House Fails To Extend Patriot Act Spy Powers 284
schwit1 writes "The House failed to extend three key expiring provisions of the Patriot Act on Tuesday, elements granting the government broad and nearly unchecked surveillance power on its own public. The failure of the bill, sponsored by Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis), for the time being is likely to give airtime to competing measures in the Senate that would place limited checks on the act's broad surveillance powers. The White House, meanwhile, said it wanted the expiring measures extended through 2013."
Hmm. (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, welco...oh wait.
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
I, for one, welcome Congress's inability to come together as one bipartisan group in an effort to eliminate my rights as a non-incorporated citizen.
Re:Hmm. (Score:4)
Indeed. Whenever there's bipartisan agreement - grab your ankles!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, considering that it was largely the newly minted Tea Party caucus that sunk these three provisions, I'm thinking that a petition from a fringe leftist group probably didn't have much to do with it.
However, if it makes you feel better, you are free to pretend whatever you like.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.
No, it didn't teach that. It taught that it might -- it's just one instance.
HISTORY, on the other hand, has taught us that power without oversight usually leads to abuse and corruption. (And even then it's not always.)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)
If the Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.
No, it didn't teach that. It taught that it might -- it's just one instance.
What are you saying, that a sample size of one isn't enough to go on when drawing universal generalizations? Preposterous!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the solution to posts like yours is another non-sequitur. Feldspar!
Re: (Score:3)
Hadrian. The Roman Emperor. For the standards of the time, he was amazingly not corrupt. He was effective,peace-loving, and did not insist on having his name put everywhere. The point of oversight is that you cannot count on the rulers to be a perfect bunch. Of course it can happen that they be a perfect bunch. Sure. Has happened before, will happen again.
Simply a system which expects stability through changes in power cannot count on that. Thus we have the worse system with the exception of all others: dem
Re: (Score:2)
If the Stanford Prison Experiment has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.
You make it sound like that experiment revealed some great truth that wasn't already known, but anyone who spent any time studying history in the last couple thousand years was already fully aware of that particular insight...
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
"If the Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption."
Guess who went to Stanford?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner [wikipedia.org]
Not to say that everyone that goes to Stanford is corrupt. I don't believe that for a moment. But, what I do believe is that this man has single-handedly done more damage to the liberty of US citizens then any other person. Don't take my word for it though, read up on the guy and come to your own conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusion from the study. They did not intend to show that Stanford graduates are sociopaths. That is an interesting alternative interpretation however and one that merits future study. Given the number of repeat Stanford-esque experiments at other institutions, it should be easy to perform a meta-analysis and find out which university is attracting/creating future supervillains most efficiently.
Yay, no big government in my life, uh, until... (Score:2, Funny)
Small government for me, big government for you!
I got an email from EFF the other day (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to send a comment to my congressman demanding that he vote against this unconstitutional atrocity. Thankfully this didn't pass and hopefully has finally begun to sunset. I can only hope we can someday resurrect the Constitution.
The House failed..? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see it as the House succeeding..
Re: (Score:2)
The house failed to fail (?)
But the voting was almost entirely on party lines, which I consider another fail for our society. Dichotomization (yes I made that word up) like this can't be good...
Re: (Score:3)
But the voting was almost entirely on party lines,
Not really, depending on your threshold for that. The numbers (stolen from a comment above):
GOP: 210/26 (y/n) -> 89%
DEM: 67/122 (y-n) -> 32%
... so 11% of GOPs and 32% of Dems didn't vote "entirely on party lines". Compared to the Westminster system, for instance, where voting along party lines is the customary thing to do and "crossing the floor" is liable to get you kicked out of your party, this is a huge degree of freedom.
Bold prediction: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
There. Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I will admit, for the first time since I became aware of their existence I feel something other than blinding hatred for the Tea Party, who are basically responsible for the Republicans not having enough votes. Looks like some of them really do care about civil liberties, and for that at least they should be congratulated.
Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (Score:5, Insightful)
At least this time it will be debated and amendments will be considered.
Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the removal of those annoying sunset provisions?
Re: (Score:2)
The only chance of stopping it will be if they can manage to get enough amendments on it that stops republicans from voting for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Attach stimulus funds paid to the bottom 50% as a rider. They'd rather pull their own entrails out through their asses than vote for that!
Re: (Score:3)
The only chance of stopping it will be if they can manage to get enough amendments on it that stops republicans from voting for it.
Just add an amendment that says every time the government uses a roving wiretap, they have to provide a free abortion to an inner-city teenager. That ought to do the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
They're the Libertarian wing of the Republican party... kinda. Except with more God and less drugs.
Obama, naturally, is for the intrusive spying powers that he claimed he was agains
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you are giving the so-called Tea Party too much credit.
If you look at the voting numbers: Washington Post summary [washingtonpost.com], you will notice that the republican leaders were 7 votes short. Of the republicans voting against, there were 12 republicans endorsed by the tea baggers. So in this respect you are correct. But if you look at the whole Tea Party fraction of the republican, i.e. all republican house represenativies endorsed by the tea drinkers, only 11% voted against. That is exactly the percentage o
Re: (Score:3)
You can complain all you want about Republicans voting like Republicans. I want to know about these supposed guardians of civil liberties on the left that voted for more Patriot Act.
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably the "blind" part...
Re: (Score:2)
That makes me wonder why your blinding hatred is focused on only the Tea Party and not the Two Party(R+D) in general.
He never said he didn't have blinding hatred for them too. He only said that the hatred for the Tea Party was reduced by their actions in this case.
Amazing with all we are facing (Score:5, Insightful)
Massive debt, an economy on the brink of collapse and all the House Republicans are interested in is repealing health care for the people that couldn't get it, tax breaks for the rich and extending domestic spying/the Patriot Act. How about trying to fix something that's actually broken? When I saw the Republican proposed budget cuts they were all things like education, EPA, NASA and the FBI of all things. Not a single cut was actual fat and none of it affected the rich or corporate America. Remember where their priorities lie next time around.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, same place every politician of either ilk had "priorities".
Re:Amazing with all we are facing (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, those goddamn Republicans...
"The White House, meanwhile, said it wanted the expiring measures extended through 2013."
Re: (Score:2)
So you're against massive debt AND for (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Not a single cut was actual fat and none of it affected the rich or corporate America.
It's a simple case of:
"Don't bite the hand(s), that feed(s) you.
Erudite comment (Score:3, Funny)
Normally I try to only post astute, informative and insightful (and karma-whoring comments), but in this case all I have to say is:
"Woo-whoo! Excellent!".
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who thought Obama was going to change the status quo, you should read the provisions the White House wants to keep:
The three expiring Patriot Act provisions are:
â The âoeroving wiretapâ provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court, without identifying what method of communication is to be tapped.
â The âoelone wolfâ measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for whatever reason â" even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so.
â The âoebusiness recordsâ provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation.
In the best traditions of bipartisanship, both parties want to take away your civil liberties and sell out the middle class to big business. The only difference between the two is which big business group they are puppets for.
And this is coming from a Constituional law professor, by the way. A guy who taught at one of the top Universities in the country - the University of Chicago - and was educated at the top law school in the country. If this is what he thinks the Constitution stands for, we're fucked.
Obama is as much of a disgrace to this country as Bush ever was.
Don't tell me it's just politics. Where would be if everyone - Lincoln, Jefferson, etc. - acted as if it were just politics? Sometimes you got to take a stand. But alas, the sad truth is that Mr. Obama simply does not have the balls.
I will now go back to listening to the Who.
Posting anonymously because that's just what this country has come to.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
à The Ãoeroving wiretapà provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court, without identifying what method of communication is to be tapped.
à The Ãoelone wolfà measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for whatever reason Ã" even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so.
à The Ãoebusiness recordsà provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation.
In the best traditions of bipartisanship, both parties want to take away your civil liberties and sell out the middle class to big business. The only difference between the two is which big business group they are puppets for.
And this is coming from a Constituional law professor, by the way. A guy who taught at one of the top Universities in the country - the University of Chicago - and was educated at the top law school in the country. If this is what he thinks the Constitution stands for, we're fucked.
Your argument appeals to the public more when you leave it at "Patriot Act is Evil" and not giving too many facts that when read aloud don't actually sound all that terrible.
Which part of the Constitution of the United States do you think these are stepping on? Enough of this revisionist BULLSHIT please. Can we debate privacy as fundamental human right or whatever without dragging the God damned Constitution or any other "sacred" text into this? This is the same Holy Constitution that started out only le
Re: (Score:3)
This is the same Holy Constitution that started out only letting wealthy white men vote after all. The reason civil rights get violated and privacy has "issues" is because the book is still being written on this one.
To be fair to the founding fathers, I think the idealists among them knew that the constitution would not have passed in 1788 had it provided the right to vote to non-whites, and even non-land holders. I believe the idealists were hoping that at some point the majority of the people would Do The Right Thing and expand those rights when the political climate was most appropriate for them. You have to remember that it was a huge step for them to break away from a monarchy in the first place. Some things ar
Re: (Score:2)
HLS has no oversight in it's spending and taking away some of it's powers is seen as a attack on the unchecked funding it receives.
Frontline had a interesting story titled Are We Safer? [pbs.org] where it seems pretty clear the things in the Patriot Act do not make us safer and that HLS is just as dysfunctional as what we had before 9/11.
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, obviously the two parties are basically the same. That's why House Democrats, as a bloc, voted AGAINST renewing the act 122-67, while House Republicans, as a bloc, voted FOR renewing it 277-26.
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:4, Insightful)
Obama is as much of a disgrace to this country as Bush ever was.
I agree with you up until that point. While Obama has been a letdown on lots of issues, he hasn't really been like Bush. Obama is winding down the Iraq war, trying to build bridges with the Cairo speech, and making the White House a bit more transparent. As Bill Maher said to those who said to boycott Democrats for not doing enough, "When it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, You gotta grow up and realize there’s a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy."
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as you believe there's only two choices, you're part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
YOU get a clue - there are only 2 choices. there won't be a third unless we revolt and take to the streets. you see that happening in the US? I don't and those who seek and maintain power know it won't happen, either.
the ping pong bounce between 'us#1' and 'us#2' is the grand distraction. folks, it does not matter! the system itself is broken, the fact that we call group-A 'r' and group-B 'd' is not the problem and their temporary beliefs (see how both have shifted over history) are a distraction.
sorr
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I favor Instant Runoff Voting, but every time it gets brought up people get into a long debate over it versus Condorcet voting and all its alternatives.
I think the debate is actually hurting the movement because IRV and Condorcet supporters squabble and split the movement. Neither IRV nor Condorcet supporters can get much traction in America with such division; it's almost ironic. Both groups need to get behind one and lobby for it to replace the current "First past the post" system.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe that there is any difference between the two major parties because I don't believe there ARE two major parties. I think they are the two sides of the same coin and I think they DECIDE who will win the election ahead of time, then go forth and make it fit. Of course, the whole system would not work without most of the people in the system believing that they are working for an honest goal. Their actions are much more predictable when they work under such constraints. Look at the candidates fo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The government has said it has never invoked that provision -- but how would we know?!
(And if you always believe your government, then I have some nice Iraqi WMDs to sell
Sad Fact (Score:3, Insightful)
Tea Party Influence? (Score:2)
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Unless it's digital. Or something.
Sarcastic news placement on NPR this morning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Read it and weep: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Roblimo was the editor in chief of Open Source Technology Group, the company that owns Slashdot, SourceForge.net, freshmeat, Linux.com, NewsForge, and ThinkGeek from 2000 to 2008.
He used to post alot of the stories here from about, oh 2000 to '04. And he was/is the interview editor.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess he must be hurting for work too if he's got so much time to post on slashdot :D
Nah. Like most of us, he just posts from work while pretending to get stuff done.
Re:Who is Roblimo (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I'm retired and just helping out a little when others are taking breaks/vacations or are out sick.
- Robin
Re:Who is Roblimo (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
and this too [trollaxor.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A bill sponsored by 3 Republicans fail, and they get the credit? Does anyone have a link to the full roll call?
Re: (Score:3)
There was no vote. It hasn't even made it out of committee.
Re: (Score:3)
Nevermind, some sites are just not updated yet. Even Thomas still shows it in committee still, but apparently there was a vote a few hours ago.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml [house.gov]
Re:good job Republicans! (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the vote list:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml [house.gov]
Key Stats:
Republicans:
Yea: 210
Nay: 26
Democrats:
Yea: 67
Nay: 122
Republicans killed the bill my ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, if those 26 had voted the other way, it would have scraped through. The Republicans were only 90% evil! Yay Republicans!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:good job Republicans! (Score:4, Insightful)
A bill sponsored by 3 Republicans fail, and they get the credit? Does anyone have a link to the full roll call?
Yeah, 'cuz Democrats are always the party of Big Government. I am now going to insert my fingers into my ears and shout repeatedly so that I can't hear you tell me about any evidence to the contrary. Good day.
Re: (Score:3)
But they didn't, they tried to pass it...
Re: (Score:2)
Which is strange. All this time we've been hearing about how Obama is an islamofascist communist sleeper agent, and then they line up to extend his nearly unchecked powers until the end of the term.
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers. Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
His "own party" was neutral on the thing (Score:3, Informative)
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers.
So did Republicans - it would have passed without NO votes from both sides.
This was not a Democratic block at all, it was a bi-partisan block with many people on both sides questioning the extent of the Act.
Re: (Score:2)
And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers.
So did Republicans - it would have passed without NO votes from both sides.
This was not a Democratic block at all, it was a bi-partisan block with many people on both sides questioning the extent of the Act.
Bi-partisan? Barely. 89% of Republicans voted for it. 35% of Democrats did. Yes, it would have passed if some hadn't dissented, but saying that "Republicans" blocked it is highly disingenuous. A relative handful of Republicans voted against it, against the wishes of the party.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?
The Libertarian Party.
Re: (Score:2)
But who cares who it was as long as it dies.
Re:good job Republicans! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Moreover, it failed because Republicans tried to pass the extension _without debate_, thereby upping the required threshold to 66%.
If they had allowed debate, it would have sailed through as it had much more than 50%. I suspect that this will be the next step (allowing debate).
Re: (Score:2)
There will be no "debate". Only some dramatic pontificating for C-span, and then it will pass with little fanfare. And the people will sheepishly accept it as necessary..
Re: (Score:2)
What vote? Everything I'm seeing about HR 514 says it never got past committee.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.
Democrats did better in this case, but don't give them too much credit. "Almost every" in my mind means 90-99%. Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, but so did 35% of democrats [govtrack.us]. I just want to point out that if each party had half the house and 1/3 of democrats supports a bill: 1/2 + 1/3*1/2 = 2/3 (enough to pass). The bill only lost by rounding error.
Re: (Score:2)
The bill only lost by rounding error.
You're right, if we could only (legally) divide human being into arbitrary fractions, those disembodied limbs and organs totally would have voted for the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.
In fairness (and admittedly anecdotally), most of the people from my area who self-identify with the Tea Party may tend toward the religious/Christian voting bloc, there's a great many of them who are more socially liberal. Perhaps not with issue
Re: (Score:2)
Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.
I very much disdain the Tea Party. Let me revise this, I very much disdain the "Palinesque" majority of the Tea Party, and only vehemently dislike (yet respect) the Libertarian minority of the Tea Party. Even so, I can acknowledge that some of their views align with mine. Actually some of the views of the Democrats and the Republicans align with mine. Its amazing how things are so much more complicated than mere proper noun dogmas.
This is especially true of the Tea Party, since it is a schizophrenic, fr
Re: (Score:2)
> I'm on the fence about this myself, but not because of any religious argument, and I would never force my view on others (recognizing that it is completely subjective).
Okay, see, you were doing pretty well ... but this doesn't make sense.
The debate about abortion is this:
Side A: "It's a human, so having an abortion is killing a human, so we shouldn't allow it."
Side B: "It's not a human, maybe it could be if we let it grow, but right now it's not, so it's ok for the host to kill it if she feels like it.
Re: (Score:3)
Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.
Almost a third of the democrats that voted voted to pass this bill and the president wanted it passed as well. So while the democrats did a better job voting against it, it was not even close to "almost every Democrat" opposing it.
I am curious how the people the tea party replaced voted last year. Would this had passed without them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the last 20 years, a Republican has been President for 10 years (2 years H.W. Bush 1, 8 years G.W. Bush), Republicans controlled the Senate for 10 years and controlled the House for 12 years.
Re:good job Republicans! (Score:4, Funny)
Something about stopped clocks...
Re:good job Republicans! (Score:5, Informative)
Good job Republicans! Wow, never thought I'd say that.. Well, after being in power for 17 of the last 20 years, it's about time you did something right.
Um... 90% of Repubs voted FOR extending it...! http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml [house.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
10% of Republicans not being total asshats for once is refreshing news, and probably merits a "good job".
Why are you thanking them? Here are the numbers (Score:3, Informative)
GOP: 210/67 (y/n) -> 75.812% yes
DEM: 26/122 (y/n) -> 17.568% yes
http://www.gop.gov/votes/112/1/26 [gop.gov]
Re:Why are you thanking them? Here are the numbers (Score:4, Informative)
Correction:
GOP: 210/26 (y/n) -> 89%
DEM: 67/122 (y-n) -> 32%
Correction (Score:3)
You're right, I got the rows and columns mixed up. One small thing: 67/(67+122)=35.450%, not 32%.
-Leon
Re: (Score:2)
GOP: 210/67 (y/n) -> 75.812% yes DEM: 26/122 (y/n) -> 17.568% yes
http://www.gop.gov/votes/112/1/26 [gop.gov]
I'm pretty sure you're getting your rows and columns confused in reading that chart.
Re: (Score:3)
They wanted the act extended. They introduced it in the first place.
Doing something right, in this case, means failing at doing something evil. Their redeeming feature is incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Their redeeming feature is incompetence
Making them just like the other lot. Ah, democracy.
Re:So it worked exactly like it was supposed to wo (Score:5, Insightful)
People were uppity because they should never have had the powers in the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to bring the bill back for a vote that only requires a simple majority. It will pass then. This is more of a way for them to sort out the renegades to determine where party dollars go for reelection campaigns.
Re: (Score:3)
They weren't listening. They just realized that there was no need to have the Patriot Act in order to engage in the activities they justified under the Patriot Act.
Re:Minority government (Score:5, Informative)
Well, don't start celebrating yet. This was lost only due to being submitted under a special procedure that require 2/3 majority approval. If it gets resubmitted under the standard procedure requiring only a majority approval, it has more than enough votes to pass.
Unfortunately, I expect this to be a short lived victory.
Re: (Score:2)