone but its something to put the hysteria in perspective.

So really its the media that needs to do the most to help the situation. Even we can help by not talking about this. Im not talking abotu hushing up like it didn't happen, im simply advising that people dont amke this into something to gossip about and create mroe fear.

Re:They've been busy.

[Loki_1929]

"and detaining citizenz, it'd be another matter."

You mean like this? [cnn.com]

Hate to tell ya, but we're already there. Thank God some people (and some judges/Congresscritters) are starting to come to their senses about all this. People somehow seem to like rash overreactions in times of crisis, rather than clear, rational thought. It's absolutely amazing that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution ever came into being in such a time.

From the mentioned article, "Federal prosecutors disagree, saying Padilla, 31, is a DANGEROUS AGENT of AL QAEDA, the ISLAMIC TERRORIST group believed to be behind the SEPTEMBER 11 TERRORIST ATTACKS." (Emph mine)

Wow, in one sentence, we have 8 keywords: dangerous, agent, Al Qaeda, islamic, terrorist, september 11, terrorist, attacks. That's quite a feat, and pretty much the only justification for holding him in the first place. Hang on to your hats, folks... looks like "Dubyah" hired some M$ PR folks to spread his little FUD campaign to keep him riding high on his little power trip. A little side note to boot: Ashcroft made 17 television appearances in the 3 months before Padilla's "arrest", (he's a media-hound) and has made 1 in the three months after Padilla's arrest and his grand announcement on national TV about the "unfolding terrorist plot". Gee, sound like maybe he fscked up?

Re:They've been busy.

[AntiNorm]

The "depend the Constitution" ad campaign mentioned is $3.5M large

Do you mean defend the Constitution, or do you really mean depend the Constitution (i.e. use the Constitution as a pair of Depends, which some would argue the government has been doing lately)?

Uppercase?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the name is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", it should be called the USAPATRIOT act.

All uppercase, no space (because "U SAP AT RIOT" is just as good a decomposition).

Re:Uppercase?

[SomeGuyFromCA]

Who would dare vote against something called the "USA Patriot act"? Imagine what would happen come election time:

"Senator Sensible voted /against/ the USA Patriot act to defend you and your families. Senator Sensible voted /against/ the war on Iraq to safeguard this country. Senator Sensible voted /against/ the CBDTPA to improve the quality of your Internet experience and bring digital television to your living room. We want this godless unAmerican traitor shot or deported. We'll settle for voting him out of office. VOTE SENATOR PARTYLINE."

Face it people, democracy is about swaying the masses and doing what's popular - not what's right.

Rep.'s against the (un)Patriot Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Props to these [thejusticelobby.org] representatives for voting against the Patriot Act.

they have been busy

[dollargonzo]

in QUITE different modes of thinking. the bush administration only has in mind, well, if anything, is its short term goals. the whole patriot act is very similar to drm and palladium, as well as the eulas. basically:

"we take people's rights away and pretend we give them more"

how is this any different?? it is very nice to hear that the aclu is taking note of it and launching a campaign, but it would also be nice if they did the same on the digital front, where weight of such names (esp. in large campaigns) is very helpful.

National Campaign?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the Patriot Act's first anniversary, the American Civil Liberties Union is launching a $3.5 million national campaign to protect the freedoms it says the Bush administration has endangered. What real action is being taken? Is this only going to be some sort of media blitz? Even if this becomes a widespread debate, and the general public decides they are being screwed, there is no guarantee that GW and his administration won't continue with their current policy of doing whatever the hell they feel like.

Cause BSOD, go to jail...

[bobdotorg]

Dramatic increases to the scope and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. This includes: 1) raising the maximum penalty for violations to 10 years (from 5) for a first offense and 20 years (from 10) for a second offense; 2) ensuring that violators only need to intend to cause damage generally, not intend to cause damage or other specified harm over the $5,000 statutory damage threshold; 3) allows aggregation of damages to different computers over a year to reach the $5,000 threshold; 4) enhance punishment for violations involving any (not just $5,000) damage to a government computer involved in criminal justice or the military; 5) include damage to foreign computers involved in US interstate commerce; 6) include state law offenses as priors for sentencing; 7) expand definition of loss to expressly include time spent investigating, responding, for damage assessment and for restoration.


So let me get this straight - I cause one BSOD which causes $1 of damage (lost time) on someone's computer, more than $5,000 is spent investigating my BSOD incident, I go to jail for (up to) 10 years.

On another note - can all of those bugs that Microsoft knowingly releases with each new WinOS, (and you say, "Thank you EULA, may I have another") result in some MS programmers doing hard time?

One final example - some spammer sends me an HTML email that has some fscked up javascript that crashes my machine and sends my unsaved document to oblivion. Can the spammer now do hard time? Hmmmm

This is the best news I've heard today.......

[Dr_Marvin_Monroe]

Somebody needs to challenge "General Ashcroft" of the "First Government Lawyer Batallion" about some of the questionable legal calls and manuvers he's been making lately......

It truly is any "Patriot's" job to qustion injustice or orders which run contrary to the founding principles of this fine nation that we all cherish.

Let's see, should we tick off Ashcroft's injustices and violations of the Bill of Rights?......already been done here....we know the score, now's time for "swift punishment for the guilty."

Let's just have less people in government who violate our freedoms in order to "safe and protect" them....

I want Ashcroft to be doing the next "perp. walk."

Re:This is the best news I've heard today.......

[BCoates]

Let's see, should we tick off Ashcroft's injustices and violations of the Bill of Rights?......already been done here....

I must have missed that, care to list the top three?

--
Benjmain Coates

The "new" war.

[TheSHAD0W]

I hold a strong contempt for the USA/Patriot Act because it places the United States in a state of war, with no formal declaration of war.

The US Constitution has specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it also specifies that when the war is over, those limitations on our freedom also disappear. Instead, Congress has declared a "sort-of, kinda war" with no specifics, and with many permanent limitations placed on our freedoms. Similarly, Congress has not declared war on Iraq, it has merely authorized the President to order an attack on that country.

The Big Picture

[jeramybsmith]

I seem to see this frustration in a lot of people. They have a problem reconciling a war without an actual nationality we are to be at war with. All I can say is you might need to expand your horizons because non-national militant groups may be the most common foe we face in this new millenium. I think it was forward looking of congress to deal with this and they may not have gotten it perfect in the first draft but they rarely do with anything.

Re:The "new" war.

[Raiford]

I believe that the framers of The Constitution probably had more of an idea of a declaration of war being made against an enemy with well-defined borders like a nation. Just who do you declare war on this day and age ? Granted Iraq is a nation with clear borders but that is not our current war.

The problem we face is defending our life and liberty in the face of new threats. It would seem that we have been wholly unprepared for the current terrorist threat and as expected our government has had to resort to reactionary measures. If this bothers you well then it should. Yes, some things have to change and something had to be done but not any cost. I would think that the next great champion of liberty will be the person who devises a system to deal with current threats without infringing on existing rights

Re:The "new" war.

[Shelled]

The framers living in a land without "well-defined borders" when they launched the revolution and during the western expansion. They had plenty of experience with that particular situation. They knew what they were talking about when devising the Constitution.

Rubbish...

[MosesJones]

Spain has ETA, the UK has the IRA (and where does most of the funding for that come from... oh yes the citizens of the USA). And before someone says "That is just inside the borders of the country" remember that the IRA have commited acts of terrorism in other countries, have trained in Libya and have helped train terrorists in Columbia.

Yet only when the US faces a threat is terrorism something new....

Re:Rubbish...

[Nept]

It ain't new here, but it seems that way because of our media. Name any other country with as many global media/cable networks as we have. I've travelled in Asia and Europe, and you can basically get the same US-centric news there that you do in the states. Slightly different slant perhaps, but still american.
I would personally prefer not to see CNN everywhere I go.

In response to replies:

[TheSHAD0W]

Why should the US declare war when the attackers don't? For the same reason that two wrongs don't make a right. Otherwise we're adding credibility to the arguments that the US is a "rogue state", lashing out at anyone we see fit, and that the rest of the world should fear and despise us.

How can we declare war against an enemy that resides inside no specifically defined borders? That's easy. Declare war against all members of Al Quaeda. Then work diplomatically with countries where we have some friends, and declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda.

Instead, we haven't even declared war against a group; we've declared it against a concept. "Terrorism". And the war looks to be permanent.

Re:In response to replies:

[Loki_1929]

"declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda."

Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress to approve declarations of war against... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine... oh wait, doesn't exist yet... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia (the country - relax you southerners...), and about a dozen or so other countries I can't think of offhand. You were talking about going after every single member of Al Qaeda who's being shielded by a recognized government, right? And don't forget to throw in France, Germany, and most of the rest of Europe, when they refuse to extradite suspected members of Al Qaeda to the US because they know we'll almost certainly execute them.

As for us declaring war on terrorism, let me summerize what that means. When using the phrase, "The War on ______ ", you have to understand what it means. To fully understand the situation, look at all the other "The War on _____"'s that we already have: The War on crime|AIDS|cancer|drugs|etc. Basically, when we don't like something, our politicians (usually the resident president) declare "war" on it. We never actually do anything to address the problem, the causes, or treat the effects; we just declare war on it. We've not cleaned up (or even made a difference in) crime, AIDS, drugs, or most others. We've only made progress in cancer treatment because there's so many different kinds of cancer, so the cancer industry doesn't have to worry about wiping out its cash-cow. So yes, "The War on terrorism" is going to last forever, will never end, will never get better, and will continue costing us, the taxpayers, money. Why? There's a hell of allot more money in "treating" the problem (biometric scanners, dBases, baggage screeners, radiation detection, bomb detection, etc) then there is in solving it.

Should we sit here and do nothing after Sept 11? Absolutely not; we should do something about it, but declaring "war" on it to make Americans feel warm and fuzzy again doesn't solve a thing. Find the causes, work to eliminate them; find the instigators, stop them from gathering followers; and for God's sake, find the missing anthrax/bombs/cesium/uranium/plutonium/smallpox/et c that we've had laying around for so long that they've gotten lost. We're so used to having things around that could destroy the planet, that we don't even think twice when they turn up missing. I tend to wonder if any fully intact ICBMs are missing from their silos. Somehow, it just wouldn't surprise me at this point.

devil's advocate much?

[poot_rootbeer]

Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress to approve declarations of war against... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia, and about a dozen or so other countries I can't think of offhand.

You're being sarcastic, but I absolutely agree with your statement.

We don't have to declare war on all of them simultaneously; wars fought on multiple fronts are rarely successful. But maybe after a couple of governments get overthrown for supporting the killing of innocents, the rest of the world might wise up and stop condoning terrorism.

No civilized society can condone terrorism, and those that do must change their ways. If countries do not take care of it themselves with policy change, they must be taken care of by force.

Even if this leads to another world war, it is justified if terrorism is eradicated from the Earth.

Freedom... cherish it?

[starX]

Has anyone seen the "freedom... cherish ads" that have been going around lately? I delight in the irnoy of the one where the kid is led away by men in black suites for trying to check out a book in a library that is "inapropriate." I wonder how many people out there realize that the same administration who is beind these ads is trying to go down that particular path?

Yes, the FBI is just able to get the list of the books you've been reading, and I don't honestly forsee any books being banned in this country any time in the near future, but I still don't buy Ashcroft saying he welcomes debate on this issue. More likely, he welcomes a token debate that really won't go anywhere.

And as much as this keeps getting bantered about, I don't think that the American people actually care about forking over their civil liberties in the name of national security. Maybe when they realize that their private information can be used/abused for other purposes, we'll be able to have a real national debate on this issue, but until then, as long as Bush takes a cue from Mousallini and keeps the trains running on time, the number of people who would like to see USA PATRIOT re-examined is definitely in the minority.

Freedom... cherish it PSAs

[TheSHAD0W]

The "Campaign for Freedom" public service announcements were produced by the Ad Council; you can view the PSAs online at http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for_fr eedom/ [adcouncil.org].

Re:Freedom... cherish it?

[x0m3g4]

" I don't think that the American people actually care about forking over their civil liberties in the name of national security."

The sad thing is that 90% of the people in this country dont know what there civil rights are, and because of that the police or whoever can trick* the average American into forfeiting those rights without their knowledge. It is a sad thing when the people that are passing our laws take advantage of this.

This is why representative government just doesnt work. When I elect a politician (mostly based on who slings the least crap) I have no idea wheather he gives a rats diseased ass about my rights. Go Here [realdemocracy.com] for a fix. Give them support or you are a bad american, you arent a bad american are you?



*an example of this crooked corrupt trickery is when police say things like "mind if I take a look inside" instead of "do you consent to a search of your house" because most people dont know that they can even deny a search

More of the same from the ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

The ACLU has a good enough premise and it has some honestly dedicated members but it also has a large amount of partisan activists. I am not sure why the ACLU gets special treatment at slashdot as opposed to other clearly partisan groups like the Cato institute, heritage foundation, etc. All of these groups claim lofty ideals but when it comes down to they all seem to do a bit of political shilling. Is it any wonder this coincides with an election?

Listen, just because they call themselves "the American Civil Liberties Union" does not mean they defend all civil liberties, mostly just the politically correct ones. When is the last time you saw the ACLU take a pro-second amendment stance? Whether or not you believe in it yourself, you have to admit their name should be "Selective Civil Liberties Union" at most.
I am sad to see that some at slashdot are marks for a vaguely disguised political fronts, or maybe they arent marks but have an agenda of their own?

Re:More of the same from the ACLU

[BCoates]

Listen, just because they call themselves "the American Civil Liberties Union" does not mean they defend all civil liberties, mostly just the politically correct ones. When is the last time you saw the ACLU take a pro-second amendment stance? Whether or not you believe in it yourself, you have to admit their name should be "Selective Civil Liberties Union" at most.

Old joke:

Q: how does the ACLU count to 10?

A: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:More of the same from the ACLU

[Loki_1929]

"When is the last time you saw the ACLU take a pro-second amendment stance?"

First of all, when was the last time you saw second amendment violations that went unchallenged? The ACLU generally defends the rights and the people that no one else will defend. You've got one hell of a gun lobby protecting your second amendment rights, so there's never a need for the ACLU to step in and do something. The NRA has more money, more pull in Washington, and more power than the entire ACLU, and the NRA does basically nothing but defend the right to own a firearm.

You'd best try something else if you're going to argue against the ACLU protections of Constitutional freedoms...

Re:ACLU and 2nd Amendment

[dfenstrate]

IMHO, the Second Amendment is embodied and about exhausted by the existence of state branches of the National Guard. Guns are for pussies.
Sure, if you'd like to pretend that the national guard was in place at the time the bill of rights was written. Trouble is, it came into formation about 130 years after the bill of rights was written.

Could you tell me, perhaps, why all the other Bill of Rights amendments- free speech, search and siezure, don't have to self incriminate, etc, speak of undisputed Individual Rights, but the framers just happened to let a State Power slip into a document listing individual rights? Moreover, if you read the entire document, the Bill Of Rights lists Inalienable rights given by our creator, i.e., rights that cannot possibly be revoked by an entitiy that didn't give them- the government. Throughout the constitution, the government, state or local, is assigned "powers" given by the people, whereas the people have "rights." Our Government, National, State, or Local, has no power that it hasn't been granted by the same citizens thereof.

Your "Guns are for pussies" statement is clearly flamebait; since when did trolls get mod points here? Regardless, here are a few quotes from some of the folks who were kinda important in writing the constitution:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater ... confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764).

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
and you seem to be a fan of gun control; i suggest you check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control [ukans.edu]

Nothing Leaps Out

[istartedi]

I scanned the EFF piece, and nothing lept out that really bothers me. Take roving wiretaps for example. That had to be done because crooks were getting cell phones, using them for a while, then ditching them. Under the old system, they could only tap the phone, not the crook. If I have unwittingly invited the next Mohommad Atta into my kitchen to use the phone, go ahead, tap it.

I've got an open mind, but they are going to have to make a more compelling case against this. I seriously doubt the whole thing is bad. Perhaps there are a few line items that should go, but I haven't seen anything that leaps out as unconstitutional on its face. Campaign Finance Reform disturbs me far more than this, and as far as I know /. hasn't said a word about that.

I'll give ya' one thing though: USA Patriot Act is a stupid name for a law. Pulllleeeze! They should have called it the cute cuddly kitten, Mom and apple pie law. Just try to vote against that, why dontcha?

Why about the "Common Sense" act next time

[jukal]

as a foreigner it is rather alarming to follow a powerful country whip up these "Acts" that seem to be based on only a need originating from a specific incident or seem to be tailored for the needs of some specific interest group. It seems like the country is being run like an IT company - with wrong timeframe. Is it because your history - in it's current form is so short. Or is it because you have extremely strong media. I am really sorry but the Patriot act reminds me of phases of (semi) totalitiarism of some countries of eastern europe: when insane acts and Bills were based upon patriotism and people were made to spy each other for the government. Finally learn, that the other countries do not envy you so much - you do not have to be so scared.

Maybe saying this halves my fan list, but really - you should be alarmed in there in the US!

Re:Why about the "Common Sense" act next time

[jukal]

> You are talking about Germany or France or all these other European countries that
> enacted laws prohibiting citizens from claiming that holocaust never existed

In some sense yes. It is very easy fo first react by denying the real problem and trying to hide the real problem. Well, maybe when we look back at this moment after 50 years, we see that this was similar learning/turning point as the holocaust was for Europe.

my take on all of this

[goon america]

"The ACLU campaign aims to promote a public debate about proposals and measures that violate civil liberties without increasing our security."

Say it violates civil liberties, but don't say it doesn't increase our security. I'd like to see that claim hold up. That's just a rationalization they make to make themselves feel 100% okay with their work.

Attorney General John Ashcroft said he welcomes the debate.

Just as long as they don't make me dance! Damn those liberals!

"The FBI isn't interested in spying on America,"

Just some of the people in it.

"It was a terrible mistake to extend these [powers] to the Internet," ... URLs can often reveal credit card numbers or specific information that a person is looking for on a search engine like Google,

A person's internet usage should be a "safe" place where a person can do whatever they want.

So, in conclusion, debate == good, stupid-talk == bad

PCWorld?!

[yoshi_mon]

While looking to mod up some of the more rebellious posts in this thread, I was disappointed when I could not find anything that great. Then, like very good /.er, I decided to read the article after reading the thread and noticed that it comes from pcworld.com!?

You have got to be kidding me that the only outlet for reporting this is pcworld.com! Grated that the ACLU [http] site had information on it, but with a 3.5 million dollar budget, do you think they could get a few of the major news organizations involved in this?

Maybe this is just the early stages where they are going after that small and oh so significant geek vote. And they are going to target the big boys next...but...PCWORLD.COM!? Oh well, here's to hoping.

John Doe doesn't care.

[johnstein]

The real issue is that any responsibility given or taken away makes it much tougher to give or take away again.

face it, the majority of Americans don't really care about responsibility. (i say americans since this is an american issue, i know there is a whole other world besides us, heh) most of us who read /. are probably a bit more informed and care a whole hell of a lot more than John and Jane Doe who just want to get through life.

That is the problem. As long as they feel safe and nothing is taken directly from them, who cares about giving up a few responsibilities or rights that weren't even being asserted?

I guess it's good that the ACLU is trying to educate more people, but to me, the ACLU can act very radically and counter-productive on many issues. (But I do think they are a necessary lobbying group to add a bit of tension among extreme views in general)

when the average American decides to care, perhaps we will start to see some change. Till then I really don't know what to do besides trying to convince more people to take some responsibility in their lives.

-John

Be afraid...

[km790816]

Read and weep... [kaleo.org]

A recent survey regarding Sept. 11 and free speech indicates 49 percent of Americans believe the First Amendment goes too far in the amount of free speech it allows.

I think those that care passionately about the freedoms we enjoy forget that a lot of Americans could care less as long as the government doesn't take their guns or raise their taxes.

"Congress shall make no law..." Ha! Be afraid, be very afraid.

Madison, Wisc rejected the PATRIOT Act last night!

[haaz]

I've never been prouder (more proud?) to live in Madison than I am now. Last night the city council voted to passed the "Resolution to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties," which removes the city and its services and subordinates from participating in the PATRIOT Act. Seventeen of the twenty alders voted in favor of the resolution, two voted against it, and one (the hard-right conservative who's been lightening up lately) abstained.

This is what an effective local democracy gives you: people who implement what you think and feel in the local legislative body. Considering that our city council has a near-majority of Greens/ Progressives, I can't wait until we get a true majority on board. Really good stuff (and a hell of a lot of work!) may start to happen.

Speaking of local democracy, there's a conference on that very subject coming up next month. Community Power 2002 [localdemocracy.org] will be bringing in people from England, Brazil, Santa Barbara CA, Pennsylvania, and Hartford CT to talk about their experiences with l.d. We'll be planning for it here in our county, and possibly other communities if we get enough people from another place to do it. Should be good!

Re:Madison, Wisc rejected the PATRIOT Act last nig

[_ganja_]

Oh come on! Do you believe all propaganda or only most of it? A prime example of what Lenin called a "Useful Idiot".

Wishing a terrorist attack on Madison because they do not hold the same narrow minded views as you is something I find despicable and ignorant but to flame is not constructive, so I offer you food for thought.

The patriots who setup the American constitution understood tyrants and the human failings of greed and power lust hence the checks and balances therein. If these checks and balances are removed for whatever excuse, I would certainly smell a rat. Members of the Congress & Senate pledge an oath to uphold the constitution when taking office however; they have just granted Bush the ability to declare war which the constitution clearly forbids and I think this spells trouble.

Everything isn't a cut and dried as you or Bush like to make out, this simplistic view of the world where there are good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats is childish and ignorant yet you tell others to grow up.

Some Americans who have retained some critical thinking abilities are realising the people in the white house hijacked a nations grief to throw the nation in to a perpetual war. People like you label these anti-American but let me ask you this: When has it ever been American to blindly follow a leader?

Real people will die in the upcoming war against Iraq, real families will grieve for the loss of loved ones and for what? OIL.

Here are a couple [whatreallyhappened.com] of [guardian.co.uk] links [thememoryhole.org] If terrorists did attack Madison, after going against the Ashcroft patriot act, who would it really help? Certainly Would remind me of the Lavon Affair [geocities.com] or maybe closer to Operation Northwoods. [whatreallyhappened.com]

Re:just so you know, it means nothing

[zericm]

Although I support local Democracy, if you read our Constitution you see that most local rights are overriden by Federal laws. This is one of them. Your local resolution means nothing in force, merely that you are morally disagreeing with the Feds.

You couldn't be more wrong. Such local resolutions are very powerful. They can force a national debate, ultimately ending in a change in a law or policy. US support of apartheid South Africa was changed because of local movements and laws.

These types of resolutions have a fiscal impact as well. Federal agents often rely upon local police support in enforcing these laws. By banning local police support, residents are ensured that their local tax dollars are not used in a way they find distasteful. This has the added effect of shifting the cost to the national level. If enough communities take similar action, the cost on the federal government may make enforcement impractical.

As progressives say "think global, act local."

truth.

[bomb_number_20]

quote:
"I'm glad I live in a country where the ACLU can criticize me and vigorously debate the issues," Ashcroft says. "I consider it my job as attorney general to make sure that this and all our freedoms endure."

Well, he never says that HE is going to debate with the ACLU or even listen to them; only that they can debate and criticise him. It's a politician's truth.

And what 'freedoms' endure? For him and the system he represents, it's the freedom to take our freedoms away and entrench us in a beaurocratic madness that will probably take decades to unravel- if we even do. For us, it's the freedom to work hard our entire lives to support a government full of people like him.

yay.

Bugs

[whereiswaldo]

A Rush Job

The bill is 342 pages long and makes changes, some large and some small, to over 15 different statutes.

No self-respecting programmer would write 342 pages of new code and put it into production after only a cursory review. Why is it that laws aren't beta tested? Why does it take such a huge momentum to get things fixed?

Other "questionable" acts

[quantaman]

There is an interesting story [www.cbc.ca] about a man who has been a Canadian citizen for 15 years after moving from Syria when he was in high school. He was last month on his way back to Montreal he was routed through New York's Kennedy airport, two weeks later he was deported to Syria! Only after he was deported was the Canadian consolate contacted and no one has since been able to contact him. The US isn't just trampling over its own citizens rights but it is also violating the rights of citizens of other countries as well. And it will be interesting to see how the US plans to maintain its international support while trampling over other countries soverignty.

Re:Other "questionable" acts

[Animats]

I guess that means Maher Arar's next class in advanced modem design [simcomms.com] will be cancelled.

He's a modem designer, or was before he was illegally deported.

Due process

[nuggz]

So simply accusing someone of a crime is enough to deny due process.

I hope you get accused of a serious crime and get severely fucked over.

I personally think that we could be much harsher on criminals, I don't really care that much for those that commit certain crimes.

However before we throw away the key, lets make sure they're guilty.

Censoring. Boston Public Library's Bernie Margolis

[donsaklad]

Via
[ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?i d=141&page=3 ]

Everyone has been deputized, and everyone is under scrutiny: Even the
librarians are watching. Last fall, the United States Government
Printing Office ordered the Boston Public Library to destroy a CD-ROM
deemed to contain sensitive data. When I visited the BPL to see the
shelf where Source Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water
Supplies in the Conterminous United States: An Information Resource
for Source-Water Assessment, 1999 once resided, the woman at the
government documents desk referred me to the library's press officer
-- who, after providing the information, apparently alerted the
authorities
[ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?i d=141&page=3 ]

my pediction;

[jericho4.0]

this is totally off-topic, but then again, politics is a bit OT for /.

My prediction; every post above will wind up with an average of;+7, interesting, -9 troll, -7 Flamebait, -6 Off-topic, +5 imformative.

another story at wired

[Wild Bill Hickock]

wired is also reporting the same story. click here to read it. [wired.com]

Obligatory onion reference

[Nathdot]

And here's the ACLU article on the onion:

ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters [theonion.com]

God Bless the ACLU

[UrGeek]

These people are best freedom fighters we have in American today! I give all I can to them whenever I can. Like Kurt Vonegutt said, this is not charity, it is insurance!

Thanks you, ALCU. I will send more when I can.

Nice to see...

[Loki_1929]

It's nice to see that the $50 I recently gave 'em when I joined is being put to good use. Perhaps it's time for another donation.

For those complaining about the ACLU and what they do, just remember that you don't have to like it for it to be just and Constitutionally correct. We may not like that Tim McVeigh got a fair trial, (I'm sure plenty would have liked to have seen him strung up in the middle of town and set on fire), but you've got to admit that it's what our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution mandate.

When I was considering joining the ACLU a few months ago, I looked through their various legal battles as part of my consideration. Some of the battles they fought quite frankly pissed me off (as I didn't agree in the least bit with what was being done), but when I sat down and thought about it from a Constitutional standpoint, I couldn't argue against that for which they fought. Just remember, that when the rights of any one citizen are in danger, no matter how scummy or worthless they may seem to us, all of us have our rights endangered.

I, for one, and a very proud member of the ACLU. I'm proud to be a part of an organization of folks who, above all else, believe that our laws, our freedoms, and our Constitution must be protected at all costs. To live without freedom is to not live at all. Every man and woman who has fought in a war for this country has laid their life on the line protecting the freedom that we now enjoy. Obviously, to them (as it was to the founders of our nation), freedom is more important than life. If you ever question that ideal, ask yourself this question: Would you want your children to live in a society such as that which existed under the Taliban, or even that which exists today in communist China; where freedom of thought, word, and deed are rare? Assuming you don't, ask yourself if you'd be willing to give your life; if you're prepared to die to ensure your children have the freedoms you grew up with...

Think about that for a while...

Re:Nice to see...

[jmo_jon]

While I agree with you that the freedom is worth fighting for and I guess none would like usa to convert to China or any other dictatorship do I feel you have to think one step further. When you say:

Every man and woman who has fought in a war for this country has laid their life on the line protecting the freedom that we now enjoy.

Do I feel you miss out alot. What wars has USA been involved in since ww2 that has been about protcting the freedom? Helping Saddam to attack Iran and gasing kurds during the 80-ies was hardly about freedom. Training Usama and his bandit friends was definately not about freedom. Helping France in it's efford to keep South Vietnam wasn't either. Training Death squads compareable with SS in nazi germany didn't offer freedom for people, it helped US companies affraid of losing markets. While North Korea was a fucked up country even back at the Korea war, so was (and still is) South Korea, that was only about influense and not about securing rights of democrasy.

So to sum up this rambling, I think it's great that people start caring about their right in the USA. But it's not worth much as long as US forces attacks other countries and deprives them of their rights. I've heard many americans saying "if they(non-us citizens) are so ungreatful lets stop help them". That is not what the critisism of US actions is about. Of course is it great if US forces could help, but then help where it's needed not where US companies have interests. Africa with all it's genocide would be a nice place to start at.

the definition of a right

[Shaleh]

A friend of mind was talking the other night about a topic like this and the talk switched to what a "right" really was. The way he likes to look at it a right is something that even your enemy deservers. Even the guy who pushed you down in school. As much as many of us Americans claim to love our freedom many do not seem to really believe it is a right guaranteed just because they are human any more.

It truly bothers me when I see the ex-military types posting about how they protected this country with their life and are then willing to watch others give up their rights. What did you fight for if not those 10 rights guaranteed to all men because they are human. It just so happens that the Bill of Rights is part of US law but the founders believed that all people were granted those rights.

One of my favorite movies is about a president who falls in love with a lobbyist. At one point his opponent ridicules him for being a member of the ACLU. The president stands up for himself and the ACLU and questions why any person serving this country is not also a member. It is a beautiful scene.

One of the ads...

[Loki_1929]

I just saw one of the new ACLU ads (real player required) on this page [aclu.org], and I almost went nuts. It absolutely slams Ashcroft, and I'm about ready to send in another donation on that note. Keep ads like those coming, ACLU, and I'll keep my money flowing. That's a promise.

i find...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find this quote from the article disheartning

National security information is exempt from FOIA, Corallo notes, but the Justice Department will consider the ACLU's request to see if it can release some information.

this is in regards to a report being released to congress about the effectiveness of "the patriot act". Not only are we the people having are civil rights diminished for the sake of security but are also denied information on how effective these rules are in protecting us. My god, maybe the Federal government should just take away voting...they can't trust us with tools and information needed to make educated decisions so why not do the easy thing and just take away the right to make those desissions in first place.

Democracies die behind closed doors.

hook

Most Americans care less...

[Rai]

When most Americans talk about ensuring freedom, what they really mean is their own freedom--the ones they enjoy, not freedom in general. In reality, most Americans couldn't care less about the freedoms of other Americans. Some of them actively work to take away the freedom of others while classifying such freedoms as "immoral" or "sin." I may be overly pessimistic, but I believe most Americans are too selfish in the way they formulate their personal policies on freedom. In their minds, if they want to do it, it should be free, but if they they don't like others doing it, it should be outlawed. Key word--Hypocrisy.

Sick them on the DMCA

[ruiner13]

So what RIAA exec would we have to bump off before these kind liberty-loving folks train their eyes on the DMCA? Personally, I think that infringes on more freedoms than this patriot act, and only in very limited ways (i.e. preventing unauthorized access to your computer BY the RIAA and MPAA...) actually protects our interests.

Seems like if they threw $10 million advertising on the horrors of that lame vague piece of legislation they might be able to open voters eyes to somewhat near half-open on the topic. My 2 cents.

Freedom's advocates.

[stinky wizzleteats]

This is a Good Thing (tm), but it got me wondering. Has anyone else noticed that only the losers of the last election care about freedom at any given point in time? The ACLU didn't seem to mind Janet "The Butcher of Waco" Reno burning down children filled churches, nor sexual harassment at the presidential level a few years ago.

It must just be that the purpose of government, regardless of who is in power, is directly contreverted by the cause of liberty, and that the political ideologies are only so much window dressing used by parties which really are no different from one another.

Ow. Okay, now I'm depressed. I hate epiphanies.

Will the ACLU be attacked by anthrax?

[Radical Rad]

The anthrax attacks a year ago seemed designed and timed to ensure the passage of this "USA-Patriot" act. It targeted the media, Sen. Dashell, the democratic senate majority leader and the only man who could stop the bill through a party line vote, and Sen. Leahy who is known to be a staunch defender of the bill of rights and was campaigning for compromise on the bill to protect American liberties. Not only did the attacks scare the public and encourage the targeted leaders to tow the line and obey George W. Bush's order to pass the bill quickly and with no more than four minor amendments, but by attacking through the mail it stopped the legitimate messages of outraged citizens from reaching their representatives until long after the bill's passage.

We know now that the strain of anthrax used came from a highly secure US military lab. That greatly narrows what organizations could have planned and executed the attack. Could Al Quida steal biological weapons from Fort Detrick when they could have much more easily gotten anthrax from many other labs scattered throughout the world? In any investigation, the most important consideration is motive. Who stood to gain by passage of the USA-Patriot Act? And will the ACLU's challenge be enough to cause the killers to attack again, to persuade the masses to trade essential liberty for temporary safety? Tune in next time for the exciting conclusion...

(for an extensive analysis of the anthrax attacks) [anthraxinvestigation.com]

Re:The ACLU Sucks!

[Stapler]

Their only client is the Constitution. You may not believe this, but if those people do not have rights, guess what? You don't either.

Re:The ACLU Sucks!

[neocon]

Wow, I'm sorry your sex life is so bad.

More generally, the ACLU's constant preference for grandstanding over action and action in support of dubious `rights' such as the `right' to affirmative action or the `right' to welfare payments has driven away a lot of their former supporters (myself included).

If your looking for a group doing actual work toward civil liberties, you may want to check out the Institute for Justice [ij.org].

Re:Who Is The Institute For Justice?

[neocon]

Remarkably little content given the length of your post. You do manage, however, to:

• Roll out the usual scare words like `far to the right' (used, laughably enough, to describe the Heritage Foundation, which is about as mainstream a conservative group as there is)
• Attempt to smear the Olin Foundations philanthropy by pointing out that Mr. Olin made his money in explosives manufacturing -- I suppose you must be terribly opposed to the Nobel Prize, then, eh?
• Attempt to smear the IJ's record by micharacterizing their position on a number of issues
• Question the support for school vouchers in the minority community, despite the fact that it is poor inner city communities who are most hurt by having their children trapped in failing schools -- one reason that groups like the Black Alliance for Educational Opportunity [baeo.org] are some of the firmest supporters of School Choice
• Describe opposition to affirmative action as `racist' -- a dirty smear, and one that fails to explain how it could be racist to oppose race-based preferences.

So, in short, I'd have to say that your post tells us a lot more about your narrow biases and (amusingly) about how threatened you feel by groups like the IJ which are doing actual work for civil liberties then it tells us about the IJ itself.

Re:The ACLU Sucks!

[Loki_1929]

"The back pedofiles, murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc. The little good they do is negated by all the bullshit they do. The liberal bastards can kiss my ass and will never get my support on anything."

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I was not 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 Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up for me."

-- Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Justice is blind, and all persons are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the rights of the lowest members of society are recognized, then everyone else doesn't have to worry about their rights. If you don't like the fact that our laws, our government, and our Constitution were created with the recognition that all (wo)men were created equal, then perhaps a country such as China is better suited for you.

Here's Hoping to an end of Political Shilling here

[jeramybsmith]

Slashdot has become home to a large contingent of Bush haters who use red herring privacy scares and politcally motivated activism by groups like the ACLU to do their bashing. I have yet to see anyone explain the true privacy concern of a roving wiretap. This sort of "i blame the bush admin" and "john ashcroft is anti-privacy" garbage is just meme-creation and activism.

In John Ashcroft's first big privacy test, he passed! Forces tried to get Ashcroft to open up the background check database for firearms (essentially turning the database into a firewarms registration database) and he opposed it. His perpetual politically motivated critics actually called this "responding to the gun lobby". And yes, I saw some of that very shilling on slashdot.

Re:This is my COUNTRY

[commodoresloat]

Are you joking? How can you have that quote from James Madison (paraphrasing Voltaire I think) alongside your declaration of your willingness to give up your rights for some vague promise of "safety"? Specifically after you basically say, if you disagree with me, get out of my country? The idea that people can state such nonsense and cloak it as patriotism makes me want to puke. This country is great because people have been willing to stand up and insist upon the rights promised in the Constitution, not because we have cowardly surrendered them every time a power-hungry leader scares us with horror stories about terrorists poisoning our mail.

Let's get this straight once and for all: Giving up our rights will not make us any safer. Every one of the terrorists who hijacked planes last September was already under surveillance without sneak-and-peek laws. Every one of them had a valid ID without national ID card laws. Not one of them made public speeches denouncing the US, without extra restrictions on political speech. All of them got money from known terrorist sources, without crackdowns on Muslim charities. It's already illegal to commit mass murder, without having extra penalties for vaguely defined "terrorist" activities. The PATRIOT act was a wish list that Ashcroft had mostly compiled before 9/11. And they got it from Congressional leaders without debate while they were still jittery about anthrax. (Just like Bush got a blank check for unilateral preventive war from Congressional leaders with little debate while they're jittery about elections.) Make no mistake: Ashcroft and Co. are hijacking the country, in plain view of the American public, and our elected representatives are doing nothing to stop it. By painting anyone who objects as unpatriotic, they're scaring people into accepting the destruction of our most precious values.

I'm an optimist though - it may take a few years, even a decade, but America will survive this assault in the end, because liberty is stronger than its enemies. History will not smile on those orchestrating the current mess; this period will be a blotch like the Red Scare, a time when America lost its wits.

Re:This is my COUNTRY

[joe_adk]

Hey soldier, I served too. So what. You seem to miss the point of military service. You GIVE UP your rights (for a contracted period of time) to protect the rights of others. It's sad that you seem to have so much contempt for the Americans that you are protecting (by reading /.). So you have an understanding and appreciate the freedom? Good. How, then, can you in any way, support the loss of the freedom that you are paying for and so many have died for. You are right, "freedom aint free." Part of the payment is the courage to stand by our national ideals in the face of our aggressors. -ignorant trolls piss me off

Re:This is my COUNTRY

[demo9orgon]

You're correct. Freedom isn't free. It's paid for with vigilance by members of the citizenry who are willing to reproach the zealots who have been placed in positions of authority, and are possibly abusing such authority.

Democracy, even the representational democracy of the United States, is only an experiment. Government as usual in most of the world is not as slow, cumbersome, or as checked. That is the beauty of this democratic experiment.

So when a zealot starts pushing laws (Ashcroft is the only attorney general--to date--who is so ashamed of breasts that he had the statue of Lady Justice draped because of her secondary sexual characteristcs) and starts proposing the slippery-slope of using the military for civil police action, or the scanning and logging and 3rd. party databasing of digital citizen information while telling us that it's for our own good then everyone under such a government has a right to be concerned.

The ACLU recieves a great deal of bad press from members of the entertainment industry (News Corporations affiliated with even bigger corporations who often seek to marginalize any opponents to legislation which benefits the parent companies of said corporations) masquarading as reporters and editors. They're often paid to perform a hack-job on the issues. What matters is that the ACLU lawyers involved are often broaching a case which may seem very unpopular, while at the same time seeking to overturn or have amended the technical flaws behind legislation which is sometimes passed with such carelessness and behind schedule that legislators have no time to fix it...then such repair falls to the courts and groups like the ACLU. Remember, laws in this country are passed for mostly the wrong reasons--money, or turning the high-tech ratchet of mind and movement control a notch or two tighter.

As consumers of the media, we only see what the big players want us to see. The ACLU is an easy target for the WhiteHouse press to use in order to build concensus, incite the patriotic, and then using sound-bytes like a preacher on crack; willing the soldiers of gawd onto glory, completely obscures the real issues that will matter once the crisis is behind us.

I've heard smarter people than me remark, "Trouble at home, make trouble abroad." It's supposed to be a Machivelli quote that should have us all understanding the current state of things. If you're not worried, then you don't understand what is happening.

Re:Oh how i love Australia

[ajd1474]

What about it? We don't have people walking around with automatic weapons, rifles or shotguns. At least i can walk down to the Supermarket without fear of being shot.

But i don't want to start a debate on gun control here. My original point was that Australia (being behind the 8 ball in technology) has an opportunity to see how the rest of the world runs and then learn from their errors. With the exception Senator Alston, Australia is quite open to new Technology and doesnt see fit to censor it as some here say.

(Also, no Australian drinks Fosters, contrary to what the international marketing boffins would have you believe.)

Re:News for geeks

[Torgo's Pizza]

*My* point is that the ACLU will eventually get around to target any and every law that's ever been passed. Duh! We all hate the implications of the Patriot Act, but just because the ACLU gets involved, it suddenly merits our attention again?

Ooooo! Look mom! The ACLU is spending $3.5 million on television ads! Hmmmm... just before an election too. Exactly how are these ads supposed to help us anyway? This is just smoke and mirrors. Make John Ashcroft the bad guy when Congress and a Democratic Senate passed the bill. PCWorld doesn't have enough to report on, so they got sux0r3d into pushing propaganda as a news article. Wake me up when there's a real court challenge.