Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent 1601
955301 writes "As if it was unexpected, the New York Times (free reg...) has an article on attempts by our Congressional Republicans to eliminate the expiration of the Patriot Act. Everyone may thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah for getting this 9/11 snowball rolling, and the general population for our current leadership." There's another story in the SF Chronicle.
My God. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:My God. (Score:4, Funny)
In all seriousness (Score:3, Interesting)
And yeah, we're already innundated by American culture, so they'll probably feel quite at home.
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw which is aptly starting the describe many in the US:
"I love my country, it's the government I'm
Re:My God. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My God. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My God. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My God. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My God. (Score:5, Funny)
Whenever a...
Hey, donuts!
Re:My God. (Score:4, Funny)
When confronted by a violent protester, our prime minister strangled the guy himself.
Conversely, Your texan president was nearly killed by a pretzel.
Enough said
Re:My God its full of stars! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My God its full of stars! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My God its full of stars! (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah. While Baby Bush was AWOL. Snorting up lines of coke and drunk off his ass, no doubt. Hypocrite.
Re:My God its full of stars! (Score:4, Informative)
I'll use Rome as an example, though this applies to pretty much everyone else.
The Romans understood single combat to be the greatest test of manliness and the general quality of a man ever devised. In order to prove himself, a Roman youth would fight in the army for a number of years, at first in high risk combat in the front lines, and then as he improved, falling back until he was in the Triarii, a fairly safe portion of the Legion.
Since Rome had a fairly warlike culture service in the army was a great honor, and was generaly self financed. People fought in the army as volunteers, received no pay, and dished out a substantial chunk of cash to do so. So many people wanted to fight that property requirements were set in place to restrict those who could.
As Rome adopted Helenistic Greek Culture the role of combat diminished in judging the worth of a man. Other things, such as wealth, power, artistic and athletic ability rose to the forefront. Roman aristocrats shrank from the duties of the Army because power and wealth could be attained in less dangerous and uncomfortable ways.
This caused a shortage of persons in the army, but it also caused an overabundance of aristocrats who wanted to run large farms etc. This created a class of landless urben poor who needed money, food, shelter etc.
Thus is born the professional army (middle to late republic.... particularly due to massive losses in the second Punic war. So starting in 216 BC and moving forward to around 180 BC with total privitization).
The professional army eliminates war as a threat to the rich classes. Officers may be pulled from the ranks of the wealthy, but the fighting men never are. The professional army is better trained, better equiped, and better prepared to meet the challenges of the world. It is also a powerfull institution in and of itself, and demands both use and funding. Thus Rome expands.
But with expansion comes the need to defend territory. Eventualy an equilibrium between the armies strength and the size of the empire is reached. Stagnation sets in, and with it decline.
The same pattern is observable in the United States. WWII and before is our era of glory through combat. Vietnam paralells the second punic war, devistating losses tarnishing the preceived glory of fighting for the contry.
Today we have a professional army, all volunteer, well trained, well equiped, and very powerfull. The existance of this military force encourages its use, and as we use it the percentage of the world we are concerned about expands. This streatches the military thinner and thinner until an equilibrium is reached. Stagnation and then decline will set in at that point.
Now this may take hundreds or even thousands of years. Rome tought us that the world can move very slowly if it wants to. It may also happen nearly overnight. I promise you that in 400 AD no one suspected that Rome would be conquered within their childrens lifetimes, not once, but several times.
Re:My God. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My God. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why am I saying this? Well.. weeks ago I was also called an idiot for saying that I believed the PA would go permanent. Now we have a story telling us that it's in the works. I've copied the article link and sent it over to my 'buddy' who called me a fool. Wonder who the bigger fool is. One who keeps an eye on the Government (and argues against their use of
Re:My God. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm with you on the conclusion, but respectfully must argue about the idea that soldiers and guns gave us freedom.
Long-haired intellectuals with spongy muscles created the document that enumerated our freedoms. Hippy peacenik idealists. Romantics.
Soldiers, for all their bravery and patriotism, are walking guns that do what they are told. They rarely fight for civil rights -- it's not their job, and frankly they are members of an organization that does not prize dissent at any level. And it shows in their politics.
Without the hated intellectual liberals creating the basis for our freedoms, and fighting for them every day in the courts, the soldiers would only exist to make us do what we are told. Patriotism doesn't make you free. Saddam's soldiers are patriots -- but they never were free.
Guns don't make you free either. 70% of the Iraqi population owns a firearm. Didn't help them much.
It takes brains -- courage -- to fight conformity, which is the real enemy of freedom.
Soldiers will shoot whomever they are conditioned to shoot. It takes "libertarians" (when did that become an epithet?) to create a government that cannot use the guns of the soldiers to create domestic political power.
'Sides, if guns and troops were the answer, then we could get rid of the Constitution and have the Defense Department and the President rule over us.
Oh -- wait. Oops.
Re:My God. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most generals have given into the temptation of being dictator-for-life; he didn't. He knew what he was fighting for.
Re:My God. (Score:5, Funny)
And 65% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Just remebered something... (Score:4, Insightful)
Soldiers, for all their bravery and patriotism, are walking guns that do what they are told. They rarely fight for civil rights -- it's not their job, and frankly they are members of an organization that does not prize dissent at any level. And it shows in their politics.
I am a newsman in Nashville, Tn. I have been reporting at Ft. Campbell (home of the 5th SOG, 101st Airborne and the Rakkasans) more times than I can remember. To respond for them I say this:
I was at a free concert event one day where a lot of really good bands were about to play... suddenly three unit leaders walked on stage and started reading the original articles of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. It took forever. The bands waited. They read the classics. States rights, etc. Swear to God they were bookin' through it but it took a while.
Then all of the soldiers stood up and saluted, and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Just like they do when they are sworn in as US servicemen. This was before a concert.
Kinda shoots holes in your theory that they are all idiots that don't care about the US Constitution and how important it is. And that they don't stand for it.
You do realize, of course, that they swear allegiance to the ideals of the US before they swear allegiance to the government, don't you?
Re:Just remebered something... (Score:4, Insightful)
And then we look at the My Lai massacare, and the fact that George Washington was offered the presidency. No one's saying that soliders are idiots. But "all the soliders stood up and saluted"; how many considered that they were saluting the fact that Congress didn't have the right to stop the slave trade during the first years of our country? That the people could not be trusted to elect their senators? The fact that a slave is only 3/5 a person? The soliders stood up and saluted patriotism, not any thoughtful concept of what they had just been read. There were no dissenters, nessecary for a healthy democracy; no one refused to stand for a document that endorsed slavery, that permitted the white man west of the Applalations to take someone else's land.
You do realize, of course, that they swear allegiance to the ideals of the US before they swear allegiance to the government, don't you?
This is after they go through a several month indoctrination, chanting kill-kill-kill and get punished for hesitating to carry out any order given to them. A fifteen-second pledge versus months of indoctrination.
Re:My God. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I do not agree with many things in the PATRIOT act, I am getting pretty disgusted with the abuse the Supreme Court is taking on the election. Face it, they were given a no win situation. Half of the people were going to be mad at whatever decision they made.
In the end, they may be the ones who have to review the PATRIOT act. And I don't believe that the elec
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Canada may be next (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll rephrase - socialized medicine at it's worst is worse than privatized at it's best, but the median case of one is no better than the median case of the other, and with the socialized care at least you've got a chance for a positive experience. As someone who spent most of his life too poor for health insurance, I know exactly how hard it is to get treated.
Re:My God. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the second amendment
In socialist canada, bears arm YOU!
I am confident (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am confident (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am confident (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I am confident (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I am confident (Score:3, Insightful)
A burning cross is ``an instrument of terror,'' they say, so First Amendment protection is not available.
If the First Amendment does not protect ``terrorists,'' how will it be able to overturn the PATRIOT act?
Re:I am confident (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks like the Supreme Court is becoming the first resort of the opponents of a law, be it the DMCA or the PATRIOT act. This is wrong.
The way things are supposed to work is to voice and consider these concerns before it is signed into law. Before it affects the life, liberty, and happiness of actual people. This is done by constituents voicing their concerns, and representatives acting on behalf of those concerns. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be in the business of correcting legislative stupidities (and in fact refrained from doing so in the Eldred case). The proper role of the Supreme Court is to clarify a law where lower courts have each reasonably come to different interpretations. They are, if you will, legal scholars with a final say.
You've basically replaced the rightful and designed role of hundreds of elected representatives with the peripheral role of a dozen justices appointed by Presidents. While I understand your frustration and lack of faith in your representatives, the risks here should be obvious.
Re:I am confident (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am confident (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. I'm just saying that voting them away is the designed solution to the problem. Relying on a side effect of an undesigned solution such as the Supreme Court means that things like the Eldred case get punted back to the Legislature.
Anyone who voted in favor of a bill that's declared unconstitutional should be removed from office because they've violated the oath of office.
Well, some laws live right on the border, so this is not a good solution, either. You need to consider that things like Affirmative Action, for example, may have been passed with the best intentions even though they are arguably unconstitutional.
Point is, people who look to the Supreme Court to correct bad laws are looking for short term solutions. This is bad because by the time a law does get struck down, it's already affected many people. Worse, many bad laws won't get struck down. What you really need to do is to either fix your representation system, or fix your citizenry so that they are less apathetic or ignorant.
The political system, like any system, needs maintenance. Your post hints at setting up an ideal automatic system (remove legislators who propose unconstitutional laws), and can only work as well as our foresight allows - which is to say, never as well as we'd like. Vigilance really is the price here.
Re:I am confident (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait! A bunch of people ARE doing that... and guess what? They are creating a government that is an expression of their will!
If you have not been a part of that process, it is your fault. If you don't vote, your vote is for "whoever wins" which is distinct from a vote for "nobody". If you don't participate in a party organization, the party assumes the candidates they select are just hunky dory with you, and that you support whatever policies and platforms they decide to run with.
Too many people seem to have this idea that the political process begins and ends with a presidential ballot whenever the race comes around, and they don't even bother with it. The idea that the government is the net result of MANY, MANY smaller elections that they also did not participate in, is lost on them.
So, when the government that they didn't participate in goes in a direction they disagree with, the only thing they can think to do is protest. The understanding that the current government is the result of decades of work by people who have actively pursued it is lost in the noise of the notion that the entire US government is the result of a single botched presidential election. So people delude themselves with the fallacious notion that removing the president will fix everything. They choose not to recognize just how limited the president's powers actually are -- because then they would be forced to acknolwedge just how many OTHER people are in government that disagree with their views.
And then they don't show up for their mayor, state legislature, or bond elections... And they wonder why the government doesn't express the will of the people..
I say "it DOES."
Re:That's if you'll retain the right to challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait...
Re:I am confident (Score:5, Funny)
Not A Joke (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no opinion on it yet but look forward to reading yours.
Not a joke either (Score:3, Insightful)
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Patriot Act bans Franklin? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. ;-)
The question remains, what liberties are you referring to?
Amendment 1: Free speech.
Amendment 4: Privacy
Ever hear of the Total Information Awareness program, for instance?
Or can you name none?
The main problem with it is that it continues (not starts) down the slippery slope of eliminating important Constitutional freedoms.
How will you feel when the government installs a video camera at the bottom of your driveway...just to make sure you're not involved with any terrorist activities? Or when GPS-enabled cell phones become mandatory so your location can be tracked at all times if the phone is used? Or when you must submit a DNA sample to the government so your identity can be verified at any later date? Or the government begins tracking all your purchases and finances to ensure you're not involved with terrorism? Or when the government monitors all domestic phone conversations and email for suspicious phrases? You don't have anything to hide do you?
America was NOT founded with that type of lifestyle in mind...quite the opposite! We'd better nip this kind of thing in the bud if we don't want lose our basic freedoms. Especially when losing those freedoms most likely will do little, if anything, to effectively deal with terrorism.
For my money, one of the most effective ways to deal with terrorism would be to get the highest possible percentage of the population to carry concealed weapons...but perhaps that's just me. ;-)
I'll finish off with two more quotes:
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson
"Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
--Patrick Henry
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Informative)
And that is un-American. Period.
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Informative)
http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights like the access to a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time. To be represented in court with a competent lawyer in the field. To be proven of guilt by a jury of peers.
Rights like anonymous freedom of speech. Anonymous freedom of association. And anonymous dissemination and learning of information.
What rights we lose now we will eventually regain in the mass deaths of some group. But that's just a "terrorist" act in and of itself.
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Informative)
1. Redefines terrorism too broadly: the new definition includes previously protected free speech. If any person feels threatened (rightfully or not) by a lawful protest, then under the patroit act that protest is considered a terrorist act.
2. New surveillance powers circumvent judicial review: Previously federal agencies had to get permission from the courts for wiretapping and other forms of covert surveillance. Under the Patriot Act the agency can arbitrarily label someone a 'suspected terrorist' and conduct surveillance without the court's permission. Moreover, that label doesn't have to be approved by any external agency... and the person gets no chance to defend himself.
3. Abbrogates right to a speedy trial. Previously Constitutional protections guarenteed that a person could be held for only a very limited time without a trial... and they must be charged with a crime. Again, its a question of judicial oversight. Under the Patriot Act the executive branch can, at their own discretion, detain a person for an indefinate period of time. The only legal requirement is that the President considers them a national security risk, but again, he can keep detainees a secret, and there is no judicial review of the process. In fact, he doesn't even have to accuse them of any crimes or place them legally under arrest, just "disappear" them.
Whether or not it successfully stops criminal acts, something which we can debate more or less ad infinitum since the government no longer has to report its actions publically, the primary effect of the Patriot Act is the greatly increase the powers of the Executive branch, and effectively neuter the Judicial branch.
Its been publically admitted by many of the acts proponents that it drastically reduces the Judicial branches powers, greatly restricts personal freedoms, and grants the executive branch almost police state powers, but that was always prefaced with the promise that it was a temporary measure for a particularly volatile period. Now, the 'temporary' measure appears to be a permanent fixture, which is probably only fair since the "war on terrorism" itself will likely last longer than any of us will live.
A serious question (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you justify the word "almost" in that sentence? In the USA today, the government can make people simply disappear. The USA already imprisons a larger fraction of its population than any other developed country, and the Patriot Act has barely started to have an effect. What more do you want before you are willing to describe the USA as a police state?
Re:Not A Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume by the "crazy leftwing ideas" that you're either a troll or a Repugnican, but here we go anyways:
Historical precedent. The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as "a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." Just on its surface, the Bush regime is following the above definition. Witness the parade of corporate CEOs that now populates the president's cabinet and key advisory bodies. Observe how the Bushistas attack the patriotism of anyone who challenges their politics.
Similarly to Hitler's "emergency powers" after the burning of the Reichstag, the Bush administration is attempting to re-write or re-interpret laws that have afforded American citizens and legal residents civil rights protection for two centuries, while moving to stack the courts with judges that will uphold the new anti-terrorist (read: anti-citizen) laws. An important characteristic of totalitarian regimes is their working to make the legal system a tool of state power.
Another one of the hallmarks of totalitarianism is the need to have permanent enemies and scapegoats to blame for national misfortunes. In Soviet Russia, we saw an endless parade of fascists, Socialists, Trotskyites, and "reactionaries" used as justification for massive military expenditures, arrests, executions, and "re-education" camps. Francisco Franco branded as "Communist" any group that fought his hard-right suppression of Spanish democracy. The Nazis raised scapegoating to the ultimate horror in their mass extermination facilities for Jews, gypsies, and anyone else blamed for debasing the German kultur.
At present Saddam Hussein is the Enemy, although Iraqis have done nothing since the 1991 Gulf War to provoke the U.S. When Saddam is no longer credible as the enemy, another will take his place, as he took the place of Osama Bin Laden. The Nazis were pioneers in using a linkage of popular broadcasting and print media to spread their twisted propaganda. We still acknowledge Josef Goebbels for his observation that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth. And so it is today, with Fox news, the Washington Times, The Standard, and other right-wing media outlets spewing false stories and twisted statistics so that "average" tax cut amounts apply to everyone.
Then there is the well-known fascist preoccupation with the use of military force. The Nazi leaders could hardly wait to blood their storm troops in a real war. Hitler was "relieved" that the Poles decided to fight him instead of capitulating to German demands. Mussolini sent his forces gleefully to war against Ethiopia for no better reason than wanting to beat up a sixth-rate military power. The obvious allusions to the behavior of our current regime in Washington would be funny if the expected outcome of their policy was not so tragic.
A final, somewhat depressing observation about fascism: to fascist leaders, the masses of people they lead are disposable assets. That offers a possible explanation why the Bush administration does not show much concern for the jobless or those whose retirements are threatened by collapsed 401Ks. It also explains Donald Rumsfeld's blithely calling Vietnam veterans "what was left" after the best and brightest found a way to dodge military service.
Citizens of the United States must oppose against American fascism on the airwaves, in the print media, on the campuses, in the legislatures, the courts, the Congress, and on the streets. There is no place ro run, I'm afraid.
Reg-free link to article and full text: (Score:5, Informative)
Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
ASHINGTON, April 8 -- Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.
The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.
The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.
When it passed in October 2001, moderates and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions will expire, or "sunset," at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes them.
But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.
Many Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as a lack of information from the Justice Department on how its agents are using their newfound powers, and they say they need more time to determine whether agents are abusing those powers.
The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said today that without extensive review, he "would be very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.
Indeed, Congressional officials and political observers said the debate might force lawmakers to take stock of how far they were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
Beryl Howell, a former Democratic aide in the Senate who worked extensively on the 2001 legislation, said that by forcing the issue, Mr. Hatch "is throwing down the gauntlet to people who think the U.S.A. Patriot Act went too far and who want to cut back its powers."
Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.
"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.
Another senior official who also demanded anonymity said the department had held discussions with Congressional Republicans about how that might best be accomplished. "Our involvement has really been just keeping an open ear to the issue as it's proceeding, not to really guide the debate," the official said.
With the act's provisions not set to expire for more than two and a half years, officials expected that the debate over its future would be many months away. But political jockeying over separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, appears to have given Senator Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected.
The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group.
Advocates say the measure
Re:Reg-free link to article and full text: (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a good name for it.
Be carefull now (Score:5, Funny)
Please, PLEASE listen to my
Chilling Effect (Score:4, Funny)
Orrin Hatch looking for Supreme Court Seat (Score:5, Interesting)
He has been named several times as a possible replacement for any of the retiring Justices. He now has to prove himself conservative enough to ensure his legacy and a possible shot at the Chief Justice's seat.
Best Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Riiight. So you will only speak on the condition of anonymity but all ordinary citizens are expected to forfeit that right? I'm sure the irony of that situation will go unchecked.
Review != not renewed (Score:3, Insightful)
They act as if sunset provisio
Now might be a good time to.... (Score:5, Interesting)
...join in the ACLU [aclu.org].
--Bruce F.
Re:Now might be a good time to.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now might be a good time to.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You misunderstand the purpose of the ACLU. They defend civil liberties equally for Americans of all races and religions. If you are a member of religion X and the government does something that (likely uses your money) to endorse religion Y, you have a problem. This is where the ACLU step
Re:Now might be a good time to.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you know what you are talking about? ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School [aclu.org]
For those that haven't done so already... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have problems with it, you have to let your representative know how you feel. They can't read your minds. And I doubt many of them read Slashdot.
Re:For those that haven't done so already... (Score:3, Funny)
Now for some fun happy links about contacting your representatives/senates:
House of Representatives Web Page [house.gov] - note the "find your representative" form right on the upper-left corner of the page. Or use the Write Your Representative [house.gov] page.
Senate Web Page [senate.gov] - you should see the "Find your senato
How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars (Score:4, Insightful)
survey says... (Score:3, Insightful)
But didn't the general population vote for Gore?
Re:survey says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Judging by the voter turnout [fairvote.org], the general population voted to sit on the couch and watch the results on TV, as usual.
Not general population's fault (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, no. Everyone may thank five citizens [supremecourtus.gov] and an obsolete and outmoded Consitutional body [fec.gov] for the current leadership. See what you get when you let democracy break down, people?
Re:Not general population's fault (Score:5, Insightful)
All of you had the chance to vote out any and every House member that supported the USA PATRIOT Act. Many of you also had the ability to get rid of any Senator. And yet you don't want any of the blame, you want to blame the Supreme Court that "appointed" President Bush, the very same president that has yet to veto anything Congress gave him since his term began. If you quit bitching about the 2000 election for five minutes and realized that this White House has literally allowed Congress to do whatever it damned well pleased, you might have seen this law coming to begin with.
I also find it amusing that you blame the Electoral College, when the people, allowed to vote without thinking thanks to the Seventeenth Amendment, were the ones that overwhelimingly supported the incumbents that composed and passed the USA PATRIOT Act to begin with. Hey, it's not like over 90% of the folks you got to elect directly supported the bill or anything...
No, what we have here is not a "break down" of democracy. The USA PATRIOT Act happened because of democracy! Both chambers of Congress are full of people who got their position not because of merit, but because they looked good on TV and had catchy campaign slogans. Why should they avoid knee-jerk reactions when they're there because of knee-jerk reactions? For the USA PATRIOT Act, you can thank both yourselves and your 1913 compatriots that gave you the ability to shoot yourselves in the foot like this to begin with [friendsforamerica.com].
Did you even vote last year?
Re:Not general population's fault (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope.
Gore won Florida, and with it, the election. Florida was, however, declared as being a Bush win. When the recount was about to show that Gore did win, the Supreme Court stopped the recount, saying it would 'make things very difficult for Bush to go on with his presidency.' Paraphrase, but that's the idea.
An independant recount by media, later, showed that Gore won.
Also, when the Dems tried to point things out like, oh, most of the military absentee ballots were illegally cast, the Republicans
i know how we look (Score:5, Interesting)
when i entered japan, the things important enough to be mentioned in english were: no firearms, drugs, intoxicants or pornographic articles. going back into america i had to take my compass out of my math bookbag, empty my tolietries kit and get rid of my scissors. it's completely ridiculous to do things like this to 13-14 year olds that only want to get back home. i decided then and there that something wasn't right. when i got home and raised the alarm, people accepted it mutely, almost like sheep. no one seemed to care that they could be taken away without any trial if the government wanted to, or that their isp could be forced to reveal weblogs or ip traffic from their account.
i figure, since im already going to school where there are mostly 13 year old sheep, new zealand won't be much of a change..
Re:i know how we look (Score:5, Insightful)
you are close. go visit a slaughter house and watch the cows marching in to their doom. they AREN'T forced they happily line up and walk in to their death because they are conditioned to their entire lives.
This is the general american public.
welcome to america.. Mooooooooo.
Re:i know how we look (Score:5, Funny)
Sheep don't moo.
SB
grab a speech by Joe McCarthy (Score:4, Insightful)
s/communism/terrorism;
s/USSR/Al Qaeda;
s/Russia/Iraq;
and you will see what the United States is about to become again.
It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunch! (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, it was another "Act" that was passed by King George all those years ago that severely limited our freedoms that caused a revolution in this country
As soon as this terrorist thing cools off a bit, this "Act" will be revisitied and decalred unconstitutional.
Any "law" that gives the government the right to spy on people will not last
I understand the need for security, but this has gone too far! What is next
Now I know this is a bit off topic, but this "Patriot Act" series has to come to a screeching halt! PA II, not yet passed, allows the US government the right to add 5 years onto a jail sentence just for using encryption when commiting a "crime"
These "patriot" acts are just another example of big business paying off politicians to get rediculous laws into place that will protect their interests (even though it may LOOK like they are protecting the people).
To the US gov't: Stop wasting time on this kind of stuff and go find bin Laden!
Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understand (Score:5, Interesting)
The Patriot Act is a tax on civil liberties. Perhaps it is necessary. But we must demand at least as much proof of its necessity and review of its impact as we would a new tax. To require cost benefit analyses is *not* saying that it should be abolished, unless it cannot withstand scrutiny. And if it can't, why have it? If you're going take civil liberties out of my constitutional wallet, you better be ready to tell me where you're spending them and how well you're doing.
For these reviews or cost benefit analyses, a minimum step would be to require them to meet the requirements from this well-written report [privcom.gc.ca]:
"...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:
Title doesn't say it all (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that's not at all accurate.
It's not been voted on. Hell all the articles about this story state clearly "the move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress." Or that "Congressional Republicans, working with the Bush administration, are maneuvering to make permanent."
Where are we at in this process? Is the President signing it? Hell no it's being discussed. Discussed, not being voted on as we speak, discussed.
The best part is down at the bottom of the SF Gate piece.
"But political jockeying over separate, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., appears to have given Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected. The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, such as a terrorist group."
If that wasn't enough-- (Score:5, Insightful)
Another secret warrant law, this one to help speed the capture of "lone wolves," that is, terrorists who work without affiliation to a terrorist group. See the problem here? This is all about targeting individuals and making it even more secretive than it already is.
The decent into madness continues, unabated.
------
I like the assumption.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who don't have time/inclination to read the article: Congress is not making the PATRIOT act permanent. The article says that Orrin Hatch is attempting to make the act permanent. Many Congressmen agree; many disagree. Let your representatives know what you think. But know that this is not in the works already. This article's title is horribly misleading.
Fight Back! (Score:5, Informative)
Immediately go the ACLU's action page [aclu.org] where you can send a free fax to your representatives. It'll take you all of 15 seconds.
Next, call both of your Senators and your representative. Politely but firmly demand that they vote against this. Make clear that how your senator votes on civil liberties issues is very important to you.
If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote [fec.gov] (PDF document).
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Doesn't have to be a great work of prose, just give an example or two of how the PATRIOT Act threatens the constitution. Give the Ben Franklin quote. Letters to the Editor is one of the most read sections of the newspaper, and politicos read it closely.
Tell your friends. Sure, some people get irritated when politics gets brought up, but that's a small price to pay for the future of American democracy.
Lastly, act on your belief when election time comes around. Donate, volunteer, and vote for candidates who are on record supporting constitutional liberties.
actual copy of the act (Score:4, Informative)
Is it just me, or is it hard to find an actual copy of the act?
Patriot Act (text) [gpo.gov]
Is writing your congresscritter effective? (Score:5, Interesting)
How are we supposed to effectively communicate with our reps? E-mails can be easily ignored, or not even checked. Phone calls do not produce a permanent record. Faxes also can be ignored (if a fax line is listed). How can we contact these people and be sure that our concerns are read and recorded?
[activate paranoia]
Could it be that the govt. *started* the anthrax scare to shut down mail delivery? Maybe they didn't want to hear the public's concerns to the new laws they are working on. If they don't notify the people that the mail delivery is shut down, how are we to know that they're not listening?
[deactivate paranoia]
Interesting situation (Score:4, Insightful)
In summary: the Constitution is hard to amend because the founding fathers realized that few of their sucessors would be up to the task of changing such an important document. Only those that can convience not only a majority that voted for them, but most of those that didn't as well, should be able to make such a change. Only those people are qualified enough to do so.
Re:God willing. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:God willing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait. I said WAI......
God willing it will Disappear! (Score:5, Insightful)
We cannot allow this to continue. I will be writing my Congressmen and saking others to do the same. Laws like this are how Hitler, Mussolini, and numerous other dictators got started. Law is built on precedence, so if we allow this to continue the envelope will be pushed until new even more intrusive laws are allowed. Seriously, if we are allowed to treat non-citizens like lawbreakers without reprisal, how long will it be before we are allowed to treat citizens like lawbreakers mere for speaking against the government? Oregon is already proposing legislature that would allow peace protestors to be arrested on terrorism charges. How long before this is carried nationwide?
Our rights are under serious threat from a government led by certain people that thirst for power. If we don't act now, it may well be illegal to act later. Call your reps and senators, spread the word, and let's try to kill this thing now before it becomes permanent law.
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Insightful)
So how do you come to the conclusion that the Patriot Act works?
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll second Keeper.
And make a few observations of my own.
We (meaning the U.S., Britain and allies) are in the process of defeating a country that tightly controlled its people. We did the same to the late Soviet Union -- another nation that practiced tight control of its citizens.
Many historians argue that the Roman empire fell because it moved from a laissez faire model -- we don't care what you do as long as you don't try to sack Rome -- to trying to run peoples' lives.
Tyranny works -- briefly. Then it destroys.
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a rock that keeps tigers away. I haven't seen any tigers lately, so it must be working fairly well.
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Funny)
There are no giant squids within a thousand miles of here. Either my anti-squid paperweight works or the squids have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it. This thing is here to stay. Until some progressive leadership realizes our immigrant population is dwindling because of harassment. "Thank God" the nationalists cry. But lets not forget, these are the people are outrank us in any tests of the maths and sciences, and they include some of the best entrepreneurs we have.
Why not outsource then? If I can pay for the same skills overseas, I'll take it. Not all skills are outsourcable, I've commented on this already. What a great help to the EU and Asia! We're going to pump more corporate dollars overseas, meanwhile we try to shut down the surreptitious church funds and money transfer shops. Ironic.
We're closing ours doors through fear. The effects are going to be subtle and long-felt. There's a marketing aspect here. Each time, regardless of usage, the Ashcrofts of the administration argue for "war time infrigements", we're fueling a isolationist platform. History has proven these moves to be limiting to only growth, and not much good otherwise.
mug
Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (Score:5, Funny)
Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."
Homer: "Thank you, dear."
Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"
Lisa: "It doesn't work."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."
Homer: "Uh-huh."
Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"
Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
</obSimpsonsReference>
Here in Parallel Logic Land (Score:5, Insightful)
Christian Churches were banned because they were breeders of Terrorists.
White Men with short haircuts were interviewed by the CIA to determine their Official Level of Loyalty.
The military was disbanded because it gave Would-be-Terrorists skills and training to do their work.
???
.sig
Oh wait, back in Reality, Totalitarianism and Fear Mongering only works when the boogie-man is OUTSIDE the borders and easily picked-out...
America has always loved to rally in hate against an Enemy, how lucky this new one is so Evil(tm). Read my
No terrorist acts??? (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the DC sniper?? Those dudes ran around a highly populated metro for nearly a month before they got nabbed on a lucky break.
Neither was prevented by this act that was SPECIFICALLY designed to combat this type of "lone wolf" terrorists.
And, BTW, I don't care what the media calls them; these two examples are terrorist acts.
If you're tired, try FOX (Score:4, Insightful)
Liberal bias in Slashdot. Bah. Set up another straw man, I'm tired of hearing about liberal bias. Have you looked out the window recently? This country is so far right, we can't see left from here.
If it's really a burden for you, there are plenty of sources for you. I would recomend FOX and CNN for starters. They are very right-friendly, and you will feel very comfy there. No one will question government motives, no one will ask embarrasing questions about corporations. You can safely dream that this is the same country portrayed in "Leave it To Beaver."
Thanks for stopping by, and sorry for making all this liberal noise about rights & privacy. I mean really, what were we thinking?
As a final note, I'd caution you about the internet, it's a rough neighborhood, and you may bump into some ideas that aren't the same as yours. I wouldn't worry though, It'll all be cleaned up in a couple of years. I hear Disney's buying it.
Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trust Big Brother! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a brief rundown - it's the idea that people are important. That by being a member of society, you have an obligation to all the other members of that society. That people should work together to provide for the common good. You would be dead right now if it weren't for the things you're poo-pooing. You didn't educate yourself - nobody does. You can't.
I DO work 60 hours a week (often) with no overtime. I'm forced into that work model because this country treats people as a resource rather than citizens, and thus I'm expected to compete to keep my job. I'm sure your father is a very worthwhile person, but it's a simple fact of economics that not everyone can be successfull - in fact most people can't. Think about it sometime. And, to a liberal, that fact means that we have an obligation to make sure that our own ambition doesn't take the food from anyone elses mouth or the roof from over thier head.
I don't have any solid figures, but I would be astonished if I were wrong when I said that 90% of the people making over, say, 100k a year (not rich, but upper middle class) came from (at least) lower middle class backgrounds. This is where your taxes go - to provide opportunities for people without rich parents.
Now, it's not done perfectly and I'm as annoyed as you with the amount of taxes taken out of my check, although military spending accounts for more of it than anything else, so if you support that you might want to re-think your ranting. But the principles, the concepts that lead to this sort of thing, are perfectlly sound, and, in fact, are one of the reasons our country even still exists. Take a look at history, with the massive gap (far more than in America today, although it's growing) in the standard of living between the upper class and the poor. The American Dream was the rise of the middle class.
Guessing from the synopsis of your life story, I'd bet that you've never been truly poor - that while you may have worked hard, you've never needed to make choices like whether to feed your children or clothe them. Those are hard choices - the kind that nobody should ever have to make, and they pretty much take the wind right our of arguments like "work harder and everything will be okay".
If you were TRULY a libertarian, you'd want to do away with inheritence. Think you have what it takes to make it on your own? How about, at birth, all children are placed in a big pit (we can use Texas) and only the strongest are able to dig themselves out. That way, your parents won't provide you with anything. Your success won't be measured by the accidents of your birth.
Lastly, let me just address this little tidbit of bullcrap: ""Liberals" believe that the government should take care of the people, and the people should thank and worship the government."
Bunk. Liberals believe that the goverment should take care of the people, period. It's that simple. I certainly don't worship or thank my government, but my social beliefs are liberal by any definition. I believe it's my obligation, as it is yours, that by being a member of society, and a citizen of this nation, to support everyone. To provide for common education. To provide a path for people to better themselves. The "free market" does not and cannot do any of this, because it inherently does not produce a profit.
Re:Now, now... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the president is far from the only job in the federal government. Seeing as how the whole damned House and a third of the Senate were up for grabs in 2000 and '02 (just like every election year), I am quite comfortable with blaming the voting public in general.
Especially so when you consider that all President Bush has essentially done is rubber stamp any and every piece of legislation that comes across his desk, having yet to veto anything.
Re:The general population is responsible. (Score:5, Informative)
1. There was no civil war in 2000. There was just a recount, as established in Florida law. What happened was a massive and wel-financed campaign in both the courts and the cable news networks to shut down the recount.
2. The recount was FINALLY proceeding according to law when the Supreme Court stepped in to stop it, citing (privately and vehemently) the necessity of stopping the Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court from enabling the recount.
3. In a decision condemned by nearly a totality of constitutional law professors, Scalia stopped the election because the results of the recount might cast doubt on the legitimacy of Bush's election. Scalia also incredibly stated that their decision could not be a precedent for any other cases.
4. If Gore had been the called winner before recounts had begun, there truly would have been a civil war, the radical right vs. the US. For the last 27 months, infinite lawsuits would have been filed, the RW press would have screamed about Gore's illegitimacy day and night, Gore wouldhave been accused of crime after crime, and the American people would be convinced that Gore stole the 2000 election. There would have been unremitting war against Gore.
Notice that, in contrast, railing against Bush's legitimacy gets one's microphone taken away, metaphorically and really.
5. Election results have been contested thousands of times inthe nation's history without civil war. That's the purpose of elections -- to prevent civil war. The Supremee Court unbelieveably shut down an election to bring closure wihout the messy bit about actually counting the votes, in order to put their ideological copatriot in power.
6. In the media consortium sponsored recount, Gore won. Amazingly, the NYT headline declared Bush the winner, and the incredible results were swept into the dustbin.
7. As a result of the Supremes declaring Bush the winner to "avoid a civil war", the Bill of Rights have been shut down. Bush's people ignored Clinton's anti-terrorism advisor who beggedthem to make bin-Laden the number one problem. Tax cuts for the very wealthy will destroy the social safety nets in the yearsto come. Foreign investors are withdrawing from the U.S. Treaties have been trashed. Fear and marketing have been used toconvince Americans that Iraq took down the World Trade Center, and that lie has established the Holy American Empire's first conquest in the Middle East. The USA has committed massive war crimes - not that anyone here cares - by invading another nation without provocation.
I'd rather have the civil war.
Learn from Europe, fools! (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is pretty moot.
Re:Hatch, Mormonism and the Constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
Hatch is a Mormon and Mormon's believe that one day the Constitution of the US will "hang by a thread." In that day, the Mormon belief goes, the Elders of the Mormon church will rush in to rescue it. I wonder if Hatch believes he is rescuing the Constitution here or if he is trying to hurry it's demise so that the Mormon Elders can come in to rescue it.
It sounds like the same logic some fundamentalist kooks believe in: they are trying to breed a red heifer, because according to Revelation, it is one of the signs that Jesus will come again. If people are doing something to follow some kooky belief, I question their sanity. This is why the fundamentalist kooks are so pro-Israel: the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem must be destroyed, and the Jewish Temple rebuilt, they believe, before Jesus comes again. (The ancient Jewish temple was on the site of the present Dome of the Rock, where Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven.)
Remember, this is the same guy who wants a Constitutional ammendment to prohibit flag burning.
As a mainline Christian, I consider a law against flag burning to be idolatry, because you are raising a symbol of the state up to be a symbol of reverence. Apparently Christian rightists forget about one of the commandments: "You shall not make an idol for yourself... you shall not bow down to them or worship them" (Ex. 20:5)
The "PATRIOT" Act is just part of the plan on the part of Reichsfuhrer Bush and Co. to create a fascistic state, with a Christian Rightist ideology that they at least pay lip service to. Making this law permanent would be a big mistake.
Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" (Score:4, Insightful)
The War on Drugs is a dismal failure. Drug use has not abated. The War or Terror(ism) will also be a failure. It will not make the world a safer place. But neither of these "wars" was meant to do what they told us they were for.