U.S. Gov't To Keep Data On Non-Terrorist Citizens For 5 Years 186
arnott writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"The Obama administration has approved guidelines that allow counterterrorism officials to lengthen the period of time they retain information about U.S. residents, even if they have no known connection to terrorism. The changes allow the National Counterterrorism Center, the intelligence community's clearinghouse for terrorism data, to keep information for up to five years. Previously, the center was required to promptly destroy — generally within 180 days — any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism was evident."
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't worry, in five years the limit will be raised to ten years...
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's called an FBI file...
That we occasionally get a released FBI file on a long-dead political activist, or on an entertainer, or on a politician, or on a civil rights leader... draw your own conclusions.
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the Supreme Court it could be 1000 years and still be constitutional. That is why Jefferson advised Madison to include a fixed number of years in the Bill of Rights -- that no monopoly should last longer than an author's lifetime.
(And once again Jefferson demonstrated an uncanny ability to predict future events... that the monopoly for artists/media companies would be extended to insanely long terms.)
Re:I'm surprised there is a limit (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't worry about being added to the list. You're probably there unless you live a very boring, very sheltered life and speak to no one.
Don't be alarmed. This is all for safety and security. Just not yours.
Re:Hope and Change (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with Ron Paul is that while he's on the mark about 30-40% of things, he's bat shit crazy about another 50% or so.
50% bat-shit crazy beats 100% crook any day in my book.
Re:Hope and Change (Score:5, Interesting)
His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.
...
I take it you've never actually read the Constitution? Specifically, the 10th Amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
... which basically means that unless the Constitution (or the States, by a 2/3 vote) explicitly states that said function is a power of the federal government, it is not, but rather a power of the States and/or the people. While I personally may not agree with the idea of criminalizing certain groups of people or non-socially harmful activities, the fact remains that the Constitution, as written, gives the states (and the People) that power.
From your link (the one that worked), regarding Paul's "opposition" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."
So, not the racist screed you want us to think it was, but rather Paul further iterating his ideal that the federal government regularly oversteps the authority granted it by the Constitution.
My favorite thing about Ron Paul bashers is how the 'evidence' they typically provide to show his 'intolerance' tends to have the opposite effect.