Significant FBI Abuses of the Patriot Act 672
Noksagt writes "The Washington Post is reporting that recently discovered documents indicate serious intelligence violations by the FBI. This comes just months after the U.S. House voted to extend the Patriot Act, EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act of thirteen cases of possible misconduct in intelligence investigations. The case numbering suggests that there were at least 153 investigations of misconduct at the FBI in 2003 alone."
once again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:once again... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:once again... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:once again... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:once again... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:once again... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:once again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:once again... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for a less intrusive government, but simply cutting taxes is not going to do it.
Re:once again... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The programs that suffer lost funds aren't the ones we want to. You know what suffers? Education, NPR, et cetera. All you have to do is argue that this agency or that one, is in the interest of national security and you actually protecting all the kids who are losing funding for a theater department.
2. The beast has been starving for years. We've run massive deficits for years, and not had a problem continuing. We haven't even had a problem expanding spending. The beast will not be starved into submission, we have to take political action.
Write your legislators, tell them you want them to cut spending, kill the patriot act, or kill certain *ahem* agencies.
Re:once again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't there a famous quote about this? (Score:5, Insightful)
And once again, we demonstrate that "sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice".
(With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)
Re:once again... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:once again... (Score:5, Funny)
Shuah, we put the tea in, but we took out 'u'. Most of us don't bothah with the ahhs eithah. The word is habah. So thayah.
Re:once again... (Score:3, Informative)
Vote Quimby
Re:once again... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:once again... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, blaming the USA Patriot Act for FBI abuses is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.
Re:once again... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:once again... (Score:3, Funny)
"We contacted one of those surveilled, by telescopes, for months without a warrant, and asked her what she thought. Ms. Deborah Johnston, 27, a blonde, heavy-breasted, and nude yoga practitioner seemed aghast. She was unaware of any surveillance, but said, 'I'm quite surprised! I have done nothing wrong. Why would they spy on me?' "
Re:The most bothersome part of this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The most bothersome part of this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The most bothersome part of this... (Score:3, Informative)
While I will not disagree with you, I will point out that it is the most obvious over the last 5 years. In particular, the press should be all over a number of on-going scandels that are occuring within this admin, yet are not. Under reagan, the admin had some odd 250 scandels over the 8 years (by far, the most of any admin), but they were covered by the press.
sibel edmunds gag order, (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, Sibel Edmunds. Most people I know haven't even heard of her, never mind know that she was fired for complaints she made about incompetence in the translation unit she worked in. To be fired for pointing out problems then to be slapped with a gag order when she files a lawsuit and having the info "classified" after testifying before congress.
FalconI didn't forget to file it! (Score:3, Funny)
So (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So (Score:5, Funny)
A government agency abusing its rights? (Score:4, Funny)
In other news: "Scientists discover the molecular composition of water"
I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
...welcome our new FBI overlords.
Anagram (Score:3, Funny)
Power only exists to be abused (Score:5, Insightful)
The American idea of dividing the powers up and setting them at each other's throats was really clever. Unfortunately, no one knows the future, and things have evolved in a way where the powers are bigger and more concentrated than any English king's powers ever were. Unanticipated side effect of the 17th Amendment. (Yeah, the idea of an evolving document was pretty good, too, but it also got misused...)
Today's FBI example is relatively minor compared to all the dead bodies in Iraq.
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:5, Interesting)
The Senate should be reapportioned to reflect economic power. Let the corporations have their playground, but make it much weaker, except for negative delaying powers. That way the companies will have some place to focus all their lobbying money. At the same time, the House should be strengthened and held accountable and prevented from delegating their powers away. That's why they were supposed to face the voters every two years. Keep them on their toes.
And get the White House completely OUT of the budget business.
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:5, Insightful)
The Senate is there to provide each state with equal representation. Each state gets 2 senators. If it were reapportioned as you suggest, California would have 50 senators, New York would have 40 and the remaining 10 would be split among the other more wealthy states.
In addition, the White House (the Executive Branch) needs to be a part of the budget process because they need to inform Congress about the amount of money that they need to do their jobs. After all, they "execute" or actually enforce the laws and actually "do" stuff. Without them, gov't would be pointless. Congress still passes the budget, so the money generally isn't given to the executive branch if there is a disagreement (ie, when the gov't is shut down for a week or more because the budget hasn't be decided yet).
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:4, Insightful)
If only because corporate bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lobbying efforts will always flow to the place where they can do the most good for the corporations. If you weaken the Senate and strenghten the House the corportations will simply refocus their lobbying efforts to the place with the most power. It would make more sense to emburden the Senate, the House and the President with strict anti corruption laws and I am sure that will happen.... some day.... perhaps even the same day that pigs fly?
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah! Lets write a letter to our congressman. Or at the least be sure to get out and vote for the "right guy". Or donate to the EFF.
Or were you thinking more along the lines of coup d'état or something?
Its a shame that our excellent constitution, the longest standing one in the world, will outlive the government and the country that it is supposed to frame. Yes, there are newer political parties that have names like "Constitution Party" and "Libertarian Party", but they get almost no popular support.
I'm not saying this to be the almighty doom and gloom guy or because it empowers me in some way, but if something does not fundamentally change with the people in the United States in the next 100 years, then they can and will have many changes imposed upon them.
Historically, dominant societies do not last longer than 200-400 years. So much of our economy and well being is dependent on our country's population growing. We are the only industrialized country that has a significant population growth. We talk lip service, and annoy our own citizens in order to fight the new "war on terror", yet let if not even encourage _millions_ of Mexicans to illegally enter our country every year. Its a good thing that none of the Mexicans are terrorists or terrorist-like and that the real terrorists have never heard of the country either. This growth helps mask our deficit spending, but neither can last.
Americans should focus on stepping down as the world leader and policeman, and becoming more like the established countries in Europe or similar. Yes, those people live much differently than we do now. Much more modestly and conservatively. We can't afford to hype the bling bling too much longer, because it is setting us up for failure.
I could be insane, but this is how I see things, and I hear little to no mention of these issues. I have never heard of a country loosing a "war on terror", but I've heard of plenty that have crumbled from within based on their own perpetuation of short-sighted ideals vs gaining new sights. Ever hear of people wallpapering their houses with money because its cheaper than anything else? Or buying a loaf of bread with a shopping cart of money? Think about how that might affect your life or your families. But do nothing about it.
curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, I'm having a hard time following this...let's see, the answer to government's abuse of its power is to increase the power of government...um...drat...
[scratches head]
No,wait...now I get it! You mean we should increase the power of good government and decrease the power of bad. Of course! Why didn't I think of that? Now, all we need to do is sit down and write this nifty idea into law. A Constitutional amendment along the following lines ought to d
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:5, Interesting)
"The Senate should be reapportioned to reflect economic power. Let the corporations have their playground"
So the US is institutionally corrupt[1], sliding towards political corporatism, and your solution is what, to give corporations an official seat at the table, and legitimise their actions from popularly-ignored corruption to official policy?
The mind boggles...
Surely the correct action is merely to drastically reform (and enforce) campaign finance regulations, crack down on (ideally, eliminate) pork, make professional lobbying illegal, increase financial transparency and mandate jail time[2] for any political figure found guilty of financial or procedural irregularity.
Sure, it's pretty radical, but you don't turn around the decline of an entire country with a few nice words and a pat on the back.
[1] What's lobbying, if not institutionalised corruption?
[2] We hold doctors to high professional standards, and they only hold one person's life in their hands at a time. Politicians hold the entire future of our society in their hands, and (with the right amount of cash and the old-boy network in place) they seem practically immune from prosecution.
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:5, Informative)
The parent post is however correct, the Greeks invented the basic "seperation of powers" concept, every other democracy since that time has simply tinkered with the details.
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:5, Funny)
My suggestion is actually a kind of modification of the original idea to fit the present situation. When they drafted the Constitution, they wanted to focus "elite" interests more in the Senate, and it made some sense to give each of the states an equal position, but the states are now so unequal that the idea of equality between the states is fundamentally flawed.
I suppose you could do it by allocating the Senators based on the wealth of the states the way the House is allocated based on population. However, I feel like it's more honest to just make it a direct reflection of the money. If Microsoft has 5% of the wealth, then let's just give them 5% of the Senators.
Re:Power only exists to be abused (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolute power corrupts absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
It's been said... (Score:4, Insightful)
- H. L. Mencken
*sigh*
Well, there goes that. I guess it was good while it lasted.
To the sarcastic Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you vote? For the fraction of you that did, what else have you done? Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing anything else until the next 4 years. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said once the people stop fighting for their rights, the government willl take them away.
So people posting here obviously do care. But what have you done to protect them? I'm betting the majority of you haven't done a damn thing (except vote). Well this is what happens when you do nothing but vote. You've got no-one to blame but yourselves.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still working on becoming a billionaire so I can do something. Not quite there yet. But if you have any suggestions on something to do in the mean time that isn't standing outside with a sign and being laughed at by people with power, I'm all ears.
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:3, Interesting)
I myself have called my representatives whenever there's an issue that is of concern to me (Real ID, USA PATRIOT Act, broadcast flag, etc.). Of course I also vote, and proselytize when I have the chance. So not all
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you vote?
Spoken like someone who has never voted before themselves.
Lets see, do you want to drown in water or be burned to death? Whould you prefer your table lean too far to the Right or too far to the Left? It's not like there's always a choice that will make things All Right. Sometimes we can only choose between a devil with blue horns and one with red ones. Many of the people who I would be quite interested to see as President, Congressman, ect don't run. And is it any wonder? Would you want to be blamed for problems of at least a third of the country at any one time? How about that electroral college. Why the fuck do I go to the polls as part of the only blue city n a red state, I might as well not vote at all. Yeah, you heard me. It literally DOES NOT MATTER if I vote. When the reciepient of "my" support is already a forgone conclusion.
Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing anything else until the next 4 years. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said once the people stop fighting for their rights, the government willl take them away.
And what would you suggest we do? A massive political movement only works when it is massive. There are too many people who like things as they are. Too many who aren't even aware of any of this because they are too distracted by mass entertainment. And too many more who are afraid to do something. More afraid of what would happen if they did something than if their rights be stripped away instead. Maybe it's from seeing those Eastern bloc countries that have revolutions or civil wars get plunged into a Third World status for a decade while they recover.
People have retirement nest-eggs locked up in mutual funds and kids about to graduate college (or just being born) and the last thing they want is someone to overturn the boat and flush the economy and the country's infastrcture down the tubes over something they really aren't that worried about (even though they should). People are frightened of change.
Maybe wherever you are it's normal to hear mortar fire at night and have a differnt President get overthrown every nine months, or have friends die fighting the police but to the people of a country that hasn't seen a war on it's own soil in several decades the idea of doing anything drastic with our nation's leadership is downright terrifying.
So people posting here obviously do care. But what have you done to protect them?
Becoming one of a few who end up as martyrs is not nearly as productive as staying alive to work for change other ways. Until the sentiment is held by a larger view all we're asking for is to be labeled paranoid fools by acting up. Another Ruby Ridge for the 11 o'clock news.
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Well far too many laws are just quietly slipped under the radar so unless people are _really_ interested and go out and actively investigate what's going on in politics all the time they probably never even knew the law was being passed. (This is nothing to do with being "too distracted" - it's simply that there has been very little publicity). A good example is the EUCD, which seems to have had almost no p
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if you never bother, then it will never change. There might be more blues than you think, just all of them are too jaded to vote, so it comes out overwhelmingly red every time. And if the blues get more and more jaded, then the margin becomes wider, although in reality the margin could be becoming smaller if only you just spoke up.
Mod parent UP, please! (Score:4, Insightful)
So I took what may be considered the coward's way out (and if you call it that, I won't disagree) and simply left the country. Now I am living in a place where I have absolutely no voice at all. On the plus side, I am living under one of the most peaceful governments in the world (at least until they try to remove the war-renouncing ammendment from their constitution). But on the negative side, there is nothing I can do to fight their corruption except voice my concerns to those who can vote.
But for those of you who are still in the US fighting it out, it is not only your right, but your DUTY to vote for who you think is RIGHT, not for who you think is the lesser of two evils. If the person you want to see as president is not running, write them in! Get your like-minded friends to do so. Start a grass-roots campaign.
Worst case? (and probably what will happen) Nothing changes, but at least you have the clear conscience of voting your heart. 2nd Best case? The person you wanted to run takes notice that he/she has support and actually runs next time around. Meanwhile, assuming he/she is already some sort of representative, that person will feel he/she has a stronger voice in the legislature and hopefully start using it. Best case? Not only does the person you want take notice, but those who are running also take notice and actually realize that people aren't happy and maybe, just maybe (I know...I am WAY out on a limb here) they change their ways and policies to match what people want.
If you start nothing, then nothing will ever change. If you start something, things may not change, but a.) at least you have a clear conscience, and b.) there is at least a chance for change.
I know this doesn't mean much coming from a person who decided to run away from the problem. I also know that it is pretty naive. However, I also know that if people don't even attempt to effect a change, then nothing will ever change.
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Work to get rid of winner take all elections. The winner take all procedure gives you the lesser of the two evils choices you have now. Get something like instant runoff going in your state, country, city, or community.
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with this statement. Talking is worthless from a strict point of view. Sarcastic, while amusing to Believers, isn't productive in the long term.
"Did you vote? For the fraction of you that did, what else have you done? Because you can't just protect your rights by once every 4 years (it is 4 in America, right?) ticking a box and not doing
New Law: P2P == Terrorism (Score:3, Informative)
No, but posting informative comments peppered with sarcasm might. For instance, did you know a law can be created without discussion these days in America? I certainly didn't. The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act (FECA) [govtrack.us] has been amended, without published notice of proposed amendments, under the authority of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. If anyone can navigate that maze of spagetti code to see
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep thinking... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:5, Informative)
This might appear odd to you, I guess it's a culture difference. You have an absolutely fucking scary culture with guns over there. In Australia, we automatically exclude the possibility of using a gun against a human. Writing "Self-defence" on the application form to obtain a gun license will guarantee you won't get to own one (legally). Unlike Americans, we don't believe guns are useful just because it's a gun. We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right. A liability, a responsibility. We acknowledge that not every random bastard on the street is going to be responsible and rational enough to engage in safe gun ownership. You must have a legitimate reason to own one, this includes agricultural and sporting applications. Letting people own a gun purely because "it's teh c00l" or "self protection" does not benefit society at all.
As for the smh article, the PM does not have absolutel control. Even if his legislation does get through, it is highly vulnerable to a high court challenge. One of the fundamental parts of our constitution is a separation of powers between the executive and judicial arms of the government. His new legislation expects the courts to become "servants to the government" by "assisting where necessary" with speedy issueing of warrants etc. even in cases where suspects may have no actual evidence (in the traditional sense) against them.
This is upsetting a lot of QCs (Queen's Council - top brass barristers) and a couple of state-level governments.
It is unlikely the judicial branch will take this lying down - this won't be the first time the government will be "disappointed" by the courts not doing their bidding.
We haven't heard the end of this: Anti-terror laws: 'unconstitutional' summit [smh.com.au]
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:5, Insightful)
Pistols are designed for shooting people. Sometimes this is necessary.
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be an occasion where you were required to shoot and/or kill another person, and where you couldn't escape, allow them to continue with their action without risk of your death or injury, or secure help from qualified third party, who optionally may themselves have been in posession of a gun (eg, police).
Nobo
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides that, however, you can't use your own atmosphere of fear and extrapolate your reasoning and beliefs onto another culture.
As much as Austrlia is trying its best to absorb the "American Way (tm)", one thing we don't want is a constant feeling of fear.
I can't imagine what it must be like to think that you
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:3, Informative)
In America, the 2nd amendment to the Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. So, for us, it is a right. You could see how we would have a different take on gun ownership than our Aussie friends.
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:3, Insightful)
My original post was in response to a post that implied that Australia doesn't have guns. We do. They're restricted.
Secondly, massive culture difference here. Nobody needs "self defense" of lethal force. We don't have even a fraction of the gun deaths per capita that you do.
As a human being, you have a right to safety. Apparently, Americans think this means sleeping with a gun under your pillow. I would despair if it ever got that way in Australia.
Most of the time,
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:5, Informative)
--- tangent ---
At the time, that meant you could have your flint lock musket and flint lock single shot pistol, and probably better models than the government could afford to supply the army with. Even through the civil war, people could go buy repeating rifles (6-14 rimfire bullets) and six shot black powder revolvers, same thing the infantry had (if they were lucky enough to have repeaters - most had muzzle loading rifles). Sure, they had cannons, and a few breachloading ones at that, but you had a fighting chance.
They didn't forsee one weapon that could kill millions of people at a time. Should I be able to have one? Common sense says no. The Constitution says yes.
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:3, Informative)
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:3, Insightful)
In Australia, we automatically exclude the possibility of using a gun against a human. Writing "Self-defence" on the applicati
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:conclusion - aussie_a voted for John Howard (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the reason its in our constitution.
I presume you're joking. If you actually fired an automatic weapon at an FBI agent knocking on your door, I suspect you'd be either dead or in Guantanamo before the day was out.
Re:To the sarcastic Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
In my country there is talk about what I believe is the absolutely stupid and nasty move of prohiting prisoners from voting. Voting should not be seen as some form of perk for good citizens - it should be seen as a duty for all adults in a democracy.
obBill Hicks (Score:5, Funny)
"What, and become a victim of your foreign policy?"
What percentage of abuses were discovered? (Score:5, Insightful)
What percentage of abuses were discovered? That's the next question.
The U.S. government's FBI, CIA, and NSA agencies, and others too secret to have public names, are the world's most well-funded world-wide secret police and surveillance agencies. When I read the many stories like the one in the Washington Post, I think those agencies are in many cases out of control.
Many of the present problems the U.S. has in the Middle East started in 1953 when the CIA overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran. The CIA calls those problems "blowback".
There is a conflict of interest. CIA employees get raises and promotions if there are more problems. So, the actions of the secret U.S. government agencies tend to favor the creation of blowback.
Weapons makers favor blowback, too. The profits are very high in weapons making, because a lot of negotiations can be secret.
There are two kinds of oil business. One is the normal kind. Another is the kind that involves extremely high profits allowed when there is secrecy, such as when there is a build-up of war-making capacity.
You can read how the problems in the Middle East were created in this short and incomplete article: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories [futurepower.org].
And the lesson in all this? (Score:5, Interesting)
But all the senators were panicking, and all their constituents were panicking demanding they do something, although they (the constituents) had no idea what. So no wonder that a bad piece of legislation gets written.
My solution to terrorism? Take the amount of money we've spent in Iraq and direct it towards fusion power research. Once fusion power is achieved, we don't need to prop up those regimes in the middle east any more. At last, we will be able to leave and flip them off on the way out. Then when the middle east is still a hellhole they can't blame us.
Re:And the lesson in all this? (Score:3, Informative)
"Many people do not know that the USA PATRIOT Act was already written and ready to go long before September 11th"
[---]
"it was the Reagan Administration which initially proposed some of the most troubling provisions which eventually became part of the USAPA. When Reagan proposed these provisions, Congress rejected them on constitutional grounds. The first Bush Administration then mad
Re:And the lesson in all this? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, you're on Slashdot and you distrust physicists? Your days, my friend, are numbered.
So, why do you think making physicists richer is a bad thing? Do you have some reason you hate them? One route a particle accelerated through your house one? Someone give a subatomic particle a name that pokes fun at your wife?
2. We could do the same thing already by building more nuclear
Big Burger and Big Tobacco (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what happens when prosecutors and law enforcement break the rules and abuse power? That's right, kids... nothing.
There are innocent people in jail. Innocent people have been sentenced to death in America. When a district discovers an error, or DNA evidence becomes available that wasn't previously, and clears a person who has been rotting in jail for ten years, mostly there is no follow-up... innocent man goes free, end of story. No bloody lawsuit. No prosecutor disbarred for grievious abuses of presecutorial discretion (which, btw, is absolute). No shit.
Our legal system is supposedly based on "Innocent until proven guilty," but there is no "innocent." The best you can do is "not guilty," which isn't the same. And a problem exists in that being accused is the same as being guilty... because prosecutors don't make mistakes.
scary stuff
As far as I can tell (Score:3, Funny)
Latin Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
"In times of war the law falls silent."
- Neil Wehneman
Okei, I will be smart... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't.
I can't handle jokes about this anymore. I'm not living in US, nor even was fan of this country (however, lot of people are smart, clever, etc. up there). I just wonder isn't US a big example of that, when you just start to ignore (for sake of better life, working long hours to achieve somethingt) what in your country all four powers do. Yet, in some time, lot of guys just bet high-profit game (like creating war or conflict, nothing hard, I would say) and get billions.
Problems is here not only with US, but with capitalism in whole. Capitalism in theory is good and I really don't wanna wave communism or socialism flag. However, in reality, both capitalism and communism is so much abused systems that I see that they simply won't work in future. There will be always some Enron, there will be some weapon guys who would like to create conflict, instead to solve one.
What to do? Get these guys to court? Don't make me laugh. They work in envorement out of laws reachability. Get them shot? Would work for some people, and not for all, and who will be this who will judge them?
What we have in creation here is simply modern feodalism. In fact, it never got away, just it was adjusted for new situation. However, there is problem that in feodalism there was some kind code of justice. I guess nothing of that exists today. It is just brutal anarchy.
Re:Okei, I will be smart... (Score:4, Insightful)
The US had tried to come up with the most favorable set of compromises towards having a stable and honest government. I still think they did a better job of it than any other government in history. While the US government is now out of control, it is still possible to fix it within the confines of the Constitutional system. The catch is that most of the population seems too lazy or contented or scared to actually do something about it. They keep electing horrible leaders time after time (I think we're up to about 12 of those), and accepting ridiculous laws and changes.
A lot of people like to blow a lot of wind about pure democracy. Honestly, that would be a total and complete nightmare. If you think pure democracy would work, then take a look at what the population of the US would agree to as a majority. Basic human nature would tell you why you don't want to do it in a pure form. Like I said, people are greedy, untrustworthy, and want everyone to be like themselves. Pure democracy will never work for the same reasons that communism will never work.
Basically, you have to admit that no system you choose will ever be perfect. Then you try very hard to make it flexible enough to deal with whatever you can come up with, and then whatever you can't. At some point you will always have a failure; you just make sure your system can recover, and deal with it appropriately. The original US system, for example, is about preventing the government from doing something, not the people or some company. To have freedom, you make the crime punished, not prevented, and you hope that, over time, people will stop committing crimes. Of course, that doesn't happen, being people and all, but the amount goes down a whole lot. You'll always get something like an Enron, but that is true under any system. As you pointed out, the problem is keeping the government honest enough to do something about it.
One of the problems in the US is that the Federal leaders don't change. We get a new President, but, by and large, the Senators and Representatives stay the same for decades. That is the major cause of corruption. For an interesting lesson in why pure democracy would be a failure, the corrupting and massive aggregation of Federal power, the empowerment of things like the FBI/CIA/NSA, the loss of a backed currency, and creation of a "nanny state", all took off with the 17th amendment, which was to have Senators directly elected by the populace. Whoops.
Re:Okei, I will be smart... (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that there should be term limits on congress, I would have to argue that corruption, by defintion, is special interests. In particular, we speak of free speech of mankind. We acknowledge that man's right MUST be protected. But we turn around and extend it to corporations. Basically,
Context... Perspective... Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that there is oversight taking place, both internally through justice department investigation and through legislative review of exiting laws and abuses. Also it isn't at all clear from this article that there were any violations that were enabled by the Patriot Act. Regardless of the law or regulation governing law enforcement there will be violations. The question to be asked is if the frequency of these kinds of problems are greater than violations of other regulations and laws, this acticle doesn't touch on that bit of necessary context. This article is talking about a few hundred investigations over a three year period with 13 looking to be worthy of being called violations. This is not government run amok.
Big suprise. (Score:3, Informative)
I can't get over how beautifully ironic it is that the terrorists won under the mantle of "The terrorists may have already won!".
It's all in the presentation (Score:3, Informative)
But that wouldn't do.
Re:This is all about FREEDOM (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is all about FREEDOM (Score:5, Insightful)
FREEDOM to keep FAMILY VALUES that we approve of. They are all protecting YOU unless you are one of them. We decide if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from a little surveillance (unless you have something to fear) from your protectors. Next sunny morning, go outside, take a deep breath, and thank GOD(R) for your unalienable FREEDOM or else.
Re:This is all about FREEDOM (Score:3, Interesting)
The road to hell is paved by good intentions. That's how the quote goes, doesn't it?
But it is tough for individuals to prove that when the media proclaims that the entire organization (composed of thousands of employees) seems to be bent of removing liberty and justice for all.
No, what's tough to prove it is this secrecy your organization (along with ot
Re:More Paranoid Rhetoric (Score:5, Insightful)
Ungrateful Wretches (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the reason we're paranoid and ungrateful is simple: we've been lied to by what some consider the highest power in our government-- the President. We've been lied to by the last several administrations, really.
The most recent, most aggregious lies were told us to lead us into a war that gained us, the citizens of the United States, nothing. It had nothing to do with protecting us. It had nothing to do with anything that matters to 99% of the
Re:More Paranoid Rhetoric (Score:3, Insightful)
And of course, you'll never tell the guys you're watching that they're being monitored, because that'd totally defeat the purpose of trying to catch them and anyone
Re:More Paranoid Rhetoric (Score:3, Insightful)
It is completely natural to be suspecious of something done in secret, and the more power being wielded behind that curtain, the more natural it is. In fact, it is healthy to be suspecious of this.
And even if all the spooks involved have been perfect saints, the fact of the
Jefferson should be required reading (Score:5, Insightful)
"The following [addition to the Bill of Rights] would have pleased me:...No person shall be held in confinement more than __ days after he shall have demanded and been refused a writ of habeas corpus by the judge appointed by law, nor more than __ days after such a writ shall have been served on the person holding him in confinement, and no order given on due examination for his remandment or discharge, nor more than __ hours in any place of a greater distance than __ miles from the usual residence of some judge authorized to issue the writ of habeas corpus; nor shall that writ be suspended for any term exceeding one year, nor in any place more than __ miles distant from the station or encampment of enemies or of insurgents." --Thomas Jefferson--
"Our [legislators should not] be deluded by the integrity of their own purposes and conclude that... unlimited powers will never be abused because themselves are not disposed to abuse them. They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when corruption in this as in the country from which we derive our origin will have seized the heads of government and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people and make them pay the price. Human nature is the same on each side of the Atlantic, and will be alike influenced by the same causes." --Thomas Jefferson--
"By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil which no honest government should decline." --Thomas Jefferson--
Re:pwned (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:even more interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:spot the similarity (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because all those threats were definable, quantifiable, and understandable. Especially to the average man. The Russians were a threat, but you knew for sure they were "over there" and there were "that many" of them. So government could only
Re:Not to worry. (Score:3, Interesting)
Conversely, the American ideal is to place as little trust in the government as humanly possible,
Re:Not to worry. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you aren't doing anything wrong whats the big deal?
The big deal is that the Patriot Act gives enormous powers to the FBI and other law enforcement organizations without any real oversight. There are provisions that allow these people to arrest citizens in the middle of the night and never tell their families what happenend to them. You can be held for years without a t
Re:Significant? Not statistically...just your FUD. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you believe bad things don't matter, as long as it's to a small portion of the population.
A completely over the top example would be to say that there were 200 cases in one year where a small group of people broke into houses and slaughtered families. The rest of the time this group were perfectly normal, helpful group.
So, you calculate the 'contribution' to statistics that each family contri
Re:Significant? Not statistically...just your FUD. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you forgetting that China's population is MUCH larger than yours? By your logic, there are less abuses of basic human rights there than there are in the west.
Re:Bush VETOs "no torture law" if FBI affected (Score:3, Interesting)
Senator John McCain and others were able to garner enough support to add an amendment to a military appropriations bill that made the Army Field Manual's policies on interrogation the standard by which the military would be judged. He wrote what I think is an amazing letter to Pres. Bush on the matter also.
Mr. President, war is an awful business. I know that. I don't think I'm naÃve about how severe re the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it succe