U.S. House Votes to Extend Patriot Act 1137
Rick Zeman writes "In the wake of today's 4 dud bombings in London, the U.S. House has voted to extend the Patriot Act by a vote of 257-171. This includes 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on December 31, one allowing roving wiretaps, and another allowing searches of library and medical records."
Allow me to be the first (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is largely a state of mind. While it can be a dangerous one in much of the world, I don't like seeing our country moving in that direction. I would rather live free under threat than safe under fear of oppression. Besides, if the terrorists hate freedom, then why haven't the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, etc..., countries that are arguably more free than the U.S., not been turned into parking lots by droves of suicide bombers? No, it's our policy and actions, and I don't want to be deemed unpatriotic at best, and a terrorist under prosecution at worst for "attacking" those policies, just as it's supposed to happen in a true, working democracy.
That is my fear, the Patriot Act doesn't help, and it doesn't "feel" free, that's for sure.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Funny)
Oh please, this is just typical liberal socialist scare mongering.
Remember, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Well maybe if you are mistaken for someone who is doing someone wrong, or ... if you have a close relative who is doing something wrong, or ... if you once spoke to that guy who ...
Anyway, as I was saying, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about. This is for your protection, after all.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
please report to the ministry of truth for re-education.
Oh and remember there will be an additional gas ration card for anyone that turns in a suspected terrorist this month.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -- Goethe"
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Interesting)
"If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Ever heard that one? I work in information security, so I have heard it more than my fair share. I've always hated that reasoning, because I am a little bit paranoid by nature, something which serves me very well in my profession. So my standard response to people who have asked that question near me has been "because I'm paranoid." But that doesn't usually help, since most people who would ask that question see paranoia as a bad thing to begin with. So for a long time I've been trying to come up with a valid, reasoned, and intelligent answer which shoots the holes in the flawed logic that need to be there.
And someone unknowingly provided me with just that answer today. In a conversation about hunting, somebody posted this about prey animals and hunters:
"Yeah! Hunters don't kill the *innocent* animals - they look for the shifty-eyed ones that are probably the criminal element of their species!"
but in a brilliant (and very funny) retort, someone else said:
"If the're not guilty, why are they running?"
Suddenly it made sense, that nagging thing in the back of my head. The logical reason why a reasonable dose of paranoia is healthy. Because it's one thing to be afraid of the TRUTH. People who commit murder or otherwise deprive others of their Natural Rights are afraid of the TRUTH, because it is the light of TRUTH that will help bring them to justice.
But it's another thing entirely to be afraid of hunters. And all too often, the hunters are the ones proclaiming to be looking for TRUTH. But they are more concerned with removing any obstactles to finding the TRUTH, even when that means bulldozing over people's rights (the right to privacy, the right to anonymity) in their quest for it. And sadly, these people often cannot tell the difference between the appearance of TRUTH and TRUTH itself. And these, the ones who are so convinced they have found the TRUTH that they stop looking for it, are some of the worst oppressors of Natural Rights the world has ever known.
They are the hunters, and it is right and good for the prey to be afraid of the hunters, and to run away from them. Do not be fooled when a hunter says "why are you running from me if you have nothing to hide?" Because having something to hide is not the only reason to be hiding something.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, gonna have to disagree with you there. I've been a staunch Republican all of my voting life, I even voted for GWB twice. But, frankly, the people currently calling themselves Republican are nothing more than "The Tax & Spend Christian Party", imposing their warped, hypocritical and hateful religious agenda on the country and the world. I used to believe that if I wasn't doing anything wrong, I had nothing to fear, but I don't believe it anymore.
You even point it out in your argument Well maybe if you are mistaken for someone who is doing someone wrong, or
They've got control of the House, they've got control of the Senate, they've got the White House. And now, with Sandy D leaving, they'll have the Supreme Court, too. I feel so wrong for voting as I did last year. Oh, well, that's why I'm making plans for Canada next year.
Re:Allow me to be the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes I have, and while it may be useful in some parts it definitely takes away some of our civil liberties, like the right to a trial.
Here's a crazy idea... Come up with a better solution to deal with terrorism in a free and open society
No Patiot Act is just as good as having the Patriot Act when it comes to terrorism. The Patriot Act has done nothing to protect us from terrorists since its inception. In fact, the terrorists from 9/11 should have been caught with the existing infrastructure at the time. There really is no need for The Patriot Act to catch terrorists.
And if you think that the US is no longer a free and open society, remember that in many countries around the world, you would be hunted down, arrested and maybe even executed for expressing the thoughts that you've so thoughtfully shared in this forum
That's irrelevant. If you want to play that game you can tell the Iraqi people that at least they don't live in North Korea. You can tell Cubans that they're lucky because they don't live in Afganistan. Human rights and civil liberties are not relative, they are absolute. We must constantly safe-gaurd them or they WILL slip away a little at a time.
It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Informative)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
More info here [state.gov].
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a municipality's right to run a public library, in any way they and their voters choose. If the voters of Podunk want to run a library that distributes translations of the Canterbury Tales in Swedish, that's their right.
It's one of those federal-interference-in-local-matters issues, commonly called "states' rights", that Republicans once got their panties in a wad over but have now forgotten about.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Funny)
This might shock you, but where I live this have already started to happen. The public libraries are spreading their filthy swedish propaganda; almost all the books are in swedish now. And there's nothing the government can do to stop it. That is, without the Patriot Act. So support the Patriot Act and free us from the swedish menace!
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Being able to persecute minority religions (prior to the ACLU it was actually illegal to be of the wrong religion in many places).
2) Outlawing abortion.
3) Eliminating enviromental legislation.
4) Keeping black people from voting.
etc.
Of course, few strict constructionist judges ever notice that the war on drugs is clearly unconstitutional too.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
In bad old Soviet Russia, you could go and pee on Lenin's statue while shouting "This is what I think of communism ! Lenin, drink my urine ! Down with Stalin !". You would be executed or sent to Siberia for it, but you could do it.
What I'm getting to is that having a right to do something means that you don't suffer negative consequences for doing it. If you do suffer said consequences, your "right" is no more right than our hypothethical russians right to pee on Lenin. And the only way to ensure that there's no negative consequences (such as being noted as potential terrorist by your government) is to make it both possible and legal to use these rights anonymously.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't limited to the right. The left are just as likely to pass laws limiting freedoms as the right are, they'll just have a different set of criteria for choosing the laws. Both left and right are equally interesting in telling everyone else what to do and how to live their lives.
Max
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Informative)
The first rule of Patriot Act is don't talk about Patriot Act.
Seriously though, the nasty thing about this stuff is that it all goes to an oversight court, the dealings of which are all secret.
For example, when the ACLU sued the government related to these laws, they couldn't even talk about the trial in public, not because it was ongoing, but because it was classified.
So no, you don't hear about the abuses, because they are illegal to talk about, as that would be revealing a secret.
In other news, the government is arresting and holding american citizens on american soil and declairing that they can keep them in jail forever without trial. Not scary at all, keep it moving, nothing to see here.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
The current powers, of which the Bush administration is just a part, have realized a sad (to me) truth about the American People. The majority of us will happily settle for the illusion of freedom, eagerly believe any lies told us that support that belief, and disbelieve any truths that threaten that illusion.
We don't really care how screwed up things are as long as we can justify our belief that nothing is wrong (and therefore we don't actually need to do anything about it).
Complacency is easy, cheap, and doesn't cut into our beer and TV time.
The "land of the free, and the home of the brave", is not here in America. Here is the land of the sheeple, and the home of cowards afraid to face any unpleasant truth.
While there are many who are true patriots in this country, most don't actually do anything more than vote, if that. The vast majority has never written their congressmen and senators. Hell, most don't even know who their representatives are.
We complain that voting has become a question of the "lesser of two evils", but wouldn't vote for a truly good candidate if he/she wasn't the official Democratic or Republican candidate. Often, in the two main parties, the best choices are weeded out during the primaries, removed from the ballots not by the will of the people, but by the whim of the party elite.
Tommy
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
And for an ignorant statement like this, a post is scored insightful?
For starters, here's an obvious case: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8629443/ [slashdot.org]>Jose Pidilla. He is an American citizen, who has been held for 4 years (since 2001). The government says he's a terrorist, but they've never proved it. The government was told to either prove he was a terrorist in a trail or to let him go in 90 days. That was way more than 90 days ago, and he's still being held. The government has appealed that ruling, saying they don't have to prove anything and can hold him forever.
So there's one case: An American citizen, held by his own government, with no way to prove his innocence and the government refuses to prove his guilt. His lawyer has stood before the Appeals Court and literally asked that his client be put on trial.
So how would you, if you were an American citizen, and you were in jail for 4 years (and it'll go on longer), waiting and hoping "that the courts would take the opportunity to sort it out"?
There was another case, the name of which I cannot remember, where a court clerk accidently released the wrong documents and it was discovered there was a John Doe who had been held for months. Nobody knew his name, nobody knew the charges, he had not been given a lawyer, and nobody was notified he was being held. The ACLU tried to get permission to speak to him and represent him. I don't remember for sure, but last I heard, I think they were denied -- so we have a John Doe who may or may not be a citizen, being held without anyone knowing who it is and without any of his family having any idea what has happened to him.
The PATRIOT act is the same thing as the House Un-American Activities Committee. Whenever you hear any politician stumping for something that has such an "all-American" name that there is no way any reasonable American could stand against it, then you know it means nothing but trouble for us. Anytime someone has to wrap a group or law in the flag so they can say anyone opposing it is unpatriotic does not have protecting freedom and the Constitution in mind.
For anyone watching the news, and just keeping up with the headlines, the cases above would have been clear. The PATRIOT act has, and will be used to subvert the Constitution. Do you *really* believe you can give the government that much power and nobody in charge will use it?
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Interesting)
We're no better than America, make no mistake about it. We have a dark, tainted history of our own to contend with.
Not that I'm ashamed to be Canadian, but some of our past and present is to be ashamed about.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
The gov has yet to present proof. At this point, all that happened was that they declared him (a US citizen) an enemy combatent. According to the PATRIOT act, that gives them the authority to hold him forever, without even having to prove he is an enemy combatant.
The point is a US citizen can be declared an enemy combatant without proof and without *any* kind of trial or hearing. Once this is done, it's over -- unless this case is decided favorably by the Supreme Court. As it is now, I could be declared an enemy combatant (maybe because someone in the gov doesn't like my posts), I'd be put in custody. If --that's IF-- I'm lucky, I'll be able to contact my family and tell them what's happened. As it is now, though, they could declare me an enemy combatant, lock me up, and nobody would know where I was or what happened to me.
It's not just about his rights -- it's about protecting the rights of ALL citizens equally, so the gov can't do to him, you, or me, without following the law.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose you also believe that the USA PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to perform a mass library record search without the approval of a judge. Libraries aren't even mentioned in the entire text of the law, and the language people blow out of proportion would only allow the search of a single person's records on approval of a federal judge with respect to a specific ongoing investigation. Please try to verify things you read on Slashdot before passing it on, including what I just said.
Not that I disagree with you that things could quickly get out of hand. I assume because you feel so strongly on the matter that you have contacted your Congressman to support H.R. 1076: Detention of Enemy Combatants Act [loc.gov], which acknowledges the need to detain enemy combatants who are U.S. citizens, but enacts specific requirements on the duration, conditions, and judicial review of such detentions.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Um...I don't know where you get your definitions from...but killing over 100 people sounds like an act of war to me.
No an act of war, by the most traditional definition, is something one nation (or the sovereign of a nation) does to another. The notion of civil war, where there are parties with contending claims to be the sovereign within a nation complicates matters a little, but basically war is not something an individual (or group of individuals without a claim to nationhood) can conduct. So no, what Tim did was not an act of war, it was an act of mass murder.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
By this definition, 9/11 was not an act of war either, since both those terrorist and McVeigh were in organized terrorist groups, but neither were "nations". Personally, I agree -- declaring a "war on terrorism" is as stupid as declaring a "war on inflation" or "war on poverty". It's meaningless to declare war on a vague concent rather than a defined enemy.
But if you're suggesting that right-wing militia and McVeigh's blowing up a building was "mass murder" while Al Queda's blowing up the WTC was "war" I'd be curious to know what the difference is.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
And how do you know? Because the government told you so? I don't normally consider myself a tinfoil hat person, but I find that attitude very scary. I have always considered government transparency to be the most important thing in any democratic system.
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a war, then declare war. The people who are soldiers against you in that war that you capture are prisoners of war. If people you are fighting against are not following the rules of war, by not wearing proper uniform, etc. like most(all) terrorists, then they aren't soldiers: they are just criminals. You arrest them with the regular laws of the jurisdiction at hand; just like McVeigh, as was used as an example.
You seem to be suggesting an Orwellian world where we're always at "war," and not with any particular enemy. In this case a war on terrorism, which is a tactic. The government is fighting a "war" against a tactic which has been used for centuries. That is not acceptable.
Re:Jose Padilla the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's for the children! (Score:5, Informative)
1. [cbsnews.com]
2. [talkleft.com]
3. [wikipedia.org]
4. [aclu.org]
5. [slashdot.org] A rebuttal for some sense of "objectivity", whatever that means.
Talkin' bout a revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
They're also trying to make hay by criticizing the war in Iraq. But where the fuck were they before we, for the first time in history, started a war where none already existed?
Fuck you, Bill Clinton, for demeaning the office of President in such a way that infinitely corrupt GW could trick a bunch of right wing zealots to vote for him despite the pain he has caused.
Re:Talkin' bout a revolution (Score:5, Informative)
If they voted differently than you had wished, pick up the phone tomorrow, and let them know. Tell people you meet. Do something. Don't just bitch on slashdot.
(Unless you can't vote in the US, at which point bitching is about all you can do about this latest vote.)
Re:Talkin' bout a revolution (Score:4, Insightful)
We need more Republicans who can fight the party machine.
Says Government to The People (Score:3, Funny)
Scoreboard (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, technically, they're using our own politicians to accomplish that, if that is indeed their goal. Now that is a feat: getting your enemy to obtain your goal for you.
Re:Scoreboard (Score:5, Insightful)
By politics or terror, bombs or rules, the goals of many politicians and religious terrorists are one in the same: It's about control-- imposing their will onto yours.
Re:Scoreboard (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course being a Canadian, I know what real freedom is... I can watch anything I want on TV, so long as it's Canadian.
If you're implying that there is a lot of Canadian content on Canadian TV then you're right. If you're insinuating that there is only Canadian content being aired then you're wrong. Flipping through any of these channels I can see butt load of American shows. BTW have you actually watched TV in the states? Are you aware of the amount
Re:Scoreboard (Score:4, Insightful)
When U.S. authorities snatched a Canadian citizen out of an airport who had the misfortune to connect through New York on the way home (didn't even really stop in the U.S.) and sent him to Syria to be tortured they set a precedent that they can snatch anyone, anyplace and do anything they want to them. In fact under a project code named Rendition they've been doing just that. They've been snatching people all over the world, under the noses and against the wishes of sovereign governments, and sending them to be tortured. The U.S. government just has to have a suspicion you might be a terrorist and your civil liberties are gone. They don't even have to be right, you can be completley innocent since there is no trial here.
Perhaps saying more American's need to die in Iraq was a bit jarring. But thats what it took during the Vietnam era to wake America up, Americans coming home in body bags and without limbs. Ideally the people dieing in Iraq should be the people that started that war based on a web of lies, but chicken hawks are really adept at sending others to die for them while they stay safe, and reap the wealth and power that flows from war profiteering.
Not yet extended (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just interested in seeing how quickly the conspiracy theorist start spewing stories about how the U.S. was involved in this because only the detonators went off.
Re:Not yet extended (Score:3, Insightful)
The abuses have already happened as reported by the inspector general back in 2003. [capitolhillblue.com] Oh well, this is the ever changing face of America. Funny how this type of big intrusive government is compatible with conservative philosophies. As long as n
The U.S. involved? (Score:5, Funny)
Mal-2
So this is how liberty dies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So this is how liberty dies (Score:3, Funny)
Few women could make reading the king james bible into a blockbuster.
ZOMG! (Score:5, Funny)
*ahem*
Oh, Canada,
Our home and native land,...
Hmmm. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. " -Benjamin Franklin
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
In Howard Zinn's book "Declarations of Independence," he cites a speech by a student at the Harvard Law School in the early 1960's given to a large group of parents and alumni. The student was speaking about current events, and said,
"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! Danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive."
The crowd applauded the words of the young speaker, and when the crowd hushed, he continued.
"These words were spoken in 1932 by Adolf Hitler."
Re:Hmmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler never said it [bartleby.com].
But so what if had? Hitler was a demogogue who might say anything if it would gain him power. To that end, he might just as easily have said something true as something false.
For instance, he's quoted here [military-quotes.com] as saying "There could be no issue between the Church and the State. The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church."
No doubt Hitler had some ulterior motive for advocating separation of Church and State but simple quoting Hitler would not in any way undermine the concept.
Similarly, America's law makers may have their flaws but they are by no stretch of the imagination like the Nazis or secretly harbour the objectives of the Nazis.
Library records? (Score:5, Funny)
Should have added a guarantee (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is a terrorist bombing, we get money back (taxes).
Hold lawmakers accountable, so they create laws specifically for the purpose of prevention, not so they can brag about baseless legislation.
Americans know to look for a guarantee or a warranty on things... why do we hold manufacturers to these standards, but not self absorbed politicians.
I say we need a money back guarantee. If this fails in the next 10 years, we get refunded tax money.
If Apple can get attacked legally for iPod batteries that eventually don't hold their charge (because that's so serious), why not hold politicians in that type of arrangement?
Are iPod batteries more valued than safety?
Check Who Voted What (Score:5, Informative)
94% of Republicans voted for the act. (Score:4, Informative)
But here's a summary:
94% of Republicans voted for the act. They have no morals.
21% of Democrats voted for the act. They have no strength.
The Power of Nightmares (Score:5, Informative)
Download the three episodes from the Internet Archive.org [archive.org] and SEE THEM.
Even if you do not agree with his conclusion, the historical background will give you a far clearer picture of the reality of the situation.
Re:The Power of Nightmares (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a pretty comprehensive look at the history and motivations BEHIND the threats we are facing, from both the terrorists and the American government. Yes, at times it's not even trying to be objective, but still a lot of the events and facts that are presented are historical record and are considered far too little today.
If only this was shown in American prime-time, people may start thinking more critically about the moves we are taking now...
I still shiver now when I hear the song "Baby it's cold outside".
Re:The Power of Nightmares (Score:4, Insightful)
It's quite depressing really. That documentary was shown in the UK almost a year ago. It has made the rounds in prime time slots all over the world - it was showing here in Canada several months ago. And for all that, the one country where it probably most needs to be seen is where it isn't getting any significant play.
If you can't download whole documentaries, you can start this article on Al Qaeda [gol.com] by Jason Burke who featured in the documentary. It will give you an idea of at least some of the background and misperceptions of the "global terror network", or lack thereof, that we are facing.
Jedidiah.
Re:The Power of Nightmares (Score:4, Informative)
You didn't hear this from me.
Re:^^give it five minutes (Score:4, Interesting)
It's incredibly good. Even though it's not trying to be bullet-proof the whole time, that doesn't make those points any less valid.
EVERYONE should see it, and at the very least THINK about what it presents. I personally think it's amazingly accurate and expounds upon a lot of what I've had going through my mind lately.
Burn CDs/DVDs of it and give them to your friends.
~Lake
"Extend the Patriot Act" (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm reading the article right, I'd say "extend" isn't quite strong enough of a word:
From the article: "The bulk of the back-and-forth centered on language making permanent 14 of 16 provisions that had four-year sunset provisions under the original law..."
I have to strongly agree with the critics mentioned in the article, who "said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the September 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law."
Guess the House didn't think so.
Re:"Extend the Patriot Act" (Score:3, Insightful)
Calm down people... (Score:5, Informative)
A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.
So, let's use this time effectively. Get the word out, and contact your senator. The PATRIOT Act will probably pass, but we can at least try to get ammendments to it that will protect civil liberties while still allowing different law enforcement agencies to work with each other. While I would prefer not to have the PATRIOT act pass, we'd be better off with a bill that protects privacy and prevents racial profiling.
Personally, I think we should allow it to expire and start over. Many bits are useful, but let's have more emphasis on protecting American rights/liberties. And come on - who named this thing? What an awful, divisive name; it implies that anyone who opposes it is unpatriotic, which is complete horseshit. Name the act for what it does, not for cheap political points.
Re:Calm down people... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is offensive that laws like the PATRIOT act are even discussed in this country, let alone passed the first time.
People act as if having any of these provisions striken is a victory. The fact that secret trials, the seizure of library and medical records, and roving wiretaps are even discussed in this country should offend you.
Terrorism... (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorism is just being used as an excuse for Bush to remove everyones rights.
Ok, here's a question or two... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why extend them?
Or to ask it in a more direct manner, exactly what terrorist activities have these bills stopped since they were enacted? Any?
What's the benefit? How has the Patriot act helped us so far?
Has it done any good at all yet - or is it just rights erosion for the expediency of law enforcement?
In Memoriam Habeas Corpus (Score:5, Interesting)
I think I speak for all of us when I say (Score:5, Funny)
(For some strange reason the Slashdot filter doesn't like this post. I can't imagine why.)
The Patriot Act would be o.k. (Score:3, Insightful)
if it were only going to be used against people
who were trying to try to blow things up.
The problem is it's going to end up being used
against grandmothers with glaucoma and kids
with a few dime bags.
It's like the RICO act, meant to be used against
racketeers but just try to get your car back if
you drive down the wrong street at the wrong time.
The war on drugs has turned our government into
paternalistic assholes and changed cops from
helpful servants into self-righteous bastards
who see a criminal in every face.
We set ourselves up for this.
Where better for a guilty, nervous would-be bomber
to hide that among a population filled with guilty,
nervous drug users?
Wake up.
Tell your congressmen to repeal drug laws because they
only fuel organized crime, camouflage the real danger
among us and make those who would do us harm safer
by diverting funds and manpower from hunting bombers
down like animals to locking up teenage girls because
they were caught with a joint.
And so... (Score:3, Funny)
I know it was a lie (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is why... (Score:5, Interesting)
One of Osama's stated goals is to destroy, through holy war, America (the Great Satan). One of the things that made us great was our Constitution, that great document which protects our freedoms. Yet here goes the House of Representatives, doing exactly what bin Laden wants: Taking away our freedom. In fact, doing the one thing that Osama can never do. The only question I really want answered is, "House of Representatives: Who the heck are you representing?" Because I don't believe that the majority of America, let alone 60% of us, want the government to be able to get search warrants without a judge's consent. To force us to keep quiet about a search. To invade the privacy of our medical and library records.
And I don't want to hear any BS about 'it will only be used on/against terrorists.' This government, like any other, has abused/abuses almost every power it was ever given. And you think they'll pass up something as juicy, and so easy, and so incredibly tempting to abuse as this? Look at RICO. It was passed so the cops could bust meetings of mobsters. Now it's routinely used against groups of garden-variety criminals.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H L Mencken. Terrorism is a complex problem. We have to pull off a considerable juggling act: We have to try and defend ourselves against terrorists. We also have to make sure that we have a nation that is free and worth defending when we're done. We have to find and assauge the root cause of the hatred, because as Vietnam and now Iraq have demonstrated, superior technology can't defeat a foe with the power of conviction in his beliefs. And we have to reign in our collective ego, and not be too proud to admit that Iraq is a lost cause and that we should leave. And so far, our government is only keeping one ball in the air. The "Patriot" act is an answer that is clear, simple, and dead wrong.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." -- Abba Eban.
"Most Democrats echoed that support but said they were concerned the law could allow citizens' civil liberties to be infringed." translate(BS, ENGLISH) == "The 43 Democrats who voted in favor secretly oppose it but have no spine or willpower to say so."
"While the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Of course not, dumbass. The threat will not recede until we (the Infidels) remove our troops from the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) because that's exactly what Osama expicitly stated! But America won't do that and we all know why.
"The House debate included frequent references to the attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts that killed 56, including four suicide bombers." Hmmm... could it be that THIS is what the London blasts were about?
Ugh... I am disgusted with this government beyond words.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we were winning the war, then the number of suicide bombers in Baghdad would be decreasing rather than increasing. As I said, this is turning into another Vietnam which will again demonstrate that technology CANNOT defeat an enemy who has the power of his convictions. We lost ~60000 men in Vietnam, the Vietcong lost more than 2 million - yet we left in shame.
You didn't read anything I wrote, did you? Osama bin Laden has called for and gotten Jihad against America because American soldiers are stationed in Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca. HE FRACKING SAYS SO. If America withdraws it's forces from Saudi Arabia, he'll end the Jihad!!! But as I said, we won't do that for obvious reasons. Furthermore, if rejecting Islam was the reason that Osama hates us, then shouldn't he also be waging war on China?
Kill or capture all Islamic terrorists? Sure - just like each retaliatory strike by Israel against Hamas prevents violence rather than inciting more of it. Converting to Islam? Simply not going to happen. Removing our troops from the Holy Land of Mecca just like Osama wants? Not going to happen either. If it weren't for oil, we wouldn't give a flying damn about the middle east. Either we prop up corrupt dictatorships for oil and have to live with terrorists or we stop sucking the oil tit. It's obvious which we're choosing.
Bush is doing the 'right thing?' Was he doing the right thing when he 'fixed the facts around the policy' of war with Iraq? When he failed to fire Rove and Libby for exposing Valery Plame becasue her husband exposed his lie about the Niger yellowcake? When he entered Iraq with no plan to exit? Don't delude yourself - Bush didn't invade Iraq because Saddam is a nasty meanie person. He invaded Iraq because Iraq has 1/4 of the world's oil reserves, and his advisors would rather enrich their former employers than invest 200 billion dollars in alternative energy.
Re:And this is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The root cause of Islamic hatred toward America and the west is our success and our rejection if Islam"
Bullshit, it's fringe religious nuts who hate the west. Most Moslems don't, don't support terrorism, and are good, normal people. Interestingly, the beliefs of the fringe groups that fund the terrorism have a great deal in common with the right wing christian ultra-conservatives in this country (including both hating freedom and those who disagree with them).
Bush has convictions - he knows he's doing the right thing
That's the worst part, the inability of the right wing nuts who control this country to deffirentiate between "the right thing" and "our beliefs". Bush beleives that he is Right and refuses to ever admit that he is wrong. This is not a strength but a terrible weakness. There is no shame in being wrong once in a while, there is shame in convering the fact up to avoid embarassment.
If you don't like it (Score:3, Informative)
Write to your congressman or senators, who were elected to represent you and can only represent you if they hear from you, and politely tell them that you disagree with this. Ask them to consider changing their minds.
A letter can make a difference.
Sorry, but I (we) told you so (Score:4, Interesting)
Thus, the following exchange occurred many times with many different people.
Me: "So you're saying that you think this whole thing might be a bad idea in the long run?"
Them: "Yeah, but don't worry, everything sunsets in five years. The bill will expire and by that point the threat will have diminished to the point where it won't be needed any longer. Chill man. Stop being a Chicken Little about things."
Me: "Don't you realize that once the government gets more power that they are very unlikely to ever give it up again? Do you understand how many times this sort of thing has happened, where temporary measures such as taxes to fund wars, emergency powers and the like end up going on forever?
Them: "You have to wake up to this post -9/11 world we live in now. Things are different, we have to win this war on terrorism!"
Me: "How do you win a war against a tactic? Terrorism is here to stay, and if you let this bill come into law then it will be here to stay. There is zero doubt that reason will be found to keep it and use it as justification for further restrictive bills. Once the ball is rolling on this, it will be more or less impossible to stop."
Them: "Not more of that liberal alarmist BS..."
I had that conversation about 50,000 times, I'm sure many of you did as well. The cliche of a "slippery slope" is a cliche because it so often proves to be true. The PATRIOT Act was never going to expire and never will. Terrorism is too nebulous of a threat to ever go away. It can be brought out indefinitely to justify the permanence of such legislation, regardless of wether it is a truly valuable tool and one that respects the rights of all those who fall under its jurisdiction.
The rumblings of what comes after the PATRIOT Act have been a troubling sight on the horizon for the past few years now. Drafts have been circulated on Capitol Hill. They contain such provisions as being stripped of your natural-born citizenship by executive order upon being deemed an "enemy combatant" and various other items that you can read up on at non-tinfoil sites out there.
I'm not gloating that I was proved right. I'm depressed. I wanted little more than to see 2005 close with the likes of the PATRIOT Act in the rearview. To wake up from the nightmare that we've all descended into. The nightmare that is the kind of world we saw dawn on a September morning almost 4 years ago. Sheer unimaginable brutality delivered by surprise along the sense that worse was yet to come at some point, while we were forced to watch those we had entrusted with our safety play politics with it and make the power grabs that we have always dismissed as fantasies of lunatics on the fringes of society.
The actions of Al-Queda and governments around the world in response, were both examples of dramatic and unexpected reactions to external influences. Hoping that they were an aberration proved to be futile. They are now the new norm.
I think at this time the only thing that I can really say is that when the government pushes more legislation and word starts getting around about a new bill coming through the pipe, do not dismiss it with the usual "It will never get out of committee" or the equally as overused "It will never pass."
If by now, you haven't learned to grasp that you need to expect the unexpected, then the next 5 years look like they will be quite a ride for you.
Reichstag Fire: (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this strangely appropriate. Ideologies, not countries, always seems to be the common threat under which liberties are stolen by states.
Re:Reichstag Fire: (Score:5, Informative)
The Reichstag fire is widely believed to have been started by the Nazis themselves, as a pretext for declaring a state of emergency, reducing civil rights and starting an anti-communist campaign. From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
At Nuremberg, General Franz Halder claimed Göring had confessed to setting the fire: "At a luncheon on the birthday of Hitler in 1942, the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building [fire] and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Göring interrupted the conversation and shouted: 'The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!' With that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand."
Some people believe (rightly or wrongly) that the US government were somehow involved [kuro5hin.org] in the 9/11 attacks - either by direct action or by lack of action - precisely to have a pretext for 1) reduction of civil rights, and 2) launching a large-scale military campaign in the middle east. I'm not saying this is correct, but it sounds a bit less far-fetched when knowing that stuff like this has happened [wikipedia.org] several [wikipedia.org] times [wikipedia.org] before [wikipedia.org].
PATRIOT coming to Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:PATRIOT coming to Europe (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Our governments have taken away far more freedoms from us than the terrorists ever have. Good job, terrorists: mission accomplished.
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:3, Interesting)
You make one serious mistake.
You imply that "our leaders" are merely mistaken in taking the actions of terrorists as justifications for removing rights. You imply that our "leaders" are merely incompetent.
Trust me - our "leaders" know goddamn well what they're doing this for - and it has NOTHING to do with some random Arab fanatics. That's only the cover story, the excuse. And it's likely they deliberately created the cover story as well, certainly by their policies in the Middle East for the last seventy
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:4, Insightful)
These laws have brought the US one step closer to being the sort of nation that is closer to "Utopia according to Bin Laden". Still liking it?
When religious zealots run the country appoint one of themselves to the Supreme Court and cry and whine about a nipple on television, it gets one step closer to Bin-Laden-Land, albeit with the Lord Almighty instead of Allah, but heck I don't see the difference.
Re:Fear Wins Again (Score:5, Interesting)
The scary thing is that they're out there watching our government's reaction, gloating, and planning their next wave of attacks to see what sort of reactionary fascism they can goad our government into next. Not only did the terrorists win, but our government keeps encouraging them by doing exactly what they want---whittling away the freedoms of the United States through the politics of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, all in the name of combatting terrorism.
PATROIT act tactics have not worked in Britain against the IRA, or in Israel against various terror groups. They won't work in the United States, either. Unfortunately, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and I fear that the American public does not learn from history. If that is the case, may God help us all.
In any case, congratulations, Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, et al. Never in the history of the world has anyone caved to terrorism so thoroughly and completely as the United States in the wake of 9/11. You should all be ashamed, and more to the point, you should all be impeached.
Re:You're kidding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, there's nothing like an armed revolt to ensure freedom and democracy.... not.
Most likely a serious violent revolt would end up with the installation of a dictator and martial law... no matter which side 'won'.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:5, Insightful)
My money is funding it.
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they came for the Gypsies.
Then they came for the Communists and no one protested.
Then they came for the Catholics and no one protested.
Then they came for me, and there was No One Left to protest.
-- Martin Niemoeller
Re:QUESTION FOR ALL LIBERALS (Score:5, Insightful)
People named Habib who wear turbans to work deserve the same rights under the Constitution as those named Steve. By denying them that right, we are violating the fundamental principles of our society; of MY society. The laws and principles of MY country are being violated, and my fellow citizens (many of whom are named Habib) being denied their rights as citizens.
That anyone in DC even gives such a concept consideration is apauling and offensive.
As for a Democratic president, there were terrorist attacks under the last Democrat. The Bill of Rights was not violated under him the way it is being now. Instead, we had an impeachment hearing about a blow job.
You're right. Under a Democrat, we'd not be having this discussion. We'd be paying attention to a fake scandal cooked up by political hacks in order to cripple him. Welcome to Modern America.
Re:But wait! This is America... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:in soviet russia (Score:3, Insightful)