Congress to Revisit the Patriot Act

BlakeCaldwell writes "CNet is reporting that both the House and Senate are planning to review the 16 portions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the year, several dealing with computer and Internet surveillance. They're trying to avoid the criticism they received after rushing this bill through in 2001 by holding hearings to review the bill's worth. FTA: 'One hearing disclosed police invoked the Patriot Act 108 times in a 22-month period when surreptitiously entering and searching a home or office without notifying the owner.'"

List of Expiring Provisions:

[TripMaster Monkey]

The following provisions of the USA Patriot Act will expire on Jan. 1, 2006 if not renewed by Congress:

Section 201 -- Gives federal officials the authority to intercept wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to terrorism.

Section 202 -- Gives federal officials the authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.

Subsection 203(b) -- Permits the sharing of grand jury information that involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence with federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security officials

Subsection 203(d) -- Gives foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officers the ability to share foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal investigation with law enforcement.

Section 204 -- Makes clear that nothing in the law regarding pen registers -- an electronic device which records all numbers dialed from a particular phone line -- stops the government's ability to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Section 206 -- Allows federal officials to issue roving "John Doe" wiretaps for spy and anti-terrorism investigations.

Section 207 -- Increases the amount of time that federal officials can watch people they suspect are spies or terrorists.

Section 209 -- Permits the seizure of voicemail messages under a warrant.

Section 212 -- Permits ISP (Internet service providers) and other electronic communication and remote computing service providers to hand over records and e-mails to federal officials in emergency situations.

Section 214 -- Allows use of a pen register or trap and trace devices -- a device records the originating phone numbers of all incoming calls on a particular phone line -- in international terrorism or spy investigations.

Section 215 -- Authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items" like business records -- including those from libraries and bookstores _for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.

Section 217 -- Makes it lawful to intercept the wire or electronic communication of a computer hacker or intruder in certain circumstances.

Section 218 -- Allows federal officials to wiretap or watch suspects if foreign intelligence gathering is a "significant purpose" for seeking a FISA (Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act) order. The pre-Patriot Act standard said they could ask for the surveillance only if it was "the" sole or main purpose.

Section 220 -- Provides for nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence

Section 223 -- Amends the federal criminal code to provide for administrative discipline of federal officers or employees who violate prohibitions against unauthorized disclosures of information gathered under this act.

Section 225 -- Amends FISA to prohibit lawsuits against people or companies that provide information to federal officials for a terrorism investigation.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[tenchiken]

Thank you for posting this. Most people don't get past a knee jerk reaction and bother to look at what is really in Patriot beyond the FUD.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[PopeAlien]

Most people don't get past a knee jerk reaction and bother to look at what is really in Patriot beyond the FUD.

Are you talking about the senators here?

Inches from Tyranny

[MooseByte]

"Most people don't get past a knee jerk reaction and bother to look at what is really in Patriot beyond the FUD."

And this is just the summary of items scheduled to be repealed automatically. Some of the items that are NOT in the "sunset" clause are equally onerous.

Like the combination of Sections 201 and 805 [eff.org] which creates a net so ridiculously broad that every self-claimed conservative American should be jumping all over it as the gateway to a potential police state.

But no, instead many of these "conservatives" bend over like sheep under the false shiny label of "patriotism".

To which I would remind them all of the following:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[cnelzie]

One big thing that they always forget about patriotism is that you(we) are supposed to hold our leadership accountable, demand fair and equitable treatment and preserve our freedoms.

That is what it meant to be called a patriot back in the days that the US was a colony of Britain. That's what it should still mean today.

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[kcbrown]

One big thing that they always forget about patriotism is that you(we) are supposed to hold our leadership accountable, demand fair and equitable treatment and preserve our freedoms.

Agreed, but the question is how?

You can demand anything you want. That doesn't mean you'll get it. You'll get it only if you can somehow coerce your "representatives" (who are no such thing anymore) to see things your way.

The problem is that they no longer answer to you, or to any of their "constituents". The people they answer to are the people that made their election possible: the people who run large corporations, and especially the people who run the corporations that own the media. Because you can't even begin to get elected unless you get media exposure, and the corporations that own the media can suddenly decide to bury you, to make you look ridiculous. Like they did to Howard Dean (remember that the "Dean Scream" was a media fabrication, and [correct me if I'm wrong] support for Dean was quite strong until that media trick).

The problem today is that people don't recognize who the real leadership is: the people who own and run the large corporations in this country. And those people only answer to themselves. So how, then, are we to demand anything at all, much less fair and equitable treatment?

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[ender-]

Agreed, but the question is how?

You can demand anything you want. That doesn't mean you'll get it. You'll get it only if you can somehow coerce your "representatives" (who are no such thing anymore) to see things your way.

The problem is that they no longer answer to you, or to any of their "constituents". The people they answer to are the people that made their election possible: the people who run large corporations, and especially the people who run the corporations that own the media.

And this is exactly why it's time for a revolution. Bloodless preferably, but if necessary then blood will be spilt.
I know it sounds extreme, but I really think we are quickly heading down a road that has two possible outcomes. 1: that we become the 'evil' country we've always fought against or 2: we revolt and put in place an actual democratic government, by the people, for the people etc. We now have the technology to implement a true direct democracy. It's time to do so.

Ender-

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[falconwolf]

And this is exactly why it's time for a revolution. Bloodless preferably, but if necessary then blood will be spilt.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"
THomas Jefferson, 1787

Bloodless revolution would be good, but unfortunately those with the power won't give it up peacefully

I know it sounds extreme, but I really think we are quickly heading down a road that has two possible outcomes. 1: that we become the 'evil' country we've always foug

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[flyingsquid]

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

Whoever the hell this Madisen character he is, he's just aiding the terrorists by saying things like that. We should ship him off to Guantanamo.

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[Ubergrendle]

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

Isn't Madison the guy who deliberately provoked the war of 1812 with Britain over some fairly flimsy rationale? Resulted in the burning of the White House, loss of Detroit, etc? Most historians look at the formation of Canada only out of opposition to early American Imperialism.

Given this background I think you have to consider the quote in a larger context...

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[Alcilbiades]

The war of 1812 was fought becuase of trading status between the US and Britain. We want our freedom and to be able to trade inside the British empire too and as a result we fought a war about it. And as wars go it was successful for the US. Also James Madison was one of the greater political minds of his day.

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[Ubergrendle]

1812 is one of those wars that's tough to assess since it was poorly conceived and fought half heartedly by both sides. Arguably both sides won given the poor rationale and lack of predefined victory conditions.

Militarily the US 'lost' since they could not defeat 2nd line garrison troops and irregular militia, while Britain was busy w/ Napoleon in Europe. Politically, however, the US could claim a victory since they were able to stop impressment and dealt a serious blow to the Native threat with the death of Tecumseh. But Britain could also claim political victory as Upper & Lower Canada were preserved, and a sense of national identitiy was instilled in the local populace that established a permanent alliance with Britain. Here's the short truth: no war of 1812, Upper Canada (Ontario) voluntarily joins the United States by 1850.

Madison may have been a good political mind, but the war was ill conceived. Impressement wasn't the only reason for the war, its just one of the more easily justifiable -- just like the common reason used to explain the civil war is 'slavery', even though 'slavery' was barely an issue till 2 years into the campaign. Realisitcally the US wanted to continue western exapnsion, and the French, English, and Native presence on the continent was a undesireable to the warhawks of the day.

I find this quote by Madison circumspect, because I see him responsible for manufacturing a case for war with Britain out of specious reasons. He's guily of what he's preaching against. For comparison's sake, his predecessor Jefferson would not have done so under similar circumstances.

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[Ubergrendle]

Although you are factually correct in most cases, I'll respectfully have to disagree with your assessment. Given this is my 3rd post on the topic, I'll disclose I'm Canadian and wrote an 3rd year history thesis on this subject. :) I assume you're American and thus we've both be exposed to different historcial interpretations I suspect, neither of which are necessarily wrong.

My take is: Trading within the colonies was a policy of the British Empire, but it was just as much a policy to support Britain whil

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Ah yes, section 805 and the EFF criticism of it.

Please note, I am pro-freedom, anti-DMCA, etc. Yet, I must support section 805. Why? The EFF's own criticism shows why.

805 criminalizes "expert advice and assistance", considering it "material support of terrorism".

What does this mean?

"Material support" means significantly aiding the interests of an entity.

"Expert advice and assistance" means high level advice. This isn't political speech (e.g. "The IRA /Hamas/Al Qaeda is right/wrong/etc"!), this is high-

Except,

[isotope23]

The section has already been abused. [citypages.com]

When a lawyer is charged with committing a crime by speaking to the media we have a problem....

I'm not saying I agree with her, but come on!

Re:Except,

[PaxTech]

From your linked article :

Stewart was accused of two specific kinds of acts. One was telling the sheikh's followers -- in a public announcement on the courthouse steps -- that he was withdrawing his support for a moratorium on acts of terror by the group against the Egyptian government. The other involved her behavior in visits to the sheikh in prison. She was accused of making noise to conceal the fact that he was exchanging information with an interpreter.

Don't pretend she got charged solely for speaking to the media. She got charged for passing on a terrorist's instructions to his followers despite a gag order to the contrary. People could have died because of the information she helped pass on.

Re:Yeah,

[PaxTech]

If your client is a terrorist with fanatical followers who are willing to die to kill his enemies, and you violate a judge's gag order to say that your client wouldn't mind if some of his friends blew some people up?

Do you think mob bosses pass along concrete orders to their hitmen? No, they say "You know, I wouldn't be too upset if Jimmy the Squealer took a bullet to the head." To say that Lynne Stewart shouldn't have realized that people could possibly be killed because of what she said is ludicrous.

Re:Inches from Tyranny

[MooseByte]

"The Constitution prohibits treason ("aid and comfort to the enemy")."

Section 805 is an abomination dripping with the potential for abuse. If you're not concerned about the abuse, read this latest article. [nytimes.com] 16 year-old girls detained for 6 weeks. No real cause. Released without charges. But the defense lawyer is still under a gag order and can't even discuss the freakin' case.

The problem is when "The Enemy" becomes such a slapdash label that grouping anyone who opposes you into "The Bad Guys" becomes almost an afterthought.

"People and entities that want to harm or destroy the US are the enemy."

Except that the current powers-that-be in Washington D.C. seem not to have much problem extending that to mean "anyone wanting to harm the interests of those in power". If DeLay and crew were so eager to falsely report a "missing plane" to the Dept. of Homeland Security [washingtonpost.com] and exploit those assets during a mere political tiff, doesn't that raise the hair on the back of your neck? Because it should.

What if Doctors Without Borders [doctorswit...orders.com] treat a series of casualties somewhere in Africa, and it later turns out some of the patients happened to be with some "officially designated terrorist group".

What if you take on a perl project that someone on the Web has offered up on a contract basis? Quick little contract job. Later turns out the person paying you was with a charity group linked to Hamas?

Far-fetched? Hard to say. But the fact is that there should not even be the potential for such a situation. If the U.S. gov't wants to put you away, they've now got an arsenal of laws in PATRIOT that can do so on the most tenuous of connections.

Once again, if that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck, maybe you need to reexamine what's been going on.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[jusdisgi]

Thank you for posting this. Most people don't get past a knee jerk reaction and bother to look at what is really in Patriot beyond the FUD.

Man. We must be reading two different sets of provisions....because this shit makes my knees jerk all over the damn place. Roving wiretaps? Changing FISA so that they can have purposes other than foreign surveillence? Allowing secret searches of innocent third-parties, and threatening them with prison if they tell anyone?

Are you fucking crazy!?

Here there be definitions

[abulafia]

Another important thing to keep in mind is the power of changing what words mean.

For instance, "terrorism" was recently extended to include a meth lab in Virginia. Bad? sure. Terrorism? not hardly. Prosecutors will use anything available - they're forced to do so.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[Golias]

A lot of arguments about the PATRIOT Act (which I do think desperately needs radical revision) are very light on facts.

A good example is the article here. "One hearing disclosed police invoked the Patriot Act 108 times in a 22-month period" would be a much more useful piece of information if we got a chance to see whether the cases in question did, in fact, involve terrorism.

I mean, if nearly all 108 of them regarded rifling through the files of nut-jobs planning on poisoning the NYC water supply or shutting down nuclear plant cooling systems in California, I would take that as compelling evidence that something very much like the PATRIOT Act (with a little tweaking to improve safeguards of personal rights) is probably a Good Thing to have in place.

On the other hand, if many of the cases were simply run-of-the-mill crime suspects, and law enforcement officers used PATRIOT clauses as a work-around to unconstitutionally search their premises, I would say it's time to riot in the streets.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[sconeu]

Well, I know that the Texas Legislature invoked the USA PAT RIOT act so that they could try to find those pesky Democrats who were hiding out so that there wouldn't be a quorum to rubberstamp the Republican's gerrymandering plan.

Disclaimer, I don't live in Texas, and I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[Edward Faulkner]

If law enforcement had really stopped 108 nefarious terrorist plots, you can be sure we would be hearing about it nonstop. Because that's the surest way for the government to silence its critics - point out the threat. In reality, they've had to invent fictitious threats, like Iraq's WMD.

But you're still missing the key point here - even if all 108 cases were suspected terrorists nutjobs, that still can't justify unconstitutional searches, because they're just suspected. There's nothing to stop you from becoming a "suspected" terrorist too.

Liberty cannot survive in a system where there are two classes of people: normal people with rights, and terrorists. Rights exist specifically to protect people accused to heinous things.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[kfg]

I mean, if nearly all 108 of them regarded rifling through the files of nut-jobs planning on poisoning the NYC water supply or shutting down nuclear plant cooling systems in California, I would take that as compelling evidence that something very much like the PATRIOT Act (with a little tweaking to improve safeguards of personal rights) is probably a Good Thing to have in place.

There are a few relevant questions here.

First off, it isn't enough to know that all 108 were nutjobs. What was the relevance of the PATRIOT Act to their survielence? The answer might well be none, in which case the act only serves to remove civil liberties from the innocent while adding nothing to the legitimate investigation of criminal activity.

Another, and more troublesome question is, how do you know they were actually nutjobs if there has been no judicial review, no legal representation, no finding of fact and no trial? No public record whatsoever.

"Did all of these people turn out to be nutjobs?"

"Ummmm, Yeah, they did. That's the ticket. Just ask my wife, Morgan Fairchild. . .whom I've slept with."

Is this not the very problem with secret "law enforcement" activity?

Remember that law enforcement itself is even responsible for defining what "suspicion" and "terrorist" activity are. Afghanistan makes heroin. You are "suspected" of selling heroin. Therefore you are suspected of being a terrorist.

See how easy it is?

And the last question is, what if the 109th person isn't a nutjob at all, it's you, what will you say?

And the answer to that is. . .nothing.

KFG

Section 213 DOES NOT EXPIRE.

[MacDork]

A lot of arguments about the PATRIOT Act (which I do think desperately needs radical revision) are very light on facts.

A good example is the article here. "One hearing disclosed police invoked the Patriot Act 108 times in a 22-month period" would be a much more useful piece of information if we got a chance to see whether the cases in question did, in fact, involve terrorism.

Actually, the quote is misleading and irrelevant. Sec. 213 "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant" does not expire. Ever. I've posted this before, but I think it bears repeating...

The US government has been trying to slip this one by us since well before 9/11. It was shot down at least three times in recent history. First it was the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act (CESA). [zdnet.com] Then the Clinton administration tried to push it through with a meth bill. [glil.org] When that failed, they tried to sneak in through as an amendment to a bankruptcy bill. [mapinc.org] All the while, the DOJ, led by Reno, was claiming to already have this power without any need for additional legislation in the Nicodemo Scarfo case.

Well, with the PATRIOT ACT, they finally got it. Your only hope now is to have it shot down in the Supreme Court. Both parties have been pushing for this for some time. The People had already spoken. We consistently and emphatically told them 'hell no'. It's clear that Congress has stopped representing the people.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[tenchiken]

If you are going to bring Hitler into it, at least know your facts. The Patriot act has zero in common with the Enabling Act which basically allowed Hitler to pass laws directly just by signing something without the Reichstag.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[tenchiken]

The parrallel you are looking for is there, but it is a completly different scale. The results of the reichstag fire were on a completly different scale. There were very very few protections in the Weimar constitution before the fire, and after the even the pretense (which is all it was) that Germany was some sort of republic was abandoned.

The other two factors not present was that
a) The communists were just as bad as the Nazi's at this point. The Nazi's just got to power first because Hitler realized before the communists did that seizing power thru the political system was easier then by violence and
b) Unlike common myth on /. the Nazi's did not set the fire.

While I could argue this, I have discovered that if there is one place where slashdotters are even more obnoxious about things that they know absolutly nothing about then politics, it's history.

In short, I know Nazi Germany, Nazi Germany was a degree of mine. Patriot Act is no Nazi Germany enableing act or anything else.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[tenchiken]

The platitude that victors write the history books is obnoxious in almost every case it is used. It discounts the fact that we have historians whose job it is to find the truth and learn from it. Contrary to the so-called revisionists, History occurred exactly one way. You can debate the meaning, debate the motives, but you can't debate the event if enough documentation exists.

Okay, let's play. Richard J Evan's "The Coming of The Third Reich" is one of the best and most contemporary works on this subject.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[phenopticon]

Just getting removed so they can make room for even more civil liberties to get crushed. New Section 220: No Pants New Section 223: You know that thing about freedom, yeah, no more of that garbage. New Section 225: No pants, really, I mean it.

For the sake of clarity..

[ShaniaTwain]

.. this is all due to be replace with the more concise:

Section 1.0 -- Government good, citizen bad.

What doesn't expire

[Triumph The Insult C]

Section 226 -- Makes it unlawful to speak of the PATRIOT Act

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Section 209 -- Permits the seizure of voicemail messages under a warrant.

Why was this ever enacted? Doesn't current law allow it even without the USA PATRIOT act? Isn't anything allowed to be searched and seized with a warrant? And things in storage already have a lower protection under law than things in transit (anyone know why?).

Redundant law is a bad thing.

Re:List of Expiring Provisions:

[truthsearch]

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -- James Madison

The history of liberty is a history of limitations of government power, not the increase of it. -- Woodrow Wilson

The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts. -- Edmund Burke

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -

Re:Capitol Building, White House Evacuated

[TripMaster Monkey]

Interesting...full story can be found here [cnn.com].

Odd how just when the Patriot Act comes up for review, a small plane flying off course happens by to remind us all that we must FEAR and OBEY...

Re:Capitol Building, White House Evacuated

[operagost]

Yeah, I'm really panicking at the thought of great squadrons of Piper Cubs obliterating American cities. This incident has scared me straight.

While it was rushed...

[AviLazar]

None of us can deny the fact they put an expiration date on this law. This feature was great forsight and will allow us to (more easily) modify or delete the Patriot Act.

So if the people really do hate the Patriot Act it will be known when it gets modified/deleted.

Re:While it was rushed...

[MightyMartian]

Expiration dates? Big deal. Congress could revoke or modify the laws at any time irregardless of expiration date. What counts is that they passed into law an act with some pretty damn questionable elements to it.

Irregardless

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with re

Re:Irregardless

[TiggertheMad]

Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel...

Oh, I'm pretty sure the prefix on 'debone' is needed to differentiate the word from 'bone'. I can 'bone' something...you got a sister so I can demonstrate?

Re:While it was rushed...

[PaxTech]

Every law should have an expiration date. This would keep the important laws on the books (since they'd be easily renewed) and let the stupid or unpopular ones lapse. Also, it would take up a lot of Congress' time renewing old laws and they'd have less time to shove their stupid new laws down our gullets..

Re:While it was rushed...

[learn fast]

Two sides to this coin, man.

What if the Freedom of Information Act was up for renewal every few years? Do you think they would be able to "find the time" to renew it every time?

Re:While it was rushed...

[PaxTech]

It all depends on if you consider most laws that Congress makes to be good. I think they're mostly lousy, and I'd like to see them expire. Yeah there are good ones like the FOIA, but most of them suck.

Do you think pot would be illegal still if Congress had to manually renew the ban every few years? I don't.

Basically, making all laws have a mandatory sunset would make our legislators much more accountable, and that's definitely a good thing. The way things are now, if a bad law gets on the books, it's almost impossible to get rid of.

Re:While it was rushed...

[PktLoss]

The problem with sunset clauses was recently discovered in california, where a law requiring a major portion of punitive damage awards be given to the state rather than to the individual (which makes sense since the entire point of punitive damages is the slap on the wrist, the plantiff is awarded for their own suffering or whatever through another type of damages). This law was given a multi-year sunset clause (where it automatically falls from force after a few years). The laywers picked up on this, and j

Re:While it was rushed...

[SirGeek]

While it's true that the law could just be renewed, it gives all the lobby groups a second chance at getting their own special needs taken care of, or having the bill become the parent for an un-attractive rider that ends up killing the whole thing.

That's the big thing. Riders not 100% relevent to the law should NOT be allowed. We wouldn't have them attaching things to funding bills ( like the new National ID crap ).

Re:While it was rushed...

[spells]

Besides, laws against murder are important enough that you can almost guarantee their easy renewal.

Congress would LOVE to renew laws like murder - it gives them more opportunities to add irrelevant pork riders onto the laws that no politician would be able to reject without committing political suicide.

If you don't believe it, look at the latest war spending bill [cnn.com] that passed 100-0 today.

Re:While it was rushed...

[l2718]

Actually, the way to "recind" an established law is to make a new law stating that the old one "is hereby repealed" (Acts of congress are rife with this expression -- searching on THOMAS [loc.gov] gave 50 hits from the current session alone). A simple majority suffices to enact the new law, just like it did the original one.

Even without super-majority requirements, enacting laws is still a non-trivial task. Formally Congress is always free to repeal old laws, of course. However, in practice a law with a sunset provision is much more limited than one without. The point is that they must debate the usefulness of the law come the sunset point if they want to keep it in the books.

Re:While it was rushed...

[dr_dank]

None of us can deny the fact they put an expiration date on this law. This feature was great forsight and will allow us to (more easily) modify or delete the Patriot Act.

With the RealID incident fresh in our minds, keep in mind the fact that tampering with the Patriot act will be political suicide.

What better fodder for ones opponent come re-election time when they can say "Senator so-and-so voted to gut the Patriot act, compromising our safety and the War on Terror".

Re:While it was rushed...

[monkease]

Well, hey, it worked for my senator...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/200 4/wi/ [washingtonpost.com]

Senator Feingold (D-WI, for those to lazy to follow the link) was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. He took some heat for this, yes, but eventually even many republicans who dislike Feingold's fiscal ideas decided to vote for him. Winning a senate seat by 11 points is no small feat, especially in a "battleground" state.

My point? Not everyone is spineless. Yes, Feingold did, apparently, vote for the Iraqi spending bill with the Real-ID stuff, but next time he has a townhall meeting I'll ask him about it.

Which brings me to another point. Small groups of people CAN get heard. For instance: http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/04/12/06/231 234.shtml?tid=153&tid=219 [slashdot.org]

Have you even emailed your senator?

Re:While it was rushed...

[Martin Blank]

I do like sunset provisions. I'd like to see mandatory sunset provisions, at least in first-run laws. Let the law run for five years, and then get a report of how often it was enforced. If it wasn't enforced, or if it's decided that it was a bad idea, then let it lapse. If an extension is desired, then allow another five year block, after which it could be made permanent. This almost ensures that alternate viewpoints will come into place as at least the leadership of Congress will have changed.

Broken Machine

[Doc Ruby]

How will the people's hatred of the Act be known, when Congress will do whatever it wants? How will the people even know they hate "the Act", when the news media don't report its hateful provisions, its abuses, its failures? With a few more Republicans in Congress since the one that created and passed the Act, who owe their offices to the Republican machine that funded and organized their campaigns, why should they change any of the Act that they all like so much?

As Bush said, Republicans see the 2004 election as an "accountability moment" [washingtonpost.com], which has now passed. There's 3/4 of an election cycle to come before the next one, in 11/2006 - plenty of time to spin up some positive accountability, like sending another $300 "tax cut" check to people, while increasing their share of the Federal debt by many times that amount.

People do hate the kind of unaccountable, unfettered government intrusion that the Patriot Act authorizes. That's why Republicans constantly invoke fear of that kind of "big government" intrusion when running for office, which people then vote for. But the electoral system, including the parties and the media, is badly broken. When the Patriot Act survives this nominal "extension" review, all we'll really know is that the people's hatred of it doesn't matter. Those of us paying attention will know, anyway - me, and the politicians making their living off the broken machine.

Re:Broken Machine

[Dachannien]

With a few more Republicans in Congress since the one that created and passed the Act, who owe their offices to the Republican machine that funded and organized their campaigns, why should they change any of the Act that they all like so much?

Yep, those Republicans are definitely to blame for this one. [house.gov] Those Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being passed. [senate.gov]

Isn't it possible that the Democrats generally oppose the Patriot Act today, and the Republicans generally support it today, because

Re:Broken Machine

[AviLazar]

Aren't you the cynic?

I am pretty sure the president gets voted into office because of the votes of the People. I am pretty sure a corporation doesn't get a vote. Maybe they can buy them ad-time, but thats about it.

As I recall we have a system "Checks and Balances" that lets the president veto congressional laws, and lets the supreme court name laws unconstitutional. That makes Congress accountable. Not to mention that if my senator wants my vote he better play ball with me and others like me. Will

Beyond Bush

[MightyMartian]

I guess Republicans must be looking beyond Bush now, and thinking about how they're going to justify the post-911 decisions they made.

It's not really a Republican thing

[Frangible]

Check the voting record, the democrats supported it by an overwhelming majority as well. This will not be a campaign issue for Republicans.

Re:Beyond Bush

[RealProgrammer]

I guess Republicans must be looking beyond Bush now, and thinking about how they're going to justify the post-911 decisions they made.

It's not clear from your post whether you mean that the upcoming review of the Patriot Act signals a change or whether something else leads you to think that. In any case, you're 180 degrees off target.

The Republicans are hoping to find someone who will continue after President Bush because he's coming to the end of his final term. Grass root Republican still like him. By and large the leadership is not ashamed of their post-9/11 decisions, despite all the revisionist finger pointing going on in Washington.

If anything, the leadership is looking for someone who is more dynamic and smooth, and able to carry off centrism - sort of a right-wing Bill Clinton. I don't think that kind of person would be a successful candidate for them, but that's what they want.

To your other point: before 9/11/2001, none of us thought for a minute that something like that could happen here. Terroism happened in Europe and the Middle East, not here. We were trained by a century of domestic peace and foreign wars to believe that our oceans and good character would protect us.

We were all in shock, and that includes those in government. Can you imagine feeling responsible for 9/11? You could tell yourself everything I just said above, but still there would be the self-doubt asking whether you should have planned better.

The Patriot Act needs tweaking, obviously, where it violates the Fourth Amendment. But a lot of what's in it - such as allowing domestic and overseas law enforcement to share notes - can help defend our liberty without infringing it.

Re:Beyond Bush

[MightyMartian]

9-11 stemmed from an intelligence community that had been left to rot for a decade, not from lack of domestic laws to deal with terrorists. It's pretty much been confirmed that there was damn little intelligence left in a good many Western nations' intelligence agencies. The Patriot Act was a kneejerk bit of legislation that a pack of panicky lawmakers signed up for (many of which weren't exactly clued in to what it even said). Do you really think you should be electing and paying lawmakers to pass legis

Re:Beyond Bush

[MightyMartian]

If you have better lawmakers then please nominate them for office. Yes, as I have said, it was made in a rush. The people wanted/needed a law. Everyone was happy at first. And it had a "Sunset Clause" to it.

Not everyone was happy at first. It was just that the president had made a charming speech about being for us or against us. Even the Democrats were so scared of backlash that they just saddled on up and stood in the nice big family picture.

The time for intelligent and conscientiousness opposi

Re:Beyond Bush

[robertjw]

While it has its problems, it is not 100% bad.

Ummm.... which part of it is not bad? OK, here's an easier question, which part of it would have stopped the 9/11 attacks?

We definitly need something in place

We have something in place, it's called the Constitution. What we need is for the law enforcement and intelligence communities to do their JOB within the restrictions laid out by the Constitution for protection of our freedoms. If this requires more funding and more people that's fine, lets give

Re:Beyond Bush

[MightyMartian]

Most of the blame for 9-11 doesn't really belong to Bush II, but rather to Bush I and Clinton, who basically let the intelligence community slip into a somewhat catatonic state after the collapse of the USSR.

What I can blame Bush II and his cabinet cronies for was letting the immediate threat of an attack slip through their hands. I can also blame him (and Tony Blair across the pond) for forcing their intelligence communities to spit out answers on Iraq that they wanted to hear.

If the argument for invad

It's hard to believe

[AKAImBatman]

It's rather hard to believe that we have Senator Fiengold (of all people) to thank for this review. It's always good when cooler heads prevail, but only one cooler head from way out in left field? Amazing. Kudos to Mr. Fiengold.

Review?

[Dutchmaan]

"CNet is reporting that both the House and Senate are planning to review the 16 portions of the Patriot Act that are set to expire at the end of the year"

How can they review something they didn't even read in the first place!?

Re:Review?

[chrish]

"One of my office assistants said she read it, and it was fine. I voted in favor."

Hearings will be held...

[ackthpt]

In a disused lavatory, in the basement, with the sign "Beware the leopard" on the door.

Faithless...

[point3]

After this was enacted 99-1 basically out of fear (fear of terrorism and fear of dissention...way to go Feingold!) and after the RealID segment passed 100-0 (including the bit removing EVERY court's jurisdiction to hear a case involving decisions made by the Secretary of Homeland Security), I truly have little faith that these expiring provisions will not be re-enacted, and probably by a huge margin.

~Z

Re:Faithless...

[MobyDisk]

Parent is right!

They're trying to avoid the criticism they received after rushing this bill through in 2001...

That would be believable had they not JUST DONE THE EXACT SAME THING with the REAL ID act!

BTW - Who was the 1 who voted against the Patriot Act?

Re:Faithless...

[revscat]

BTW - Who was the 1 who voted against the Patriot Act?

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-WI.

Re:Faithless...

[StikyPad]

It's amazing how much the Senators from the Great State of Wisconsin are shaping our domestic policy. On the one hand, you have Sensenbrenner with his RealID Act, and on the other you have Feingold voting against the Patiot Act.

And WI almost decided the outcome of the Presidential election.

It's almost as if our country is controlled by dairy.

*shudder*

Provisions will be back

[NeuroAcid]

If any of these provisions do actually expire, I'm sure they will turn up again attached to some military spending bill that MUST pass without discussion.

Vague

[StevenHenderson]

I find it funny how often the items use vague, nebulous terms such that the powers-that-be have all the wiggle-room they want when exercising their new-found power. Words like "terrorism", "spies", "hacker", and "intruder" cannot be quantified.

Therefore, this act gives all the flex power to law enforcement they could ever want. Wouldn't surprise me if 10 yr. old kids downloading CDs could be lumped in as "hackers"...

Political Grandstanding

[MyNymWasTaken]

I view this as mere huff & puff. Any items that are not renewed, or are softened, will reappear in the coming months or years as riders on "necessary" bills that will be approved unanimously. These "new" provisions will not have expiration dates, and will not be so widely discussed & lambasted in the public/mainstream media.

What about FISA

[Kainaw]

The USA PATRIOT Act is merely the USA Act and a money-capturing act. The USA Act is a slight upgrade to the FISA. It does not eliminate the FISA. The USA PATRIOT Act does not eliminate the USA Act. So, when parts of the USA PATRIOT Act expire, do they retroactively expire in the USA Act and then on the FISA? The article doesn't mention any of this at all. It just reinforces the common myth that the USA PATRIOT Act is an original set of provisions instead of the easy to discover fact (visit the Congress' website) that it is a conglomeration of provisions that have been around since 1978.

Of course they are!

[Tiresias_Mons]

They have to update those provisions to get ready for RealID implementation within three years! Now they can invoke PATRIOT when they start scanning your ID's RFID tag without your consent.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid...

From someone in the ground in Iraq

[omarKhayyam]

I'd just like to relate what my best friend, who is a sergeant on the ground in Iraq, said to me in a recent email. (I posted it in an earlier subject, but I think it's even more relevant here.)

"I'm not sure people understand that we are a much greater threat to ourselves and our way of life than any terrorist could represent, even with the most heinous plans and horrific weapons. The freedoms we curtail, and the unchecked empowerment we grant our government, has the potential to do real harm to the foundation of our nation, whereas terrorists can only damage buildings and kill people. This may sound callous, but at some point you have to decide that there are ideals that are bigger than any personal loss."

This comes from someone who is shot at daily, and who came within inches of death when his humvee was decimated by a VIED. (And to respond to someone's complaint before - I didn't include my buddies name because I haven't been able to ask him if he'd be alright with it. He only gets access to email every couple of weeks.)

Re:From someone in the ground in Iraq

[Kainaw]

The freedoms we curtail, and the unchecked empowerment we grant our government

Unfortunately, the citizens of the United States are not ready to tackle this issue. We still live in a media-controlled mindset of "Praise the President" or "Blame the President". Douglas Adams was joking, but he was more true than I'm certain he would have liked to been when he stated that the primary function of the President is not to weild power, but distract attention away from those who are truly in power.

The President does not make laws. He is merely the last signature on the law. Congress makes the laws. Congress rewrites (I'm sorry, 'amends') the Constitution. Congress decides who gets all your taxes and who doesn't. Congress has even taken away the powers of the President by requiring all Presidential powers to be controlled by Congressional vote. We say that the President appoints cabinets positions and judges, but Congress just has to sit back and say 'no' until the President appoints the guy that they like.

Until the general public sees past the President, past the curtain to the true power in government, we will continue to bicker about pointless things and getting into arguments about what the President did or didn't do, when it is truly what Congress did or didn't do.

Re:From someone in the ground in Iraq

[Reziac]

Do you or your buddy mind if we quote him elsewhere? That he's a man on the spot makes his words all that much more meaningful.

Re:From someone in the ground in Iraq

[Fyz]

Well, from someone who also spent half a year as a rifleman in Iraq: Me.

There's one of these guys in every outfit. I was the one in mine. Just because you're a soldier doesn't mean you should not be interested in other stuff. I went to Iraq while taking a Bachelor's degree in physics.

And furthermore, yes, you do get shot at every day. I was, and I was in Basrah, which is sorta the most peaceful place in all of Iraq.
It just isn't that much of a big deal because the Hajis can't shoot worth shit. They think it's manly to take the butt of your AK-47 and shoot from the hip.

We went and trained the IPS(Iraqi Police Service) one day and found that even when instructed and shooting at fully automatic, these guys had less than a 25% hit percentage at a range of 40 m!

Combine this with being in a (usually) constantly moving vehicle, and you're not very likely to ever be hit. What did make me nervous were the IEDs planted on the roads and the guys with RPGs, but these were rare and I only ever had one fired at me.(range 30m, missed)

Re:From someone in the ground in Iraq

[sconeu]

To add my voice to all the others...

I have never served, but I as a defense contractor, I work with the Army all the time.

Without exception, they have been among the most clueful, intelligent, and thoughtful people that I have ever met.

Re:From someone in the ground in Iraq

[Scrameustache]

You clearly subscribe to the Michael Moore School of thought that says soldiers are idiots, and the lowest class. Michael Moore is a fat loser.

Wow, totally gratuitous Michael Moore hatred!
When did he say that? I saw most of his movies and TV shows, I don't remember a bit on how dumb he thinks soldiers are.

This is what they will do:

[rice_burners_suck]

What they ought to do is get rid of the Patriot Act completely, but hide the exact same language in a bill on, say, the sale of lettuce. Then, they can keep doing all this invasive stuff without people talking about it nonstop.

I hope they look at this better than Real ID

[PenguinBoyDave]

Who are they trying to kid here? They pushed that Reael ID thing though last night and it was headlines on CNN and Fox News this morning. I'm not sure who said this, but I saw a saying that I think fits right in here:

"Only a Government afraid of its citizens tries to control them."

Consider it done.

[LibertineR]

The Patriot Act will remain intact for one reason:

Max Cleland.

The Republicans destroyed that dude because he only went so far as to delay the passage of the Patriot Act originally. Cleland, due to losing 3 limbs in Vietnam(not due to heroics, but from dropping a grenade and trying to pick it up instead of kick it away, like you are trained to do) was considered untouchable and a lock for re-election to the Senate.

No one in Congress is going to become the next Max Cleland, just for your precious Civil Rights, so get used to it. Congress is made up of people who do nothing but protect themselves for their next election, and nothing, I repeat, NOTHING for you.

Ron Paul does

[hsmith]

And he constantly gets reelected year after year. He is the only person out of 600+ that has the backbone to stand up for our rights. Sadly, he is one out of the many who care about our freedoms and preserving them.

Ron Paul is a libertarian

[Frangible]

(who ran as a Rep) And very good guy, one of the few politicians that stands up for his principles and individual freedoms. That's why there will never be a unanimous passage of bills like this in the House -- just the Senate. Unfortunately, Rep. Ron Paul is only one man. My Democrat friends think it's incredibly sad that only a Libertarian these days will stand up against Republicans. If you do a thomas.loc.gov search, you'll see Ron Paul has authored a number of bills to rescind laws and restore rights to Americans. Unfortunately, most of these never get anywhere. Because neither Democrat nor Republican will stand with the lone Libertarian in restoring freedoms to Americans. Flamebait? Look at the voting record and the bill history before you're so quick to judge. It's all there and well documented.

Ron Paul is not a Libertarian - details inside

[Arkhan]

(Apologies for using X as my separator character. Stupid lameness filter!)

I did look at his legislative record. He's not a Libertarian. If he were, he would be fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. He would not support government intrusion into individual liberties in an unconstitutional manner.

Ron Paul is fiscally conservative AND socially conservative (including supporting federal gov't intrusion into your life). That makes him a Republican -- or at least, it makes him what the Republicans U

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

[clickster]

I mean COME ON!!!! Why are you so pro-terrorist?!!!

SEP (Slashdot enhancement proposal)

[Free_Trial_Thinking]

Abstract:
This article was the last straw for me. I've just been seeing more and more infuriating political articles that I wish I could take action against. So my idea is that for every article on a subject worth protesting, a reader makes a post with a special designated subject line such as "WAYS YOU CAN HELP". Then he/she lists the various ways you can take action to actually protest the thing. I propose we order the ways of taking action by how much you have to care about the issue to take the action. I have an example for this article at the end of this post.

Proposed Solution:
The basics are presented in the abstract, but some more details are that people comment on this post and reccomend additions, and corrections. Finally when everyone has had their say, someone compiles the official "take action" document and posts it on a permanment webpage as the start of a wiki for the issue.

Example for this article:

Subject line: "WAYS YOU CAN HELP"
Comment:
How you can help based on how much you care:
1. The fate of the world depends on fixing this:
Start a website and non-profit devoted to fixing this issue. Collect donations and hire lobbyists to buy a fix.
2. I worry about this issue all day!
Option A. Pay a visit to the relevant lawmaker.
Option B. Plan a protest.
Option C. Start a petition (but make sure it's the kind that matters)
3. This is a big problem:
Call the relevant lawmaker, explain your concerns.
4. This is a medium problem:
Write a handwritten letter to your lawmaker (email s and faxes don't work!)
5. This is a minor problem:
Donate money
6. I think I care but I don't really:
Complain about it on Slashdot and don't do anything.

An scared citizen...

[springMute]

...is a happy citizen.

Congratulations on letting the B's of today turn your country into Oceania.

Re:An scared citizen...

[TripMaster Monkey]

....but Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia...right?

Read the actual sections

[orionware]

I recommend reading the actual sections since most of the "summaries" of the sections that I have seen are translations, usually leaning to one way or another.

Not pointing any fingers here, just recommending you read the actual text yourself. A lot of folks went ballistic over the massive new erosion of our rights when those rights were aleady in jeopardy if you were a drug dealer or traficker. They've simply extended the power they already to terrorism suspects.

Should change the name of the act

[Anonymous Coward]

The "Patriot" Act has more to do with Despotism than Patriotism. Powers that the Act give are more in line what dictators would want than what a so called "free and democratic" society would strive for.

As long as the threat level is 'elevated'

[wk633]

it should be obvious that we'll have to give up a few civil liberties in the interest of safety. When the threat of terrorism is gone, and we're back at 'green', then sure, we can get our freedoms back.

Until then, well, this is a different world, after all.

I'm sure the Departement of Homeland Security wil let us know when it's safe to be free again.

Until then, we should all keep our mouths shut and thank our DHS overlords for doing so much to keep our beloved Democracy Free! Er, um, Free once the Evildoers are caught and brough to Justice! Well, not exactly Justice, but a secret military tribunal.

THEN we'll have Freedom!!!

Sure They'll "Revisit" The Patriot Act

[Master of Transhuman]

They just slipped a National ID Card through the military appropriations bill, plus a law allowing the Department of Homeland Security to be completely FREE OF ANY LAW OR JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT in constructing a barrier on the border near San Diego. In other words, if DHS wants to murder you while constructing this barrier, they are entirely free to do so as there is no Federal or state jurisdiction to prevent them by order of Congress.

Apparently, this is due to an "interpretation" of one of the Constitution's clauses that allows Congress to do this.

This is a precedent for allowing DHS to be allowed the same freedom in ALL cases - thus nullifying the Constitution.

Don't believe me? Google it.

1 Name

[superpulpsicle]

Ed Wilson. This guy was a genuine American member of the CIA. As planned, he was negotiating with foreign terrorists "undercover" by providing them with a fake supply of U.S provided firearms.

Then the CIA turned the program around, claiming he was NOT undercover. Framed him, and send him to jail for 20 years.

A dozen government agents got their promotion of a life time for screwing this guy over. Many are still serving in the U.S judicial system today.

Any acts or laws that yield to benefiting any intelligence program is danger. The U.S has a disgusting history of it. Who knows how many innocent people are being contained by the Patriot Act.

Re:One thing to say

[paranode]

Why, does the Patriot Act mention God or something?

More than money

[viniosity]

While it's certainly nice to support the ACLU I think it would be better to write your congressman or congresswoman and give your opinion.

I don't know if has something to do with the religious culture in the US but too many citizens feel that if they just give some $ to a charity it will absolve them of guilt due to inaction.

ACLU doesn't deserve contributions

[FishCalledOscar]

The ACLU is on record AGAINST an individual's right to bear arms. They claim to support a "collective right" which means we can arm the national guard.

Re:ACLU doesn't deserve contributions

[rkcallaghan]

I think they do. As a matter of fact, I joined today. I donated and signed up as a card carrying member.

Today's news about the Real ID was finally enough to make me ask myself what had I done to help in any small way.

The nature of politics is compromise. There will never be a political group with as broad a spectrum as issues as the ACLU deals with that does not disagree with you on something.

So if you disagree on the gun issue, as I do, fine. Realize there are 20 more issues and no one fights harder for your civil rights than the ACLU.

~Rebecca

The ACLU dropped the ball on this one already

[leereyno]

Back when the patriot act was first passed, I went out of my way to give money to the ACLU under the belief that they would be the one organization with the balls and legal firepower needed to fight this.

Imagine my surprise when the ACLU decided instead to involve itself in California's recall election. Imagine my shock and disappointment when I discovered that they were over there filing frivilous motions with little or no legal merit in order to disrupt the recall process. All because those who now run

Re:Feingold?

[masklinn]

Feingold and the rest are driven by "opposite of Bush" regardless of the content.

And this is true not only in the US, but in great many western countries (replace "opposite of bush" by "opposite of whatever party currently holds the power")
Most modern westerner politicians are so childish and have such stupid ways of setting their opinions it's quite scary they're the ones with the power...
And there are so damn few alternatives...

Re:Feingold?

[SirSlud]

When you consider that western countries enjoy a very high quality of life compared to other countries, its easy to make the argument that people live 'well enough' to not have to care about whether Foo or Bar is running the country.

From other vantage points, Kerry and Bush would basically do the same things, only with different ways of justifying it to their voter base. (Same here in Canada, etc.)

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the system isn't currently broken; rather simply that not enough shit has hit the fan yet for people to be forced into caring.

Its the old adage where you don't really care why your neighbours are being arrested until they come for you. Same principle. Enough people are enjoying worry free lives (save for the material worry we create to substitute for real worries such as where is my next meal coming from) such that we just havn't hit a critical mass of folks who think we need a substantial change.