Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

Deconstructing the Patriot Act PR Campaign 533

Posted by CowboyNeal from the hard-looks dept.
Aaron writes "The Center for Democracy and Technology offers up an interesting point for point rebuttal to the the claims made via the 'rah-rah-esque' DOJ's website, part of the PR campaign (including Ashcroft speaking tours) to convince the public the Act is good for them. I think this Broadband Reports article also brings up a good point: among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight. The UN this year even launched an investigation into the use of the system to spy on UN diplomats without much fanfare."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Deconstructing the Patriot Act PR Campaign More

Deconstructing the Patriot Act PR Campaign

Comments Filter:

  • "Reliable Sources" as my English teacher would say (Score:3, Funny)

    by cscx ( 541332 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @09:34PM (#7354500) Homepage
    I get all my political news from BroadbandReports.com --- accept no substitutes!

  • Ben Franklin quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by batura ( 651273 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @09:34PM (#7354507)
    Last night on the West Wing, there was an inspiring quote from Benjamin Franklin:

    "The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. "

    This came to mind earlier today when I walked past an ACLU table on campus. They were gathering signatures for a petition against the "Patriot" Act. I'm glad someone is fighting for my freedom.

    • Re:Ben Franklin quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smack_attack ( 171144 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @09:37PM (#7354529) Homepage
      They were gathering signatures for a petition against the "Patriot" Act.

      Did you sign it?

    • Re:Ben Franklin quote (Score:2, Interesting)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 )
      Who?

      The ACLU doesn't support freedom till they support the 2nd adm.

      • Re:Ben Franklin quote (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by cscx ( 541332 )
        Sorry, the ACLU is too busy making sure the freedoms of pedophile groups [wired.com] isn't suppressed. I can't make shit like this up.
        • The ACLU fights for us all. The KKK, pedophiles, religious minorities, racial minorities, those who are subjected to illegal DUI-check roadblocks, Nazis, those who are threatened by the DMCA, etc.

          They fight for freedom, the freedom for everyone. Not just whatever group that happens to be popular. If they did not defend the rights of the most despised amongst us they would not be for liberty at all, just selective liberty.

          "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
          • FROM: http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

            "It is late August of 2001 as I revisit the activities of Noam Chomsky concerning Israel and the Jewish people.

            Has Chomsky perhaps mellowed somewhat, as I hoped when I last wrote about him in 1995 ? Has he perhaps tried to see something of both sides in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, some merit, no matter how small, in the cause of the Israeli people ?

            The answer, to put it bluntly, is fat chance.

            Eleven months since the beginning of what the
        • If the lowest of us do not have the freedom of expression, then none of us have the freedom of expression, only a simulacrum that will fail us when it is needed most.
      • They do support the 2nd ammendment [aclu.org] ass:

        The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.

        We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain

        • Re:Ben Franklin quote (Score:2, Informative)

          by DAldredge ( 2353 )
          FROM: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNew s Plus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307

          "he ACLU takes this odd position on the 2nd Amendment for two primary reasons, along with a fall back stance. First, they have decided that the term "the people" that is contained in the 2nd Amendment does not apply to "the people" as it does in all of the other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they take the position that this is a collective right and can only be assigned to a militia group, such

        • We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government.

          The phrase "the people" is used exactly 9 times in the Constitution. In every other case, but the second amendment, the ACLU interprets the phrase to apply to each of us as individuals. Only in the case of the second amendment is this not the case. It seems to be be a rather se

    • Actually Benjamin Franklin said

      "Those who would give up essential liberties for a measure of security deserve neither liberty nor security."

      Benjamin Franklin is a national jewel,

      I would think it would be best to at least remember his words correctly

  • The USA PATRIOT Act (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @09:34PM (#7354509) Homepage Journal
    "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". I don't think the article gets it right once.
    • As Kevin Nealon would say if he were not funny, Uniting (againsttheirwill) and Strengthening (thegovernment) America (landofthefreehomeofthebombs) by providing appropriate tools (guns) required (and fun to play with) to intercept and obstruct (makemoneyon) Terrorism Act of 2001.

      I'm not sure what retort to the word "terrorism" is appropriate. If they said "Terrorist" then I could probably come up with something.

  • Valid topic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Che Guevarra ( 85906 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @09:38PM (#7354531)
    1) It will keep us safe. We must abandon all rights. We need it. 2 ). It'll destroy us. Our rights are gone, we must stop it. -- Is there a middle ground? How do we find it and what is it?

    • Re:Valid topic (Score:2, Insightful)

      by beakerMeep ( 716990 )
      Although you are asking an honest question, you use a slippery slope premise. The middle ground is checks and balances which is what we had before. I dont think anyone is saying it will destroy us but rather that it is unethical inappropriate and *potentially* detrimental for these people to have such power hence the need for checks and balances.

  • Patriot Act - Time to Go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @09:39PM (#7354539) Homepage
    The Patriot Act has served it's purpose. It's time for it to go now.
  • Are government agencies really allowed to do this? I suppose the DOJ is allowed to "educate" people about the law, and propogate the legal positions of the justice department - but any five year old can see that this monolog is advocating legislative policy (the extension of the PATRIOT act, among other things), using federal money.

  • acticle -1 flamebait (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30, 2003 @09:42PM (#7354575)
    nothing to see here, move along
  • For one thing, "lifeandliberty.gov" that's sooooo Orwellian."

    ...why do so few of them bring up Echelon? ... " Maybe because it seems so far fetched that most people wouldn't believe it? If it wasn't for Australia and for the EU making a big stink over it, I, for one, would have had a hard time believing it myself.

    I also wish that those folks who argued against the PATRIOT Act would get more publicity. These are things people need to be aware of and to think about. If it wasn't for /., I would never hav

  • From the site (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @09:49PM (#7354618)
    DOJ CLAIM: Peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy cannot be considered terrorists under the PATRIOT Act's new definition of domestic terrorism.
    Under the PATRIOT Act, a violation of some criminal law involving risk of serious injury must occur before a person can be labeled a domestic terrorist. But it is easy to see how if an anti-abortion activist blocks traffic as part of a protest, or swings a sign and hits someone on the head, he could be labeled a terrorist. Such activities should be illegal, but they should not be subject to the threat of being labeled terrorism, triggering application of draconian law enforcement powers, such as the power to seize property D including cars, boats and homes.

    My reply

    DOJ CLAIM: Peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy cannot be considered terrorists under the PATRIOT Act's new definition of domestic terrorism.
    Under the PATRIOT Act, a violation of some criminal law involving risk of serious injury must occur before a person can be labeled a domestic terrorist. But it is easy to see how if an jaywalker blocks traffic as part of a protest, or trips and hits someone on the head, he could be labeled a terrorist. Such activities should be illegal, but they should not be subject to the threat of being labeled terrorism, triggering application of draconian law enforcement powers, such as the power to seize property D including cars, boats and homes.

    Of course - A judge still has to ok the jaywalker or abortionist to be a terrorist - But let's not let silly facts get into the way of another overblown attack on the patriot act - which few (if any) of the people against it have actually read it.

    • Re:From the site (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PopCulture ( 536272 )
      few (if any) of the people against it have actually read it

      even worse, few (if any) of the people who enacted it in to law in the first place ever read it.

      "The bill is 342 pages long and makes changes, some large and some small, to over 15 different statutes. ... it is a large and complex law that had over four different names and several versions in the five weeks between the introduction of its first predecessor and its final passage into law"

      if you are not upset with the patriot act, maybe you sho
    • Of course - A judge still has to ok the jaywalker or abortionist to be a terrorist

      You do know that the DOJ uses a handful of select judges "specializing" in these kind of cases. Right?

    • Of course - A judge still has to ok the jaywalker or abortionist to be a terrorist

      Yes. A special judge, hand-picked by the Justice department, who is part of a secret court that apparently hasn't turned down a single warrant request, ever. The one time they did another secret appeals court was conviened and granted the request.

      The idea of relying on a judge to determine "probable cause" only works if there is a check-and-balance, i.e. if the judge is a public figure subject to public scrutiny, which the

  • for all those in support of the unPatriot Act (Score:5, Interesting)

    by d0ggi3 ( 470141 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:00PM (#7354684)
    Constitutionally Institutionalized

    I am the unpatriot,
    for not standing behind
    the man blind.
    You are the patriot,
    for standing in line
    no questions in mind.

  • How about one of the most compelling arguments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:00PM (#7354688) Homepage
    That no patriot can stand such an odius piece of legislation which tears apart our civil liberties and turns the Constitution and freedoms our forefathers fought so hard for into courtroom toilet paper. I love my country, that's why I want a government bound to the Constitution and that doesn't send us abroad, as John Quincy Adams put it, in search of monsters to destroy. We built the beast that seeks to annihilate us because we paid lip service to our founders' timeless advice and made-and empowered-enemies in foreign lands.

  • Rhetoric vs. Reality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brian Stretch ( 5304 ) * on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:10PM (#7354745)
    From the Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice:

    Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; passed in 1978) court to issue orders for business records in international-terrorism or espionage cases -- just as federal grand juries have long been able to obtain the same records through subpoenas in ordinary criminal cases. Records can be obtained under section 215 only through a court order (not, as Mr. Lynch states, through a "subpoena"), and only if the court determines that the FBI is legally entitled to them (the FBI has no authority to issue such orders unilaterally).

    Section 215 of the Patriot Act does not make it "a crime for anyone who has been served with a subpoena to speak to anyone about the matter." However, Section 215's confidentiality rule is necessary to protect our national security, and is based on nondisclosure orders that courts always have been able to enter in ordinary criminal cases. For example, the judge in the Kobe Bryant case may order the news media to refrain from divulging information about the alleged victim's personal life, in order to protect her privacy. In the same way, if we were to serve a court order on a flight-training school to find out if a Mohammed Atta is taking flight lessons, we obviously would not want the school to tell Atta, who might then accelerate his terrorist plot. As with any court order, the FISA-court can consider sanction, but the Patriot Act does not make such violations criminal offenses.

    We do enthusiastically welcome debate about the Patriot Act and invite all Americans to learn the facts about this important legislation by logging on to www.lifeandliberty.gov. Our new website includes an overview of the Patriot Act, its entire text, statements from Members of Congress explaining the law, factual information dispelling some of the major myths perpetuated about the act, as well as other information.

    Read the whole article here [nationalreview.com], which is in response to another article on the same website [nationalreview.com].

    Another Patriot Act article [nationalreview.com].

  • Let's fight for our freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WildBeast ( 189336 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:12PM (#7354755) Journal
    by giving it up
  • Countries are pushed by the US administration to detain people without charge. A Canadian citizen was deported to Syria because the Canadian government refused to detain him. Syria also refused to detain him at first but after some pressure by the US they agreed and emprisoned him for a year, torturing and questioning him until they finally let him go. It's too bad, I'm sure Saddam would've done a better job at torturing that guy.

    article here: http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServe r ?pagename=t

  • Life and Liberty huh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vix86 ( 592763 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:29PM (#7354858)
    Where do we draw the line in too much? I mean the government feels now that without the Patriot Act you have no life or freedom, but this isn't the case.

    The Patriot Act IMO is too undefined. It talks about terrorism and what powers the justice system has but it doesn't really ever define terrorism. In the long run it's a lot like statistics, you can make the numbers read however you want. The Patriot Act is the same way, the government just has to justify somehow that something is "involved with terrorism" and then its fine to apply the law. Does anyone remeber the ads that said marijuana supported terrorism? How about that recent drug bust that used the powers of the Patriot Act? I hardly doubt 10 years ago people would say a drug dealer was on par with terrorist orgnizations like al qaeda. I believe its already been mentioned that pirating movies and software is an act of terrorism. I mean come on!

    It wouldn't at all suprise me if eventually, if we don't stop this, the government gets "paranoid" of the people and believes everyones a terrorist, and who knows what laws might be in affect by then. People just need to wake up and realize that no amount of laws and removal of freedoms is going to make you completly safe in this world.

    With that in mind, the presidental elections are coming, do those of us that support having the act removed have any choice of canidates that want the act removed? Probably the better question is: Have any canidates voiced that they too support the removal of the act?

  • scrap the "Patriot" Act (Score:3, Insightful)

    by magarity ( 164372 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:29PM (#7354863)
    Scrap the "Patriot Act" and replace it with the otherwise identical "Terrorism Surveillance Act". The problem here is that this bill could be about anything and some people will violently defend it because the name implies opposition equates non-patriotism. Others will fight it just as vehemently just because they hate being cornered into someone else's definition of patriotism. See other postings in this forum for examples.

    This bill is nothing about patriotism (which cannot be legislated except maybe in Soviet Russia, Communist China, etc) but is instead about expanded law enforcement powers concerning terrorism detection and prevention. So let's rename the thing to something that actually describes what it is about and get on with rational debate about its actual provisions instead of getting all in a bother over the emotions tied up in the name.
  • I think this Broadband Reports article also brings up a good point: among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon?

    Because Echelon pre-dates the Patriot Act by many years? Because the two are not tied together in any way? Because Echelon network is mostly in foreign countries (I have never seen any verifiable proof that Echelon hardware is in US), and therefore cannot be used to intercept strictly domestic US communications (as Patriot can)? From your link,

    However, the exact

  • Its real easy to deconstruct the patriot acts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:51PM (#7354966) Homepage Journal
    Ben Franklin and Winston Churchill both said, but in different words:

    Those willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for security will have neither and deserve neither.

  • Public Image And The Government (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Valen0 ( 325388 ) <michael@elvensMONETtar.tv minus painter> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:53PM (#7354977)
    The Bush Administration seems to be having public relations trouble. Besides the creation of LifeAndLiberty.Gov [lifeandliberty.gov], the administration has also created Freedom.Gov [freedom.gov], a site dedicated to glorifying Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    I believe that the creation of these sites indicates that the Bush Administration is taking a new approach to their critics. Instead of answering their critics directly, the administration is using websites to bypass them and sell their propaganda to the American Public. By wrapping their issues in pseudo patriotism, they believe that the average American will overlook the opposition and support the administration because it is the "American thing to do".

    I also believe that the administration is starting to see opposition in Congress. On the LifeAndLiberty.Gov [lifeandliberty.gov] site, there are two sections dedicated to Congressional Opposition. I believe this indicates that the PATRIOT Act is starting to see more criticism from Congress.

  • Blame it on terrorism! (Score:4, Funny)

    by nolife ( 233813 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:56PM (#7354990) Homepage Journal
    Not really related but..
    On the way to work today, I heard a commercial on the radio about trying to get funding for bridge repair work in DC. The reason they need the funding and the purpose of the bridge repair projects was for none other than terrorism. The line was something like "to ensure the 300,000+ commuters and government officials could use the bridges to evacuate the city following an act of terrorism nearby. Hello!! those same 300,000 commuters and government officials already use those bridges twice a day every day of the year following an attack from the "end of workday". How is a fresh layer of asphalt/concrete and some rust repair going to change the situation for terrorism? I guess I need more bandwidth in case of a terrorism attack so I can reload CNN faster.

  • Thankfully, most Americans do not agree with you (Score:3, Informative)

    by unassimilatible ( 225662 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:57PM (#7354997) Journal
    According to Gallup [gallup.com], a majority of Americans believe the federal government exerts either the right amount of power or not enough power. It's over 70% total.

    Most Americans Don't Feel Government Threatens Civil Rights [gallup.com],

    It seems, thankfully, most people would prefer the government actualy do something about terror, rather than complaining about being watched while surfing the Net in libraries, before the next 9-11 happens.

  • Echelon vs. Patriot Act (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Atryn ( 528846 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @11:04PM (#7355030) Homepage
    I think this Broadband Reports article also brings up a good point: among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight.

    Ahhhh, but Echelon [www.nrc.nl] is supposed [landfield.com] to be for spying on non-US citizens [cnn.com] and if it truly exists it is almost certainly illegal. Any evidence Echelon uncovers of a danger to national security is useful as it can be kept secret even from the defense due to national security concerns. But any evidence Echelon uncovers about domestic terrorism, financial [cnn.com] or political crimes, etc. cannot be introduced in court lest Echelon be unmasked!

    The government needs a 'legal' tool that allows them to spy on the people which is admissable in a domestic court of law.
    • Why do they need a legal tool? They'll just create a "fortuitous" situation in which they catch the bad guys red-handed. The only legal tool involved here is someone counting on the law to save them from the government.

  • Point not made (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A non moose cow ( 610391 ) <slashdot@rilo.org> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @11:22PM (#7355175) Journal
    I'm sorry if I just don't get it, but I did not really see any mention of anything that actually refuted any of the DOJ claims.

    All I see is a bunch of clarification of the points that would not have been appropriate to mention at a press conference (the likes of which the soundbytes were taken from).

    I also notice that none of the new powers can simply be used willy-nilly. They all require the permission of a judge (who may well interpret the warrant request as, well, unwarranted).

  • For everyone who wants to demonize Ashcroft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SensitiveMale ( 155605 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @12:27AM (#7355490)
    Don't forget that the Patriot Act passed both houses of Congress. By a wide margin.

    So instead of demonizing the man in charge of prosecuting our nation's laws why not blame your representative in congress for passing it?
    • True, Ashcroft didn't pass the Patriot Act, but he's done a miserable job of allaying the fears of the Patriot Act's opponents. In fact, he's basically taken the tack of belittling and mocking opponents of the Act. All discussion of the Patriot Act aside, it's unbecoming of an Attorney General to mock and belittle those who disagree with the law.

      If the man would simply show a modicum of courtesy and respect for his opponents--even if his opponents don't return the gesture--he wouldn't be nearly as hot a

  • why not rely on Echelon? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Muttonhead ( 109583 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @01:41AM (#7355853)
    ...why do so few of them bring up Echelon?

    Because the use of Echelon in this country is clandestine and illegal according to the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act is the attempted rollout of the legal use of Echelon. If U.S. citizens accept the Patriot Act it makes things like Echelon more useable. Sure they can use Echelon now, but they cannot use the results in a U.S. court as a basis for prosecution. The Patriot Act would change that. We're sort of between the right to privacy and the state in which the Patriot Act would invoke.

    The Patriot Act is a horrible thing and we should reject it. It continues the trend of concentrating power into fewer hands.

  • Echelon (Score:3, Informative)

    by Loki_1929 ( 550940 ) * on Friday October 31, 2003 @03:13AM (#7356123) Journal
    "among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight."

    While Echelon is problematic, its purpose and use appears limited to threat analysis and corporate espionage. The potential for abuse is absolutely astounding, but it isn't something that's legal, and it isn't something that (so far as we know) has been used to gather evidence against anyone for a court case. Echelon is a difficult and touchy issue to bring up, partly because it would appear so integral to the member-nations' security, but mostly because so little is known about it.

    What it comes down to is this: you can't attack every single problem at once. You go after the big stuff first, and then you come back for the rest as you can deal with it. Echelon is blatantly unconstitutional and violates so many international laws and treaties, it would take a pack of lawyers years to determine the totality of its illegality. The main problem these people have is the 'legal' (as per current law) violations of individuals' rights, or the potential thereof. If the FBI were illegally searching peoples' homes or records, or were illegally seizing all sorts of objects or information without probable cause, then it would be up to government oversight to reign them in. In this case, agents of the government are legally doing these things, and that's why these groups are jumping all over it.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close