Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Government Politics

House Limits Patriot Act Rules on Library Records 499

Posted by samzenpus from the guess-what-I'm-reading dept.
xerid writes "From CNN.COM: "WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House voted Wednesday to block the FBI and the Justice Department from using the Patriot Act to search library and book store records. Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Limits Patriot Act Rules on Library Records More

House Limits Patriot Act Rules on Library Records

Comments Filter:

  • I know this will be repeated alot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dance_Dance_Karnov ( 793804 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:16AM (#12830828) Homepage
    but they should man up and throw the whole damn thing out

    • Perhaps we shouldn't be so rash.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:35AM (#12830876)
      I'm not saying I like the Patriot Act, but I really think that we should be rational in our removal of this disturbance, as we weren't rational with our creation of it in the first place.

      The Patriot Act was a fast acting, country sweeping bill that made it to law simply because the governing agencies that wanted it, wanted it now, and nobody was going to stand in their way in the wake of what had just happened in our country.

      That being said, if we act too strongly and remove the whole thing at once, we are setting ourselves up to the whole situation again, perhaps worse; next time they will have access to our bank statements, our cars (onboard nav computers telling the government where we are going, where we've been, etc), our schools, our whole livelihood could be changed.

      That being said, if we are slow about pulling this law back out, and amending our laws so that such a catastrophy like 9/11 and the Patriot Act won't happen again, we will be more prepared for the next government incursion into privacy.

      The whole thing needs to go. But we need to be able to explicitly say why each piece of it should go, and until we are unable to do that legally, the Patriot Act must stand as to keep what freedoms we still have. I have full confidence in our government to restore our constitution to its former glory, but we can't do that by making hair-triggered decisions like the Patriot Act, or its repeal.

      • Surely it depends on context (Score:5, Insightful)

        by karzan ( 132637 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:47AM (#12830917)
        What the Patriot Act ought to do is act as a signal that something has gone dreadfully wrong in the American system--and therefore must be changed. For one thing, the fact that so many Americans did not oppose it, and were so easily led into accepting a complete contravention of the constitution through a manipulation of irrational fear (what if the terrorists attack my house??) shows us that there is a deeper problem in American culture. No kind of democracy can really work if people are that uncritical and deferential.

        Removing the Patriot Act is going to be incredibly difficult. Any process that does so, whether it is gradual or sudden, is going to first require a change in the whole political and cultural atmosphere, because there are so many people who genuinely believe measures like the Patriot Act are rational. So anything that removes the Patriot Act is going to do more than just remove the Patriot Act (it's not going to just be scrapped by a Democratic administration)

        Whether you do it gradually or suddenly, if the Patriot Act were to be removed by representatives with little cultural change happening, then the deeper causal problems would still be there. But I think we can just as effectively remove it suddenly as we can slowly, if that process is carried out by just that--'We'. Because you're right--until the underlying factors are addressed, there is always the danger of this happening again ... and again.

        But I'm not sure how much that has to do with the *speed* of removing it.
        • I understand what you are saying, but I believe the "speed" persay is a powerful indicator of how active the people want to be in their government, and how much we value our privacy.

          The problem with removing the Patriot Act as one huge lump, is that it leaves a lot of non-virtual holes in our constitution about where privacy should be granted, and where it should not be. The Patriot Act makes it quite clear where America stands in these lights. While we repeal the Patriot Act part by part, we add other a
          • Excuse me? "No way to repeal the Patriot Act and be assured ... that a hefty part of our rights still stand"????

            Have you actually *READ* the Patriot Act?

            To repeal it in its entirety would revert things to the world of pre-9/11. And frankly, I feel like I had a helluva lot more rights then, than I do now.
            • Um... Is anyone in this thread aware that the PATRIOT Act came with a 5 year expiration date? If we just sit on our hands for another year-- boom, no more PATRIOT Act. Problem solved. The time limit is part of how they sold it to Congress so easily. Everyone was just like, "Hmm, sounds good. We were just attacked. And hey, it's just 5 years. We should be able to figure who did this by then." The time limit is also why the Bush administration has been pushing for a PATRIOT Act II since even before the Iraq W

              • Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:4, Informative)

                by earthbound kid ( 859282 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @08:06AM (#12831180) Homepage
                I'm replying to myself, but here's a good Wiki quote [wikipedia.org] about it:

                "Under PAT 224, several of the surveillance portions (200 level sections) of the PATRIOT Act will expire on December 31, 2005. In a June 9, 2005 speech, President George W. Bush called upon Congress to permanently renew these sections.
                It is important to note that this sunset provision excludes investigations that began before the expiration date. Those investigations may continue with the original PATRIOT Act's full powers."

                So yeah, some stuff expires. But apparently not all of it. It's a damn confusing act. Which is one of it's biggest problems.
                • From the Republican Dictionary [republicandictionary.com]:

                  "Patriot Act (USA PATRIOT Act)
                  1. A law championed by Attorney General John Ashcroft and passed by Congress, the details of which are irrelevant, written by patriots who love freedom, which strengthens the United States in the face of the terrorist threat. Criticism of the Patriot Act is a favorite pastime of liberal intellectuals who seek to provide aid and comfort to America's enemies by reading it. Such treasonous activity has caused over 300 communities across America, inc

              • Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:4, Interesting)

                by wcdw ( 179126 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @08:15AM (#12831224) Homepage
                I have several problems with the so-called Patriot Act -- as well as the efforts now undderway to extend it past its original 5-year expiration.

                Primarily among these include:

                1) Lack of judicial review. If you want to search my house, get a d*mn judge to approve a warrant. Doing it because "you suspect I'm a terrorist" is just flat crap.

                2) Removal of freedom of speech. If I DO receive certain requests/requirements under the PA, I am *required* to comply with them, and *prohibited by law* from talking about them. And now it seems that if I *do* mention that the FBI raided my house, I can go to jail for at least a year.

                3) In general, the PA goes *way* too far. Any bill which must shroud its activities in a cloud of secrecy is NOT the intent of the people who wrote our constitution. Secret pogroms smack of Nazi Germany. Of course, so does the USA, today.

                • Pogroms were NOT Nazi or secret. (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by crovira ( 10242 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @09:37AM (#12831758) Homepage
                  They were a staple of Russian life. Keep the [others] fearing for their lives by killing a few (or more). Other is in brackets because they weren't killing just Jews.

                  The Nazis were not particarly secretive about what they were doing. They just had more propaganda about it. (The parts they didn't want you focusing on.)

                  As for the patriot act... Imagine a world where you CANT get away with anything, on any side. Oh the horror. The HORROR!

                • Very well stated. I think it was 3 posts up that tried to make the case that the patriot act helps define personal liberties and repealing it would leave everyone wondering what rights they had. All I can say to that person, who imo is a very sad individual that hasn't read the constitution, is read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.

                  Whether or not congress repeals the PATRIOT act is of no significance to your rights. I know the White House and the FBI w

                  • Know Your Rights (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by Pfhorrest ( 545131 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @02:01PM (#12834045) Homepage Journal
                    All I can say to that person, who imo is a very sad individual that hasn't read the constitution, is read the first 10 amendments to the constitution if you want to know what rights you have.

                    This is something that keeps coming up, and I have to keep emphasizing the wrongness of it because it is the root of all of the problems with our government today.

                    "You", a citizen, have the right to do anything not expressly prohibited to you. "They", the government, have no rights, only certain powers expressly granted to them.

                    The Bill of Rights is a list of SPECIALLY PROTECTED rights, which the government expressly may not create laws infringing upon, if they somehow (*cough*Article 8, Section 18*cough*) find a way to go about expanding their own powers at will. But the Bill of Rights is NOT a list of your total rights, and many of the founding fathers were opposed to its inclusion (hence why it was added afterward), because they feared that people would think that, since some rights were enumerated, that was an encompassing list of all rights. The compromise was the 10th Amendment, which is the clearest bit of language in the constitution that hammers home my point:

                    "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."

                    In other words, if the federal constitution doesn't say No, and your state constitution doesn't say No, then you can do it. It's your right unless otherwise stated.

                    The (Federal) government, on the other hand, is supposed to have a very select set of powers, explicitly enumerated in Article 8 of the Constitution. The catch there is, the last clause of Article 8 grants Congress the power...

                    "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

                    So basically, every law Congress has passed, aside from Constitutional amendments, is supposed to trace back in some way shape or form to the enforcement of one of these powers [usconstitution.net] explicitly granted to Congress, or to help the other branches to exercise their (also explicitly enumerated and limited) powers.

                    And the lawmakers have really stretched things. The one you see abused most often is the "interstate commerce" clause. Drug control laws, for example, derive entirely from that - nevermind that the same laws are applied if someone produces a drug like pot entirely in their back yard and uses it it all by themselves, never involving other states or even other people in the process. The lawbooks are full of stretches like that - some law links back to the supposed enforcement of an apparently unrelated power of Congress, and then applies equally well in situations unrelated to the exercise of that specific power, effectively growing the powers of the Federal government.

                    And since such Article 8 abuses supersede the 10th Amendment protections of your universal human rights (because such abuses 'legitimately' grant Congress further powers, as far as the 10th Amendment is concerned), it seems they can get away with it.

                    The system is broken.

                    (Not to mention, even if it weren't broken in just this way... the Constitution still allows individual states to wield whatever powers they please except these [usconstitution.net], and a few others added in later amendments. Even if the feds weren't able to be draconian... chances are the states still would).
                • smack of Nazi Germany. Of course, so does the USA, today.

                  Wait, I'm confused!! What's wrong with the newspaper!??
                • National Security Letters were not created by the PATRIOT Act, neither were sneak and peak warrants. Some techinicalities of their operation (like expanding pen registers to include email headers instead of just phone numbers) were changed by the PATRIOT Act, but these legitimate tools have been around for a long time.

        • Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BackInIraq ( 862952 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @07:05AM (#12830974)
          For one thing, the fact that so many Americans did not oppose it, and were so easily led into accepting a complete contravention of the constitution through a manipulation of irrational fear (what if the terrorists attack my house??) shows us that there is a deeper problem in American culture. No kind of democracy can really work if people are that uncritical and deferential.

          Actually, it's ignorance we have to worry about. That's why most people didn't oppose the Patriot Act; they had no idea what the hell it was. Even as of 2004 only 3 of the 21 students in a freshman/sophomore level college history course I was in knew anything whatsoever about it, other than the name. Many had never even heard of it.

          And I'm willing to bet that the general public doesn't know much about it either...even older, more mature, and better educated Americans. Certainly not the unwashed masses that get most of their news from the soundbites during the commercial breaks of American Idol. Americans in general are incredibly ignorant people, happy to wander around oblivious as to what's going on in the world around them.

          • Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            I would also say it's ignorance about the outside world. The US is very concentrated in stating how great the nation is, implying it's greatest in comparison to the world. This leads to people assuming the outside world is jealous of the American lifestyle, the assumption then justified by the events of 911.

            This made the attack become personal for many Americans, which is why there was an acceptance that the Patriot act was needed. The threat of the outside world, this great unknown, shadowy figure, was

        • Wasn't US society originally refered to as "The Great Experiment"? Essentially an experiment in engineering a society.

          Has anyone thought to take a look at the results and decide if the experiement was a success or a failure?

          Stephen

        • Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:4, Interesting)

          by teslatug ( 543527 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @08:48AM (#12831417)
          You should watch Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore. He explores how the media have made Americans afraid and jumpy in an effort to have them consume more products. It may not be truly real, but it is an interesting perspective.

      • I don't understand your caution. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @07:56AM (#12831142)
        Removing the thing will restore the constitution to its original rule-set. It seems to me that your caution stems from the fact that if the same abuse of congress happens again, it will be better if there are some fascist laws already in place. My question to that is, what would prevent those existing corrupt laws from being altered, (like with PATRIOT ACTII, for instance), if it 'happens again'?

        Not that it matters anyway. The whole system of the 'Executive Order' renders the entire U.S. system of democratic government null & void should the administration ever decide to act on those powers. The patriot act just a bit of warming water, (as in the boiling frog analogy), and arguing over it is redundant when Bush, or any president, can legally become dictator for life at any time.

        The U.S. system needs some purging and major restructuring if it can be taken seriously. Right now the whole thing is a big, stupid distraction to keep people occupied for years on end while the real game goes down, as it currently is.


        -FL

      • Re:Perhaps we shouldn't be so rash.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16, 2005 @08:36AM (#12831355)
        I'm not saying I like the Patriot Act, but I really think that we should be rational in our removal of this disturbance, as we weren't rational with our creation of it in the first place.

        I strongly disagree! For three reasons:
        1. Although enacted as an irrational response to terrorist threat, it has not been used to bring down one terrorist since enacted.
        2. Despite all sorts of assurances while the bill was being discussed, the PA has been used against drug dealers, tax evaders and even the wayward Democratic members of the Texas legislature. This is not a "terrorist" bill; it is a bill that has been used almost exclusively against American citizens!
        3. Now that Congress has actually grown a spine and won't be threatened with being unpatriotic to cram anything through, it is time to send a clear message to Bush et al that the Bill of Rights is more than just toilet paper!

      • Bullsh*t (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "we are setting ourselves up to the whole situation again"

        Baloney.

        There have been no convictions of terrorist because of this law.

        None.

        Zero.

        The Washingtonpost just had a fascinating article about this last week. Despite all the crap that comes out of the administration, this law has had zero effect on terrorism.

        It has been used extensively against U.S. citizens. However, if we need specific laws, lets enact them and stop pretending everything is about "terrorism".

        Its bullshit and its just a way to

  • Still Payin With Cash (Score:5, Funny)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:16AM (#12830829) Homepage Journal
    This is good news, but I'll still be buying 2600 with cash, thank you very much!

    Err, not that I read that, that is...uh yeah...

    • Re:Still Payin With Cash (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bimo_Dude ( 178966 ) <[bimoslash] [at] [theness.org]> on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:23AM (#12830846) Homepage Journal
      I don't know... The way I look at it, I have been and will continue to pay for all of my books with credit cards. I want those bastards to know what I read, and that I disagree with their policies. IMHO, it's important that we stand up to them and exercise what little freedom we have left. If we don't, then the gov't will see it as an indication that we either don't care, or are not paying attention and will continue to walk all over us. No more.

      • Re:Still Payin With Cash (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SacredNaCl ( 545593 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:49AM (#12830926) Journal
        Considering all of the provisions that are in this, and how extremely overbroad almost every single one of them is and unneeded most of them are, that the only thing congress finds fault with is the library and bookstore provisions is quite disturbing.

        I think we need to clean house. The white house, and both houses of congress.

        Electronic communications provisions would have ranked a lot higher for me, as well as banking & financial provisions, and detention provisions, ability to issue "secret" warrants, sneak and peak... All of those ranked a lot above worrying about my library card book list.
        • Electronic communications provisions would have ranked a lot higher for me, as well as banking & financial provisions, and detention provisions, ability to issue "secret" warrants, sneak and peak... All of those ranked a lot above worrying about my library card book list.

          I agree with you wholeheartedly there. Personally, I think that the whole act should be repealed, and that those who drafted it should be sent to the klink. Also, you are correct in that a major housecleaning (and whitehousecleaning, a

        • Suspicions (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Blitzenn ( 554788 ) *
          I agree. It allows anyone in the enforcement departments to invade your privacy, based on a suspicion. They do not need to prove that you have participated in a crime, only that they believe your activities indicate that you could possibly be aligned in a manner to be able to participate in a crime. You lose your right to any privacy based on someone elses suspicions.

          McCarthy would have been so proud of the Patriot Act. That alone scares me to near death.
      • I want those bastards to know what I read, and that I disagree with their policies.

        Commendable, to be sure. But do expect nasty visitors when you check out significant amounts of Subcommandante Marcos or even good-old Noam Chomsky.

        Your statement reminds me of a documentary I saw the other day about women in Iran. Many of them disagree with the fact that the veil is forced on them by law. But instead of protesting by not wearing the veil and rendered powerless in some jail, they accept the vail for the mo
    • Funny you say that. In some jurisdictions it's actually illegal to be anonymous anymore. Sure, you can pay cash, but there's a camera watching the checkout line so if *they* want to know who is buying 2600 just look it up on the tape. That's why I "contract" to a random kid at the bookstore to buy it for me for $10 bucks. More expensive, but at least *they* don't know I'm buying 2600.

      Seriously though, there was a recent case in West Virginia where a guy was arrested for wearing a Grinch mask. There's a law

  • Thank you, librarians (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bimo_Dude ( 178966 ) <[bimoslash] [at] [theness.org]> on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:17AM (#12830830) Homepage Journal
    Even though it's likely that Bush will veto this, I still am really thankful that we have such outspoken librarians in this country. They have really been helpful in trying to protect people's privacy, and have also done a lot to bring privacy issues to light in the eyes of the public.

    Thank you!!!!!

    • Outspoken librarians? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:23AM (#12830847)
      Shhhh!

    • ...and: Cue demonization of librarians (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @09:51AM (#12831849)
      You're right, the whole brouhaha over librarians destroying records rather than having them potentially be open to searches under this act has highlighted them as among the most whole-hearted, sincere believers in individual intellectual freedoms... Which makes them natural targets for the right wing echo chamber machine.

      And so we get: September 16, 2003: John Ashcroft accused librarians of fueling "baseless hysteria," and of having been "duped" by liberals. "Ashcroft mocked and condemned the ALA [ala.org] and other Justice Department critics for believing that the FBI wants to know 'how far you have gotten on the latest Tom Clancy novel.'"

      Gee, how does The National Review feel about this? It advocates explicitly adding libraries to the list of organizations subject to the law [nationalreview.com], justifying that by listing the libraries the 9/11 hijackers used in Germany... I'm having trouble making out the argument there. It's pretty breathless: "Atta used computers at the public library and worked out at a Delray Beach health club." Health clubs are scaaaary! It too belittles librarians' concerns, of course:

      "'I am dismayed by librarians' uninformed opposition to the Patriot Act,' says Maria Vagianos... 'Librarians commit a disservice to society and to their profession when they succumb to the ignorance that they are charged to dispel.'"

      "These dangerously naïve or clandestinely seditious librarians are beyond foolish. They potentially jeopardize the lives of American citizens."

      Google this one up and you'll come across a motherload of library organizations who are very seriously tackling the issues of intellectual freedom involved in this law. Dismissing those librarians as hysterical dupes of terrorists is not exactly calling them pinko commie fellow travelers... but we're already on our way. When does someone use the senior Bush's "card carrying" epithet?

      Do another Google and you'll be able to easily find stuff like "The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries." [humaneventsonline.com] Book number 4 on the list: The Kinsey Report, because it tried to "normalize deviant behaviors." Yep, those Patriot Act supporters are true believers in intellectual freedoms... They'd never abuse surveillance powers, no ma'am.

  • Next stage (The Tin Foil Hat Stage) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by frankthechicken ( 607647 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:17AM (#12830832) Journal
    I wonder when the government will require everyone to have a bank account, ban bank notes, and require all purchases to be made by card.

    All in the interests of removing profits by terrorists through counterfeiting, and of course to keep track of terrorists purchasing habits.
    • I don't think that over here it would be possible to make a living without a bank account.

      AFAIK, regular salaries are never-ever paid in cash (not even upon request), because every transaction is reported electronically to the tax office so that they can keep up with your income.

      If you want a legal job, you have to have a bank account and a social security number. Period. Getting a bank account, of course, requires that you show a state issued photo ID (passport or a driver's license) from which they c

  • One step forward, two steps back. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by King_of_Prussia ( 741355 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:19AM (#12830835)
    Read the summary for this [loc.gov] proposed bill. Future seems a little shaky now doesn't it -- How does "Darth Bush" sound to you? (Amendment 22 is concerned with that little thing about only having two terms as president, for those non USoAians)









    PS (OT) -- is anyone else having trouble with IP bans on slashdot? I get 2 downmods on apost and suddenly I'm IP banned! I only got this posted through Tor, but that's not that much better as slashdot blocks most of the nodes there too. Any help?

    • Well, one can only thank goodness for bureaucracy in this case; this amendment will be in the house subcommitties for at least the next 5 years unless someone fast tracks it.. but wouldn't that look a bit too suspicious?

      Besides, this isn't the first time this has came up; someone's tried to repeal every amendment, someone's tried to repeal almost every right granted to us by the constitution at some point. It's gotten so far now that people don't even care about their rights, and are being stripped of th
      • Besides, this isn't the first time this has came up; someone's tried to repeal every amendment, someone's tried to repeal almost every right granted to us by the constitution at some point. It's gotten so far now that people don't even care about their rights, and are being stripped of them anyways by laws that blatently don't check out against it.

        This is true...but the great part is every time one of them does it, if you pay attention, you can find out who the real idiots are and try to help end their c

    • Oh, give it up already. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lheal ( 86013 )
      What does the proposed repeal of term limits and the shocking fact that you've been modded down have to do with the Patriot Act?

      People introduce wacko amendments all the time.
      Take off your hat once in a while.

      As much as we dislike the ugly provisions of the Patriot Act, its proponents are well-intentioned people who are trying to keep us safe. They are not out to destroy democracy. They just don't realize that loss of freedom is too high a price to pay for safety.
      • That's bullshit and you know it. There was absolutely no time to write the patriot act as a response to September 11. They just dragged out all of the horrible laws they've wanted for a long time and packaged them together.
    • > Read the summary for this proposed bill.

      Oddly, 4 of the 5 sponsors are Democrats. I didn't expect to see that. At least not now, when there's a Republican in office (maybe six years ago, when a Democrat was).

    • Re:One step forward, two steps back. (Score:4, Informative)

      by crazney ( 194622 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @07:17AM (#12831014) Homepage Journal
      I'm no American, so really I shouldn't care.. but I decided to look into this one. If you follow the links from that URL, you eventually get to remarks on that bill [loc.gov].

      And here are the contents:


      SPEECH OFHON. STENY H. HOYEROF MARYLANDIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESTHURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005
      Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today a joint resolution to repeal outright the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment requires that no person who has served two terms or has served two years of another President's term be permitted to serve another term of office.
      The time has come to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, and not because of partisan politics. While I am not a
      [Page: E303] GPO's PDF
      supporter of the current President, I feel there are good public policy reasons for a repeal of this amendment. Under the Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be President George W. Bush's last term even if the American people should want him to continue in office. This is an undemocratic result.
      Under the resolution I offer today, President Bush would not be eligible to run for a third term. However, the American people would have restored to themselves and future generations an essential democratic privilege to elect who they choose in the future.
      A limitation on the terms that a President could serve was not fully discussed by the Founding Fathers. However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper 72, recognized that one important benefit of not having term limits on the President would be:

      We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable. Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny. As the noted attorney and counsel to Presidents, Clark Clifford, said:
      I believe we denigrate ourselves as an enlightened people, and our political process as a whole, in imposing on ourselves still further disability to retain tested and trusted leadership. The Congress and the Judiciary are now and will remain free to utilize their own countervailing constitutional power to forestall any executive overreaching.


      It's got nothing to do with Bush. He wouldn't even get to use it. Bloody hell, talk about scaremongering.
    • It's pissed me off, for one. I can handle not being able to moderate, and being called to metamoderate all the time, but
      1) being banned from posting under any circumstances from certain places because of actions of other people and
      2) watching my fan/friendlist slowly becoming 'unpopular opinion' and being unable to post more than once or twice a day is lunacy.

      Vote with your feet.

  • Librarians are with the terrorists :( (Score:5, Funny)

    by Adult film producer ( 866485 ) <van@i2pmail.org> on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:26AM (#12830852)
    It's only a matter of time until the Al Quaeda uses our public library system against us. Learning the hidden secrets of the atom bomb and building one, the end result will be campaign of terror against freedom loving people like myself. It's time to take a stand against socialist librarians across america. Who's with me? Go to your local library and steal any books relating the construction of atom bombs, chemical weapons and sheep loving. Please.
    • Actually with the right combination of books found in a library or by using the library's public PC you can learn not only how to make the bomb, but also view the architectural diagrams of buildings to best determine where that bomb may be most effective. I do not totally agree with everything in the Patriot Act but the simple fact is that if there are mechanisms out there to help identify the possibility of a terrorist act before it occurs then I don't really see a problem with it. There is however a very

  • uh.. oh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:27AM (#12830855)
    Those who dare to replace some security with freedom do not deserve security at all.

    (I think George Washington said that...)

    • Re:uh.. oh... (Score:2, Informative)

      by spooje ( 582773 )
      You've got it backward, "Those who replace liberty with security deserve neither," and it was Jefferson.

      • It was Franklin and you missed out a couple of words, 'essential' and 'temporary'. It's a warning against giving up an 'essential liberty' in exchange for some 'temporary safety'. You have to make a judgement call on if the specific liberty is essential and if the safety is temporary. You also have to realise that many liberties are or rely on safeties and that some liberties are mutally exclusive. Your liberty to congregate and petition senate for resolution of grievences conflicts with senate's liberty

    • Re:uh.. oh... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by GenKreton ( 884088 )
      Benjamin Franklin said:

      "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

      Not Mr. Washington, that I am aware of.

      Lookie here:
      http://www.wisdomquotes.com/000974.html [wisdomquotes.com]
      (I only used google so feel free to check a quote site you like more)
    • Those who dare to replace some security with freedom do not deserve security at all.

      (I think George Washington said that...)

      Nice way to twist the phrase, maybe now some will get the point of original. To those who replied above and didn't all I can say is .....

      WHOOOOSH!!!!
    • (I think George Washington said that...)

      It was Franklin. However, if my mod points hadn't expired, I'd have modded this up. Despite how many times that quote gets repeated here, it still applies, and it should be mentioned at least once in every thread on topics like this.

      Hell, if 'In Soviet Russia' jokes still battle it out with Beowulf Cluster gags for +5 Funnies in every single topic, this deserves a +5, Insightful every few threads.

    • Re:uh.. oh... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by PatrickThomson ( 712694 )
      "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use" - Soren Kierkegaard

  • Nice (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PingXao ( 153057 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:31AM (#12830863)
    Well, it's a start. How about we require a warrant for EVERY goddamned search so that the RIGHT of the people to be secure in their homes, papers and posessions is not abridged? It's only in the freaking Constitution for Christ's sake. At the very least they should eliminate the sneaky trick that they don't even have to TELL you you're a target of an investigation. When will these bozos realize that terrorists are CRIMINALS, not "foreign combatants" who need to be locked up without any rights at all in some gulag for years under military supervision? If this goes on much longer it will be a simple matter to apply the "T" label to anyone for any reason at all under the strictest secrecy possible and they won't even have to tell you about it until it's too late.

    • Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

      by justforaday ( 560408 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:47AM (#12830915)
      If this goes on much longer it will be a simple matter to apply the "T" label to anyone for any reason at all under the strictest secrecy possible and they won't even have to tell you about it until it's too late.

      I believe that's the whole point of this supposed "war on terra."
    • You really do not know much about the current law.
      The US PATRIOT act does require that a judge review the information and allow the warrent. It also placed the additional requirement that the number of times they request one of theses from theses judges be fully reported to various agencies. Something that is not required for other search requests.
    • You sure took AI's "gulag" assertion and ran with it, didn't you? Besides the fact that Gitmo and Soviet gulags have NOTHING in common....

      Actually I agree with most of your post, but it just pisses me off when sheeple mindlessly repeat catchy, inflammatory talking points.
  • ...So my plans on becoming galactic president, stealing an awesome space ship and finding the ultimate machine to run Linux on are still safe then?

    Oh wait... I just let the cat out of the bag!

  • Look at the Puppet! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aluminumcube ( 542280 ) * <greg@nOsPAm.elysion.com> on Thursday June 16, 2005 @06:52AM (#12830937)
    And with that, the Patriot Act II will pass with flying colors.

    Sort of like globalization, the overwhelming majority of people who get their panties in a bunch about how evil the Patriot Act is really don't have a bloody clue about what the Patriot Act actually does. The 'Library Statute,' while hardly ever used, happens to be one of the most easily lambasted portions of the legislation because the academics and intellectuals on the left hold libraries to be sacred places of privacy.

    The fact of the matter is, the Patriot act was hardly ever used to collect library records and the Patriot act supporters know it. Any prospective terrorist is far better served by looking up public records and using the internet. Seriously, if you are a well financed terrorist who poses an actual threat to this country, would you have EVER gone to the library?

    By removing the Library bit from the Patriot act, Congress can look like they actually care while still allowing the meat of the Patriot act to be renewed, if not even adding a bit more to it.

    • "The fact of the matter is, the Patriot act was hardly ever used to collect library records"

      Hardly ever isn't the same as never. The problem is terroist activities can be widely interpetted. And when things like due process of law is bypassed because you are tried in military court, it leaves a big window of abuse.

      "Seriously, if you are a well financed terrorist who poses an actual threat to this country, would you have EVER gone to the library?"

      I think that is our point, there is no reason to monitor

    • Re:Look at the Puppet! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by harks ( 534599 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @08:28AM (#12831292)
      I've heard this so often. "That part of the law is hardly ever used, why do you care so much?" (of course, if you don't need that part of the law then why have it?) Then, after a few years, they start using it. Then the pitch becomes, "But that's been part of the law for years now and has never been a problem. Why do you care now?"
    • "The fact of the matter is, the Patriot act was hardly ever used to collect library records"

      Err, care to back that up?

      Libraries that have been ordered to turn over information are *not allowed* to tell anyone about it. Not the suspect in question, not the media.

      http://www.aclu.org/patriot_foia/foia3.html [aclu.org]

      Check point 3.

      There is no way to independantly verify any of the released statistics... /tinfoil hat

  • I have read the Patriot Act and it says nothing specific about Libraries. It says a LOT about searching ANY records of small entities. This could included libraries, video rental, and even dry cleaning.

    All in secret.
  • The CNN story is accompanied by a "Quickvote" poll, which asks "Should the FBI be able to look at the library records of people they suspect of terrorism?" Perhaps not surprisingly, almost half of the replies favor this idea. Of course, the point under dispute is if the FBI (or anyone else) should be able to sift through library records of people they don't (yet) suspect of terrorism.

  • It's about time for this... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @07:14AM (#12831007) Homepage
    In Soviet Russia, YOU know everything the GOVERNMENT does! .. kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

  • Taking over the world, Muhwa hwa (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Having heard the good news on the mad scientist mailing list, I naturally ran down to the local library. However, I had to wait in line behind all the jihadists, animal rights activisits, closet marxists, union organizers, democrats who voted against Bush judicial nominies, anarchists, gun nuts, abortion clinic bombers, and green party activists. Finally I got my turn at the library desk, only to be put on the waiting list for the "taking over the world for dummies" series. The evil laugh guidebook was a

  • This is the least of my worries (Score:3)

    by Bohnanza ( 523456 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @07:30AM (#12831048)
    I'm more concerned about the government's powers to secretly arrest anyone they want, for any reason, then send them to a secret overseas prison and hold them incommunicado indefinitely.

    You say there's no evidence this has ever happened? Of course not! Remember that the "Patriot Act" makes it illegal to tell anyone you've seen this kind of thing happen.

    We're not supposed to worry, though, since this kind of treatment is reserved for "terrorists". Who is a "terrorist"?, you ask? Why, anyone the government calls a "terrorist", of course!

    OK, back to our regularly scheduled paranoid rants...

  • Yeah privacy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheConfusedOne ( 442158 ) <the@confused@one.gmail@com> on Thursday June 16, 2005 @07:46AM (#12831101) Journal
    It's not like any of the 9/11 hijackers used library computers to do anything after all...

    oops [libraryjournal.com]

    • so what? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dangermouse ( 2242 )
      The hijackers could just as well have used computers anywhere else, or not at all, to buy those tickets. If the Feds want to watch for terrorists buying airline tickets, they can watch the damn airlines. No need to know what I read last week.

      Section 215 is dangerous, unnecessary, and violates the highest law of the land [aclu.org].

      • So subpoenas violate the highest law of the land?

        Damn, you can subpoena library records in a private law suit. No terrorist activity needs to be involved.

        From ACLU's page:

        Section 215 allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over "any tangible things," so long as the FBI "specif[ies]" that the order is "for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

        Note the emphasized parts. ANY person or entity. ANY tangible thi

  • Don't get too excited (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stinerman ( 812158 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @07:46AM (#12831104)
    Apparently, since Bush is threatening to veto (although he has never used his veto to date) this legislation unless they put the provision in question back in the bill, they will do exactly that in conference committee.

    A poster on the Daily Kos [dailykos.com] made mention about it, but I can't find a direct link.

  • Eh, big deal.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by pair-a-noyd ( 594371 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @07:53AM (#12831127)
    I learned a long time ago to buy all my copies of "Catcher in the Rye" with cash..

  • Not True (Score:5, Interesting)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @08:02AM (#12831170) Journal
    The House voted Wednesday to block the FBI and the Justice Department from using the Patriot Act to search library and book store records. Despite a veto threat from President Bush, lawmakers voted 238-187 to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.

    I don't trust government. I think they are liars. They distract the public, to make everyone think they are doing the work of ALL people. Well, not even all, but those who work and have families.

    How about this for an idea? Members of Congress hear the outrage of people, about big brother in the library keeping tabs on what you read. So in a public showdown, congress repeals the provision of the patriot act which allows government to obtain your reading list.

    Act II. People forget about the other provisions of the patriot act where the FBI can search records without a court warrent, records like your bank accounts, or even your home. And even after the search, they don't tell you!!

    Act III. The Education Bill is passed. What is in the Education Bill? A provision which requires libraries to keep tabs on what people read, "to better spend tax dollars".

    Act IV. People disappear. Kinda like Guantanamo bay, but Americans this time. Of course, no lawyers allowed. Okay, government will cave, we'll give you a military lawyer.

    Act V. Hell folks, if it gets to Act V, we're all doomed. Some say we already are.

    SOLUTIONS

    #1) We take all money out of politics.

    As long as public office can be purchased, we are screwed. Money is being concentrated in the hands of a small minority. If it takes $7 million per Senate seat, and some believe that the NY seat will be a multiple of that amount, then who can run? Even congressional seats are over $1 million each.

    If all money was removed from political contests, then it would be a level playing field for ideas. The people own the airways, we could order 10 hours for each candidate to recieve public airtime. But we don't even get ideas, we get marketing.

    I think the USA is doomed. The sad part is we are causing war in every other part of the world. We want to bring to them capitalism, so the same system of buying elections can become possible.

  • The only factor that is different from when the Patriot Act was originally passed is that the power of the President has begun to wane. He is a lame duck President whose Vice President isn't going to run for the top spot. The voices of the people who vote is as loud as it was then but now that voice attaches itself to votes for the next election cycle and money to campaign chests. A change in moral compasses on the part of your congressmen isn't what is happening here. They haven't suddenly decided that it's morally wrong to throw the Constitution aside along with yor rights. Nope, nothing like that. It's that your local Congressmen has to listen to you for a while again - to be reelected. So make noise now and let him know what you think of the Patriot Act. Tell him that you actually like the Bill of Rights and won't vote for someone who lets the President take it away piece by piece. This might be a good time to let your Congressman know what you think of the Guantanamo Bay Prison as well. After all, the weakness of the President in this matter is like blood in the water and those who have problems with these issues need to speak now when their voices will mean the most.

  • I love it! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @11:00AM (#12832326) Journal
    Over the decades the US media has blasted the UK for its treatment of Irish terrorists and for the UK's gradual erosion of human rights. These articles have often been accompanied with a superior "it couldn't happen here because of our Constitution" attitude. So it's been great the last few years watching the US finding creative ways to ignore its own Constitution in pursuit of the 'war' on terrorism. I was laughing when I read comments by Assistant Attorney General William Moschella in a letter to Congress:
    "[Bookshops and libraries] should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators," he wrote.
    I wonder when the current administration will start drawing up plans to outlaw Starbucks - I'm pretty sure I've seen people communicating with each other there.

    But I really shouldn't be laughing at all. Every loss of rights for people in the US or the UK probably has the effect of justifying, at least in their own eyes, the actions of repressive governments everywhere else in the world, including each other's governments.

  • The Devil's in the Details (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kainaw ( 676073 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @11:16AM (#12832456) Homepage Journal
    I suspected the article of half-truth when it referred to the USA PATRIOT Act as an "Anti-Terrorism Act". It takes about 2 minutes of reading the USA PATRIOT Act on Wikipedia to realize that terrorism is only a small part of it. So, I went to house.gov and did a little research.

    The bill that it is referring to is:

    An amendment numbered 15 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to implement provisions of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act which permits searches of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

    There are some key points to mention here. First, this is limiting a section of FISA, which was absorbed by the USA PATRIOT Act. FISA was passed in 1978. So, all that stuff in the article about the "terrorism bill" being passed in 2001 is garbage. This is referring to a law passed in 1978.

    Second, this isn't ammending FISA or the USA PATRIOT Act. This is ammending a funding bill to ensure that the funds provided by the bill cannot be used by this one section of FISA. So, it is still legal, you just can't use those special funds for it.

    Third, who is paying this writer to write articles designed specifically to fan the anti-patriot act flames? If he had written what the vote was really about, it would have been news. As it is, it is propoganda.

  • the land of the free... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by N3wsByt3 ( 758224 ) on Thursday June 16, 2005 @12:10PM (#12832868) Journal
    "...to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects."

    Ah, yes, but who are the 'terror suspects'? Everyone reading books the state deems dangerous?

    Eroding ones' privacy and other rights because one is merely 'suspected' is the right way to go, if you want to end up in a policestate.

    But, we ALL know the state will ONLY use its powers for the purposes it is meant, without ever abusing it. History has shown this already numerous times in the past, no?

    Besides, 'if you have nothing to hide, why care that your private life is being intruded', right?

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close