FBI Can Inspect Bank Records w/o Court Orders 984
AlexZander writes: "Thankfully, the so-called 'Patriot Act II' was discovered last year and the public outcry that ensued was enough to get the bill tossed out the window. One of the goals of that act, however, has made it into law under the radar of the community at large. However, on December 13th, President Bush signed Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (the relevant section is 374) into law, which among other things, grants the FBI the power to obtain financial information without a court order from a judge. It also expands the definition of 'financial information' to include car dealerships, jewelry stores, insurance companies, and other stretches of the definition of 'financial institution'. Wired News has the story here."
"The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request. Oh, that and the new law only requires a "national security letter" from a field agent stating that the information reqested is part of an investigation relevant to national security.
Yikes!"
Terrorist Clause (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Funny)
--
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terrorist Clause (aka, violating rights clause) (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember reading articles before 9/11 how the FBI wanted Library records but couldn't get them easily. This is something they've been wanting to do for some time. They'll use it to find terrorists, and it'll be a good thing. But they'll also use it to invade the civil liberties of many law-abiding citizens.
The end never justifies the means. It is an invasion of our liberties and a tragedy to the memory of all who have died to perserve those rights to allow the government to do this to us.
To quote someone noteable on this issue:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:4, Insightful)
--
Same clause as in PATRIOT. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, they write themselves a note that says "Yup, this is for terrorism" and that's it. They don't have to show the note to a judge, they don't have to be held accountable for the veracity of the note, with all evidence inadmissable should the claims of the note prove false. They just have to write it.
You know, when I turned 18 my senior year of high school, I could write my own sick notes to get out of school, and I wasn't held accountable by anyone. You may find this amazing, but sometimes I wrote myself a note even when I wasn't really sick.
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
Existing anti-terrorism laws are so loose that essentially anyone can be investigated/wiretapped without a real court order.
The Patriot Act even added a loophole to the wiretap act to render it null when communications pass through a digital switch or router, thus allowing wiretaps with only a search warrant if they do it right.
And finally there's a special FIFA court which they can all go through to get any and all surveillance approved. Not a single request to that court has been denied in over 15 years.
The 4th amendment's wording is flexible enough that none of this blatantly violates the constitution. They're just steps backwards from the level of privacy we're all used to, and many bills are worded to hide to extent of of their impact. The law is getting pretty scary in the US these days.
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Terrorist Clause (Score:4, Informative)
EFF [eff.org]
Ratical [ratical.org]
Slate [msn.com]
Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly! We should vote for the candidates who promise to "do the right thing" and "work for us" and kick out those who promise to "screw us over at every opportunity."
Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, repeat after me:
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Remember, these people are not on your side. They want to keep their job, they like their status in society, they like the perks. They are owned by lobby groups, they love the soft money. They gerrymander to keep their jobs instead of actually satisfying the electorate.
And the best part of all? It's a two-party system, both parties are equally corrupt in
Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes they will, because they've learned that everyone will let them get away with it.
If you want to change that then the first step is to take the approach of "I don't care what the other guy probably WOULD have done, this one was in power, this one did lie to me, this one is being kicked out".
Make no secret of the fact that you'll vote them out once they've proved themselves untrustworthy, and then do it.
Yeah, you can't guarantee everyone will do the same but you can at least make a start. Be a part of a new trend.
If enough people take this approach then eventually it will work.
The reason politicians are lying deceitful scum is because it WORKS. It gets them elected. Start changing that.
Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:4, Interesting)
end party monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
It would also help if the two parties weren't so chummy.
Oh, to have gridlock again.
Preventing "out of sunshine" legistlation (Score:5, Interesting)
I assert that the only way to prevent this sort of stuff is to require that ALL laws must stand for at least 1 year public scruteny (e.g. be available online, and at public libraries), and then the only allowable vote is YES or NO - any changes restart the clock.
Consider this "open source" law - everybody gets to see what will be voted upon (not some sanitized version that has yet to be buggered in committee) - any funny business will be dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day, to burst into flames and die (sorry, but Angel is running in the other room).
The ONLY laws that I would allow to bypass this would be "emergency" laws, which would be under the following restrictions:
1) May only run for 18 months, with no possiblity of renewal.
2) May NOT create any permanent offices, penalties, etc.
3) Must be 1000 words or less.
Should the courts find a given "emergency" law to be substantially similar to any other law, it is IMMEDIATELY struck down.
In short, when trying to solve a problem (laws being passed in the dead of night with nobody around), DIRECTLY address the problem.
Of course, to make something like this stick, it would have to be a Constitutional Amendment. Thus, the real probability of this occuring in this day and age is slightly less than the probability of my inventing a time machine and getting this written into the original Constitution.
Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't particularly care if they want to keep the details of the NSA's budget secret, but sneaking in stuff that was shot down when it was proposed on its own is just plain evil.
Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nobody wants it, yet we get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Ose,
It saddens me to see that you have voted 'Yea' on the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll649.xml
As you may know, this bill grants FBI powers to view the financial records of citizens without a court order from a judge, removing the checks and balances so important to our government. There is evidence that the FBI has abused other powers given to it by the much contested Patriot Act:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/liber
I have spoken to many other citizens in our district who are also unhappy about your vote on this issue. Unless I see active action on your part in opposition of further such laws, I will be encouraging as many people as possible to vote for a candidate who will better represent our interests come election time.
Feel free to have your staff contact me if you have any questions.
More info (Score:5, Informative)
Liberty forum you gotta be joking (Score:4, Informative)
The cocksucking jew bastard "STEPHEN SOLARZ" was the same motherfucker who led the charge for us going into Iraq in Gulf War 1 and if you can find a copy of the speech he made at congress..it will scare the hell out of you. We really have a ZOG! (source [libertyforum.org])
ZOG as in Zionist something something... shit people say things I write are conspiratorial [politrix.org], but man those liberty forums they have the right frame of mind... Run /.'ers
Re:More info (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember a time when the world looked to the US for guidance. But somewhere in the mid 70's, the shift began to turn. The disenfanchised dixiecracts who were offended with the Civil Rights laws passed in the 60's began dismantling them slowly. They also began retracting US foreign policy from one of engagement to one of hostile rapproachment. Executions became legal again.
Europe has continued to move forward and has aggressively acted to prevent fascism from rearing its ugly head again. It appears the US is going to learn the hard way.
Re:More info (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you living in the same world as the rest of us?
America used to be diplomatically effective without having to use force. They did so by leading the way with treaties like SALT, SALT II. They were the prime funders of the UN. They were signatories to most international treaties.
Today, America is effective because it has told everyone that YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US. You don't win mindshare that way. You win resentment.
If you don't see what's going on with the EU, the leftist governments in South America, the rampant hostitlity towards America in teh Middle East and Southeast Asia...well, all I can say is you need to play less videogames and look out your window.
Re:More info (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I think this is a clear case of a 4th amendment violation, indeed a whole policy intended to VOID and break it, and so clear a violation that it breaks the category. Don't need a court order to go rifling through a citizen's bank accts? Shit then why did we bother having a Constitution at all if its rules against unwarranted searches can be ignored at a whim?
I think the Constitution's Framers knew ALL ABOUT about the possibility of "seditious" forces or "terrorism" or whatever you want to call it: after all they THEMSELVES were armed revolutionaries against their legitimate government. Arguments that "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" and therefore Mrs. John Asscleft shall be allowed to paw through citizen's private information at will simply because it's expedient is the most breathtakingly cynical perversion of this country's committment to liberty in its history.
I've seen the Constitution violated before, but the perps eventually were called to account. The other branches did their job or at least faked it. The perps didn't always go to jail, but they suffered disgrace and the fear of being caught. Never before -NEVER- have I seen the Constitution dispensed with in broad daylight --simply WAIVED-- with breezy arguments that "everything's changed: that was then, but this is now" and "the Dear Leader needs your civil liberties melted down in order to fight terra."
Change the Constitution? They don't have to change it when they can just use the compliant and ignorant corporate media to convince the public that if the gummint does it, it can't be illegal. They just leave the Constitution's words in place and pretend the meanings have changed. Done deal, and oh yeah you're Un-goddamn-American if you dare protest what they're doing.
Way ahead of you. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Way ahead of you. (Score:5, Funny)
It's already being heavily used... (Score:5, Informative)
The details are all over the net, but you can start by reading this [reviewjournal.com], this [foxnews.com], or this [cbsnews.com].
Re:It's already being heavily used... (Score:4, Funny)
Tinfoil hats (Score:5, Funny)
Suspicious activities (Score:5, Interesting)
It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much. There should be an expectation of privacy between you and your bank, just as there is between you and your doctor/lawyer/priest/gun dealer.
I'm all in favor of fighting terrorism, but I don't think John Aschroft & Co. having access to mine and my neighbors bank records will help any.
Re:Suspicious activities (Score:5, Interesting)
The 4th ammendment isn't being violated here because the information in question isn't "yours". It belongs to the financial institution. Since it is accessable to a subset of that financial institution, it weakens any argument that the information is yours since it's available to a number of people besides yourself.
Let me know what holes to poke in that argument.
This is the 4th amendment. (Score:3, Informative)
If that information is not mine, who's is it?
Re:Suspicious activities (Score:4, Insightful)
The information is mine because it is only about me and it is not public. The employees of the institution retaining the information about me are under legal restrictions about what they can do with that information, which to me means the information is not theirs.
I think a better response would be to ask him what he thinks has changed about the nature of the information, it's storage, and the criminal investigations that this information should no longer be protected by the 4th amendment. I mean, a judge had to be convinced that the information was relevant to the criminal investigation of an individual before this law was passed. What changed? The fear of terrorism. But this bill doesn't limit the power to terrorist investigations, so what is the purpose of changing the status of the information in regards to the 4th amendment?
What is his reason for asking citizens "why not" when they don't want to grant law enforcement more power rather than asking the law enforcement agency "why" when they ask for more power?
Re:Suspicious activities (Score:5, Insightful)
So, since I'm confident that you friend, and the majority of people in the USA are not going to let just anyone go through those records, its safe to say that people expect, rightly, for this information to be private. In short, the flaw is inherent in the first supposition, the very word PRIVATE. Just because one other person has access to some data does NOT suddenly make that not private data. Thats absurd, the definition of private is not "Only one person has access to this information". Thats closer to a secret, but even the word secret doesn't require there to be only one party TO the secret.
You'd think a freaking lawyer would understand the importance of understanding the meaning of words. Private does not imply lack of access. I suggest you ask your lawyer friend to buy a dictionary and to look up the word "private", consider a new profession, something perhaps along the lines of PR perhaps, where its not so important that you get the words right.
Regardless, you friends flaw lies in the presumption that for something to be private it can not be between more than one party. That is simply not the case, either in terms of the very definition of the words or even, in your friends OWN domain, according to lots and lots of case law. I sure hope your friend is not close to taking the bar. He or she really needs to study some more it would seem.
Finally, the real test of your friends opinion on this can be tested by simply asking him, or her, for a copy of all their phone records, financial records, e-mails, web logs, video rental records, library records and travel records - and then posting them on the Internet. If they handly turn them over, then your friend is something far worse than hypocrite, had they refused the request to had over their private details of their lives, but rather a real fool.
Have fun stealing their identity though!
Re:Suspicious activities (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope so, but as it stands right now they could keep you in the can indefinitely while they investigate, without charges and without access to an attorney -- just because they suspect you.
In my book, that's a violation of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. At least.
Re:Suspicious activities (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure Jose Padilla will be delighted to hear that, assuming he ever gets out of the military brig he's been imprisoned in for the past 19 months without being charged, much less tried or convicted.
Welcome to the new world; Ashcroft's world; where your rights have been redefined as privileges assigned by the government, to be revoked upon the first sign of their inconvenience.
Re:Suspicious activities (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this have to do with an American citizen being imprisoned by his government for 19 months with no lawyer, no trial, no jury, no judge, no contact with family, and no hope (from his perspective) of salvation? You know, if he wasn't with Al Qaeda before he was locked up, he most certainly has every reason to be now. To quote a great artist:
"Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy."
"I've come into contact with Chicago gang members and I'd like to see a lot more of them imprisoned"
Without a trial? On what charge? If someone sells drugs, you put him on trial for selling drugs. If someone kills someone, you put him on trial for murder. This isn't colonial England, and we don't have a king with the power to lock people up in the Tower of London, nor drawn and quartered. In this country, we give everyone the chance to prove their innocence, or to come clean about their actions.
That's what seperates us from the brutal bastards we're fighting.
Eroded? (Score:5, Insightful)
When they blast passages through the mountains with dynamite to build roads, you don't say they "eroded" it.
Slippery slope? The slope is a smoking crater. The rubble is being loaded into a dump truck and hauled away, and they weren't planning on noticing.
Everyone got mad when the Mayor of Chicago bulldozed an airport in the night, despite public outcry. Now the President and Congress are doing the same thing with the Bill of Rights. And yeah, I'm pissed.
Re:Eroded? (Score:5, Informative)
And Daley used the terrorism angle too, stating that it could be a launching point for attacks against downtown buildings. Most experts thought it would have the opposite effect - you're rermoving some radar and traffic controllers closest to downtown, and normal flightplans places planes pretty closely anyway. He later recanted this, essentially saying he just wanted to do it and get it over with. It was slated to close, it's lease with the Park District ending, but he wanted to fastforward a few years. Silly thing is, it's in a horrible spot for a park, isolated from the rest of the lakefront and probably won't ever be really used.
Yay democracy! (Score:5, Interesting)
The provision granting increased power was little more than a single line of legislation. But Dempsey said it was written in such a cryptic manner that no one noticed its significance until it was too late.
Isn't democracy grand? I wonder how many more infringements upon freedom and privacy intelligence agencies can sneak past our apathetic, uninformed legislators.
Re:Yay democracy! (Score:5, Insightful)
Damon,
Re:Yay democracy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay democracy! (Score:4, Interesting)
Let 'em sit at home and whine because those that really care elected who they wanted.
Re:Save the US (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so naively optimistic to think it'll ever get fixed, though. Oh, well.
And this happened when? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alternatives to U.S. Banking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Alternatives to U.S. Banking? (Score:3, Informative)
Fixing the wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly. (Score:4, Interesting)
Damon,
Re:Silly. (Score:5, Informative)
What right you are granted in the fourth amendment is The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
Now... some in the government seem to think it is reasonable that if you are even thought casually to be a terrorist, that ANY search of your, your property or information is reasonable. This is called the security over freedom camp.
There are those that argue that the right to privacy is one of the non enumerated rights you hold via the 10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If I may paraphrase that to my understanding:
"Unless the Federal Government by way of the Constitution or the States via laws or State Constitution retain a right exclusively from the people, the people maintain the right."
This argument is that people hold all rights until a state law or Constitutional amendment take the right away, thus unless the government specifically takes away your privacy, then you have it.
The slippery slope here is that the government does not retain the right to torture small children, thus you by default have that right via the 10th amendment. I personally agree with this last point and point out that the state does have the right to make such acts illegal and arest, try and punish you for such acts, but this does not diminish your right to commit the acts.
Do you trust them all ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The temptation to just have a peek at: your ex's/neighbour's/brother's_business_rival's/... records will be more than some people can resist.
Quite appart that there should be a right to privacy.
Welcome (Score:3, Interesting)
Please put your civil rights into the bin on your left and leave your fingerprints at the office up ahead. DNA sampling is still in preparation, and we'll come to the firstborn son thing eventually.
Now come on in, we ain't got all day and I've gotta strip search that hot lady behind you, she sure looks like a terrorist.
Car Dealers are financial institutions... (Score:5, Informative)
Car dealers pull tons of credit reports, too. Some dealers won't let you test drive a car without pulling your credit. These guys are savvy financial operators, from the lowliest used-car dealer to the biggest multi-dealership operations.
Foreigners get fingerprinted, citizens get spied (Score:3, Interesting)
Proletariat of the world, unite to vote
Re:Foreigners get fingerprinted, citizens get spie (Score:3, Informative)
Yeesh. (Score:5, Funny)
Y'know, so they can maintain their secular lifestyles of lavish excess. Their jihad-oriented faith demands bling-bling.
This way, they can crush the infidel Western capitalists in style.
So here are your choices: (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Ignore it - after all no one really cares how much money you spend on chewing gum from chewinggum.com
3. Find out how your congressperson voted on this issue, and call their office, then write a letter to them about it. When you get the standard form letter back from them, go see them to discuss this issue. If that doesn't get you what you want, use your geek skills to build a community forum site and use that to attract folks who can develop a coordinated campaign to contact congresspeople all over the US to get this law changed.
Democracy can work. If this is really a big deal to you, then invest your time figuring out how it can and should be undone rather than whine about it here.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
15 Republicans voted against it. (Score:5, Informative)
He went to PayDemocracy and set up a campaign to collect donations.
Savings Account (Score:3, Interesting)
USPS? (Score:5, Informative)
As a result, an FBI agent can walk into the USPS, without a warrant, and demand a detailed listing of all the mail you receive.
I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent..." (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm innocent but I still don't want my rights violated. I don't want to be randomly searched, spied on, etc. I don't want the FBI or anyone looking at my medical records, bank records, etc. And I believe that for any person in the U.S., if the government or FBI didn't like you, they could put together "proof" that could get you locked up for life - not that they need any proof anymore.
If my home was searched, they'd find maps, atlases, sharpies, box cutters, CD-RWs, and a long list of other "terrorist equipment". I have books talking about how to protect your privacy, so I must have *something* to hide. I have books of a highly libertarian slant - I must be plotting to overthrow the government! I have a poster of the empire state building on my wall. The poster is there because I think it's a beautiful building, but the FBI could use it as "proof" that I planned to blow it up.
My financial records show I frequently buy computer equipment - I must by a computer terrorist! I make a cash deduction of $100 about once a week - I must be buying drugs! I wrote a check to a person with a foreign sounding name - he must be a member of my terrorist unit!!
Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.
There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for.
Re:I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent..." (Score:4, Funny)
Go ahead search my house, I'm innocent
Look at my bank records, I'm innocent
preform an anal cavity search, I'm...woah there!
Where can I find (Score:3, Interesting)
it will further destroy the US economy (Score:5, Interesting)
But this laws says that all bank transactions of a business are public property. It would take only a few corrupt FBI agents to destroy a company by exposing it's banking records. No foreign company will want to bank in the US because it will afraid that the FBI will funnel sensitive information to US corporations. It has been done before.
And, as if the tinfoil wearing folk do not already have enough encouragement, this is the best reason of all to keep your money in you mattress.
In summary, if the money and business begin leaving the US in even greater numbers, I cannot blame them in the least. I thought some of the actions of US corporations over the past were quite selfish, but now I am not so sure. I cannot imagine a responsible firm using US banks anymore than is absolutely neccesary
Anything new? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing that pisses me off, is they include this as a rider to another bill so it gets passed. A few things I'd like to change are.
1. No riders.
2. No fancey names like Patriot Act. (Protect the Children Act, etc..)
3. Daily updates on bills that are voted on, educate the people.
4. Stats on which way your congress critter is voting on issues.
5. Balanced Budget Act.
I work a 60 hour week, and with my personal life, I barely have time to see what my elected officals are doing. I'd also like to change the way we vote. Instant Runoff voting.(IRV) [fairvote.org] This would make it easier for 3rd/4th parties to run and take office. And you dont have to worry about wasting a vote.
Your $15 Can Help Fight Back (Score:5, Interesting)
$15 for the Fifteen [paydemocracy.com]
When the House voted on the measure, fifteen House Republicans broke from their party to vote against the bill, specifically because of their concerns about the stealthily inserted PATRIOT language. I'm a Democrat, but I thought that kind of principled stand was what we needed more of, not less -- and I thought it was a shame that the most likely outcome for these guys would be a world of hurt, since the House GOP leadership (especially Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay) is famous for demanding loyalty above all else.
That's what "$15 for the Fifteen" is all about. It's a chance for people who want to express their opposition to this PATRIOT expansion to do so in the way politicians pay the most attention to -- in cash :-)
The idea is that you put fifteen dollars into the campaign fund -- one dollar for each of those Republicans who voted the right way -- and when the campaign ends, the total funds raised will be split equally between all fifteen of them, and each one will get a letter with his share explaining that this money comes from citizens who want to thank him for doing the Right Thing on this bill. It's not general support, it's support on this issue -- which means your $15 doesn't disappear into some non-profit's general fund.
(I should mention that it wouldn't be possible to run a campaign like this without PayDemocracy [paydemocracy.com], a great service that I used to put it together. I have no affiliation with them, and I'm not getting a penny of your contribution.)
If you want to do something concrete to send a message to the politicians that there are people out there who are watching them on this issue, and that will support them if they do the right thing, come join me -- it doesn't take many $15 contributions before we have a serious chunk of change, and that will really get their attention. It's less than the cost of a CD, and it's a first step towards making sure that things like this don't happen again. Not too bad for $15, don't you think?
Re:Your $15 Can Help Fight Back (Score:4, Informative)
I'm pretty sure a very nicely worded letter to them congratualating them would have sufficed. Also, a strong worded letter to your elected officials who did NOT vote against this bill would be better yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Vote Libertarian (Score:3, Insightful)
America, has become, the "Land of the sheep, home of the terrified". People are scared that they may lose all the comfort provided by the Welfare loving Democrats or the Military Spending of the Republicans.
ENOUGH is ENOUGH. It isn't the Government's responsibility to do anything but to Provide COMMON defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. THAT IS IT.
The fact that all these laws have been passed is PROOF that the terrorists have achieved their goal, to TERRORIZE. People are SCARED, and the MEDIA feeds the fear.
Re:Vote Libertarian (Score:5, Interesting)
Is all this really necessary? (Score:4, Funny)
So much for the rule of law. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't recall seeing any mention whatsoever granting specific powers of any kind to the FBI in excess of what is stated in the constitution. Of course no one really cares about such details when guys with guns and facemasks to hide their identity are dragging you out of your house in the middle of the night for extrajudicial executions. We are not too far from it now.
bill signing on Saturday????? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fnord! (Score:4, Insightful)
The following quotes fit all too well:
"...When communism replaces fascism as the number one enemy, your small-town conservative will be ready for global adventures on a scale that would make the heads of poor Mr. Roosevelt's liberals spin. Trust me. We have every detail pinpointed. Let me show you where the new government will be located."
Drake stared at the plan and shook his head. "Some people will recognize what a pentagon means," he said dubiously.
"They will be dismissed as superstitious cranks. Believe me, this building will be constructeed within a few years. It will become the policeman of the world. Nobody will dare question its actions or judgements without being denounced as a traitor. Within thirty years, Mr. Drake, within thirty years, anyone who attempts to restore power to the Congress will be cursed and vilified, not by liberals but by conservatives."
(...)
"To crush the opposition, we will need a Justice Department equivalent in many ways to Hitler's Gestapo. If your scheme works - if the Mafia can be drawn into a syndicate (...) we will have a nationwide outlaw cartel. The public itself will then call for the kind of Justice Department that we need. By the mid-1960s, wiretapping of all sorts must be so common that the concept of privacy will be archaic."
I'm waiting for George W.B. to start building the pyramid-with-the-eye on the top of the White house any day now
The terrorists have already won (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't vote for any representitive who voted for this law. If enough people do, they'll get the picture. The new guy may not be any better, but at least he'll be worried about re-election. The to parties are so similar it doesn't really matter weather a republican or democrat gets electd, so vote against incumbants that sign this shit.
So write your sentaor! (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy lookup at http://www.senate.gov.
Remind them that election time is just around the corner and you'll be considering his/her reaction to this issue when you hit the voting booth.
Why do we always assume terrorists need big$? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sep. 11 budget?
19 airline tickets, bought ahead online.
Motel room, rental cars.
(maybe) an efficiency apartment in Florida to sit around a table and plot evil for two months.
Boxcutters.
Total cost? $8000? I could slap that on my MasterCard.
Terrorism is not at all $$ expensive. That's sort of the point. So what do they think they'll find by all this new power?
Common criminals, mostly drug runners, whose assets they can seize.
What to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Horrible Argument (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to bounce all over the wall on this one. The above is the thing that gets my goat though. Not because it was said but because it's the truth.
.5 million against 80 million is actually possible. However, that's assuming one thing:
.5 million US troops actually know how to handle small arms weapons in close quarters, urban environments, and rural settings. They do not. I guarantee you this. Very few troops actually know how to fondle an M16 or M4 rifle. I know, I have buddies in the Army that had me teach them how to field-strip the AR-15 variety of weapons and fire them so they'd have a leg up on the other recruits.
FACT: The 2nd Ammendment of the United States Constitution exists for the SOLE reason that the general population needs to have the arms to overthrow the government if need be. If you don't beleive that's why it was written, go read up on your history. It's the truth.
However, is it reasonable? In principle yes, but the US Citizen has been so hampered by firearms laws since 1934 and on that it's just not possible for us to arm ourselves properly. We have a few points of strength though.
True, the US Military is 500,000 strong. I would expect a 40% AWOL though if troops were ever force to fight against our own citizens. That's hopeful thinking though.
There are en estimated 80,000,000 firearms owners in the United States however. A highly trained, well equiped force of
All of the
None of the 3 (out of 4) have actually been trained, beyond moderate skills, on how to handle small arms. Two are tankers, one is an Air Force bomb loader, and the 4th actually is a special-op in training guy that DOES know how to handle a rifle. I know 2 more military fellows (one Air Force, one Navy) that wouldn't know how to work an AR style rifle if their life depended on it.
Our military, by and large, excepting the Marines, are not riflemen. They are manning tanks, computers, air craft carries, and aircraft.
You launch tank, artilerary, and bombers against the population and you have just lost the compassion of the American people. The civilian hunters and patriots are very capable of a guerilla attack against the politicians that vote such things into being. The day that happens I predict 435 dead members of congress, 100 senators, 1 vice president and 1 president. They'll never launch large arms against our people for this reason.
Well, at least not now. We have some semblance of firearms ownership left in this country.
It's fun to wax nostalgically about how "back in the day" arms were simple and the common people had the proper arms to form a rebellion. You'd think that this is no longer true because arms have advanced so quickly that we cannot keep up with the government. Oh, how I wish that were true.
FACT: The very arms that the original patriots armed themselves with ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO THE COMMON MAN! That's right, folks, we can't even own a black powder cannon anymore. The original partiots had them. We don't. How's that for a kick in the ass?
As a further kick in the ass, some asshat in New Jersey actually proposed a bill that would have made 50 caliber muzzle loaders illegal. Nope, nobody wants to disarm the hunters.... keep looking the other way.
Lets's look at this. The average American soldier does not have the skills necessary for urban fighti
"National Security" has a lose definition at best (Score:5, Interesting)
So you see, "National Security" is a very broad definition when you can include illegal behavior of government employees and organizations.
No wonder they get away with murder (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, section 374 of The bill [loc.gov] is the relevant section.
They accomplish this treachery by patching bits and pieces of the "Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978" without making any explicit references whatsoever to what the patching will do. It doesn't halp that some bills have sections that patch a patch for a patch, so that it's nearly impossible to figure out what the final result will actually say, much less what it means.
Forget line item veto, what we really need is an all or nothing law, so that a bill may repeal or replace in full an existing law but may never simply modify. Any replacement may NOT include any other text by reference, only by explicit copy.
That might actually fix some small part of the non-sense.
What's the definition of terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm usually pretty passive as far as politics go. I vote, but that's about it. But I'm scared of the times we live in. It's time for action. This administration has led us down a scary course, but most americans are too passive. It's our responsibility to show them that their vote matters, that this administartion does thigns that affect their daily life. make people want to vote. start talking about politicians, and more importantly what we can do about them, instead of throwing up our hands and say "well, thats' in washington"
Re:Insurance companies (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Call me a spinless, communist.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't hidden. There is, however, something called privacy.
The "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" argument is a strawman I tire of. It's not about hiding. When I'm in the bathroom, I am not hiding. That doesn't mean I want everyone looking.
Same for my bank account. It's simply nobodys business what's going on there. If the FBI wants to peek, they'd better have a good reason to, and until recently, it was a judges job to decide whether the reason is any good.
Re:Call me a spinless, communist.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe they garner that you're a frequent patron at a bar where "terrorists" tend to frequent. Maybe that means you're a terrorist, or it could just be that they have good wings on 10c Wednesday. Regardless, association drawn, get ready to hold out your arms for the handcuffs.
Not just banks! (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not just bank records! One of the other neat tricks in this bill is that the definition of "financial institution" has been rewritten to something like "any institution that handles large amounts of money." So this could in theory apply to an
Re:Call me a spinless, communist.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not embarrassed about what's in my fridge, but I still don't invite people to take a peek. I'm not embarrassed about what's in my palm pilot, but I still don't post it on the web.
The question isn't, "Do I have something to hide?" The question is, "Why should I allow you to go on a fishing expedition through my private life when you have no admissable cause to suggest that I'm doing anything illegal?"
Re:Call me a spinless, communist.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer is "Because only those who have something to hide need fear the results. Because it is not your life, it's our life, and we permit you to live it only as long as you continue to be worth more to us alive - whether as a vote or as a source of tax revenue - than de
Re:Call me a spinless, communist.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You are asking the wrong question. The question that should always be asked is, why do they need it? If the answer is some nebulous, for your security answer, then they don't really need it, they are just fishing. There should be a specific and functional answer as to why such information is needed. Moreover, why do they want to avoid judicial oversight? Its not like they couldn't get this information before, it just required a judge to sign the subpeona. Sure, it takes a little time, but those records aren't going anywhere. The only reason, that I can see, that the FBI would want to be able to do this without judicial oversight, is to avoid pesky questions about thier resons for what they are doing.
And, to answer your question, read up on the Stazi (sorry, couldn't find a good link), or the East German secret police. Basically they existed to terrorize the populous, and many of the tactics being pushed by the US government today smell the same as those the Stazi employed.
Its not that I want to keep the FBI/Police/etc. out of all bank records. They should have access to that, but it damn well better be under judicial oversight.
Re:Call me a spinless, communist.... (Score:4, Insightful)
By the same reasoning, unless the FBI is doing something illegal, what do they have to hide from judicial oversight?
Re:who's to blame? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you say police state?
Re:This isn't going to be a popular opinion... (Score:5, Informative)
Such as an article [foxnews.com] in a previous post (using the right wing Fox news as a source):
FBI agents investigating two strip club owners in Las Vegas on bribery charges bypassed a grand jury and instead used the Patriot Act to subpoena the financial records of the bar owners as well as several prominent city and county officials.
Re:Public Records (Score:4, Interesting)
I pretty much haven't used credit cards in the last 8 years. About the only thing they'll see transaction-wise on my credit card bills is payment for hosting services and some business expenses. I've paid for my last two cars in cash so not much to dig up on me there. And while they can see my ATM cash-withdrawl activity, that's not going to tell them much except where I am (which is usually where I live).
So, basically, the solution to this kind of crap is not doing anything that gives away personal information about yourself. Cash is usually pretty anonymous.
I suspect that if the FBI did a financial investigation about all they could say is "He doesn't seem to own a house, he has bought two cars in cash, and based on ATM withdrawls we know approximately where he lives." If they look at my IRS records then they'd know exactly where I live, which is overseas... Actually, the lack of information that they could dig up probably makes me look like a terrorist or drug dealer. :(
They can only track those aspects of your life that you let them track. Live smart, transact intelligently, and you can maintain a lot of your privacy.
Re:I dont care (Score:5, Informative)