House Limits Patriot Act Rules on Library Records 499
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.""
I know this will be repeated alot (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps we shouldn't be so rash.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
But I'm not sure how much that has to do with the *speed* of removing it.
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:4, Informative)
"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.
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Funny)
"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)
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)
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!
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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).
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, I'm confused!! What's wrong with the newspaper!??
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Interesting)
Too much education and too little 'circus' there, I guess.
http://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/?t=1 [moveon.org]
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Surely it depends on context (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
I don't understand your caution. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
Err, not that I read that, that is...uh yeah...
Re:Still Payin With Cash (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Still Payin With Cash (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Still Payin With Cash (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
McCarthy would have been so proud of the Patriot Act. That alone scares me to near death.
Re:Still Payin With Cash (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Still Payin With Cash (Score:3, Interesting)
Who will maintain their systems then?
Illegal to be anonymous (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Thank you!!!!!
Outspoken librarians? (Score:5, Funny)
...and: Cue demonization of librarians (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
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.
Re:Thank you, librarians (Score:2, Interesting)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RE
Re:Thank you, librarians (Score:4, Insightful)
A person I know who studied PoliSci told me that most dictatorships and other oppressive regimes start out as democracies or representative republics. The laws are changed slowly over time to consolidate the power and money into the hands of fewer and fewer people, as well as slowly eroding the rights if the average citizen. Eventually, this leads to a whole different type of gov't and the people never really noticed the changes until it was too late. They were too busy being distracted by bread and circuses (now it's Michael Jackson and Britney Spears).
/rant
don't blindly vote your reps out (Score:5, Informative)
Not everyone. My Representative, John Lewis [house.gov] (Georgia 5th district), has his head screwed on straight. He voted against [govtrack.us] the PATRIOT Act, and I've been watching him (via his Plogress [plogress.com] feed) come down on the right side of every major issue [vote-smart.org].
I'm sure there are others like him. Don't throw out any babies with the bath water.
Re:Thank you, librarians (Score:3, Insightful)
The constitution is the rules and if they are broken what do we have to defend. Its an argueable point that the right to be
Next stage (The Tin Foil Hat Stage) (Score:5, Interesting)
All in the interests of removing profits by terrorists through counterfeiting, and of course to keep track of terrorists purchasing habits.
Re:Next stage (The Tin Foil Hat Stage) (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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?
Re:One step forward, two steps back. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:One step forward, two steps back. (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Oh, give it up already. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One step forward, two steps back. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
And here are the contents:
It's got nothing to do with Bush. He wouldn't even get to use it. Bloody hell, talk about scaremongering.
Slashdot moderation system is broken (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:One step forward, two steps back. (Score:5, Funny)
No, no, no!
Everyone* knows that the naming rules for Darths are to take an English word beginning with 'in', remove the 'in' and replace it with 'Darth'. 'In-Vader', 'In-Sidious', and all that.
So, for your Great Leader Bush, I suggest Darth Coherent. Or maybe Darth Continent.
Darth Credulous?
(Spider Blog: No sign of the spider since last update - I think it's gone... sniff!)
Re:One step forward, two steps back. (Score:4, Funny)
Vader not from Invader (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Vader not from Invader (Score:3, Funny)
I saw a bit of a Star Wars film with Flemish subtitles a few years ago - talk about giving the ending away...
Re:One step forward, two steps back. (Score:2)
a) The Dems have a bombshell next race, will win, and want to ensure their next candidate will stay in office for a good, long time.
b) Bush's politics have extended beyond his party, which is favorable in some dealings, but very, very unfavorable in others. I'll leave that as an excersize to the reader.
And that's just what I can come up with off the top of my head. Just
Re:One step forward, two steps back. (Score:4, Interesting)
ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS
* State Bar of Wisconsin
* Waukesha County Republican Party
* Riveredge Nature Center
* American Philatelic Society
* Friends of the Museum
* Episcopal Church
Note the party affiliation.
Librarians are with the terrorists :( (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Librarians are with the terrorists :( (Score:2)
Re:Librarians are with the terrorists :( (Score:3, Funny)
Dude! Where's my dictionary?
uh.. oh... (Score:4, Funny)
(I think George Washington said that...)
Re:uh.. oh... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:uh.. oh... (Score:2)
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)
"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)
Re:uh.. oh... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:uh.. oh... (Score:2)
(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!!!!
Re:uh.. oh... (Score:2)
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)
Nice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that's the whole point of this supposed "war on terra."
Re:Nice (Score:2)
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.
Re:Nice (Score:2)
Actually I agree with most of your post, but it just pisses me off when sheeple mindlessly repeat catchy, inflammatory talking points.
I rented HHGTTG... (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait... I just let the cat out of the bag!
Look at the Puppet! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Look at the Puppet! (Score:2, Insightful)
"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)
Re:Look at the Puppet! (Score:3, Insightful)
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
They can search ANY records (Score:2, Informative)
All in secret.
cynical poll (Score:2, Insightful)
It's about time for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking over the world, Muhwa hwa (Score:2, Funny)
This is the least of my worries (Score:3)
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...
Re:This is the least of my worries (Score:3, Interesting)
There's nothing to worry about until one of your friends or family members disappears.
Re:This is the least of my worries (Score:3, Interesting)
If they want an extension to this they have to re-request the time proving again why it is needed.
name one US citizen that was secretly taken away by the US government never to be seen again, or even not permitted a have a lawyer plead th
Yeah privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
oops [libraryjournal.com]
so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Section 215 is dangerous, unnecessary, and violates the highest law of the land [aclu.org].
I'm not sure I follow you (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn, you can subpoena library records in a private law suit. No terrorist activity needs to be involved.
From ACLU's page:
Note the emphasized parts. ANY person or entity. ANY tangible thi
Don't get too excited (Score:5, Interesting)
A poster on the Daily Kos [dailykos.com] made mention about it, but I can't find a direct link.
Re:Don't get too excited (Score:3, Funny)
It's not like he hasn't wanted to VETO, he just can't find the stamp. No one has told him to look for the one that says "OT3V" on the bottom.
Re:Don't get too excited (Score:3, Funny)
Eh, big deal.. (Score:5, Funny)
Not True (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Lame Duck President Allows Congressional Courage (Score:3, Interesting)
I love it! (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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?
Re:YRO? (Score:2)
Re:But... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you not upset that some government agency(library) or some private agency(bookstore) is recording your purchases, keeping them linked to your information, and not destroying them after they have ensure you have returned the book or your payment has been approved?
There is no library section of the US PATRIOT act there is only an area that allows the FBI to request from a business records under certain circumstations and only after approved by a judge, and that was an extention of when the same thing could be done with the same records, just not under thoses circumstances.
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most supporters of the act would mainly support it solely because it is titled the "PATRIOT" Act.
If it were called the SUPPRESSION Act, it wouldn't have had anywhere near as much support, because legislators would have been more inclined to read it before passing it.
Re:Danger Will Robinson (Score:3, Informative)
Read the vote results [house.gov].
To put it simply, 186 Republicans voted in favor of the Patriot Act, with only 38 voting against. 199 Democrats voted against the Patriot Act, with only one in favor. 83% of Republicans voted pro-Patriot Act. 99.5% of Democrats voted anti-patriot act.
Must reach Slashdot Liberal spinner
The reason you perceive an anti-Republican sentiment is that most people have correctly concluded that legislation like the Patriot Act is
Re:Voting Record (Score:3, Informative)
Voting record for roll call 258. [house.gov]
Description of The Sanders Amendment:
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).