Senate Proposes Patriot Act Extension 519
geekylinuxkid writes "Senate leaders reached a bipartisan agreement Wednesday night to extend expiring and controversial provisions of the Patriot Act for six months. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, announced the agreement from the Senate floor, ending an impasse over the measure." From the article: "Last week, the House voted 251-174 to renew the 16 provisions after striking a compromise that altered some of them. The provisions were set to expire at year's end if not renewed. Controversial measures include those allowing the FBI -- with a court order -- to obtain secret warrants for business, library, medical and other records, and to get a wiretap on every phone a suspect uses." More commentary on the BBC. We reported on last week's failure of the original renewal.
Someone please explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Win a little - lose a little (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be extended only to a certain extent (Score:5, Insightful)
And we know the majority would NEVER play partisan politics to get what they want.
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Agh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Someone please explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Moderation: +1 Funny
What we really need is a mod for "Funny, but it's that sort of awkward laugh, where you're not sure if you should be crying instead."
Ever heard of Stasi? (Score:5, Insightful)
Put the money on finding terrorists, diplomatic solutions to end hostilities and good old fashion not too bright police officers who screw up in a way we can find out.
Better than nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple fact of the matter is that I just don't trust our current administration with the powers they've been granted - and that's quite a change considering I voted for Bush in 2000. He's done a lot to convince me I didn't pick the best man for the job - you'd almost think he was trying.
Re:It will be extended only to a certain extent (Score:4, Insightful)
...a win for America's safety and security... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that goes directly back to what Benjamin Franklin was saying when he talked about people who give up freedom for security deserve neither.
News for nerds (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:6months is not enough time (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody imagined that that son of a bitch Bush II and his minions would have spent the intervening years abusing/hiding behind it while turning the U.S. into a police state, and that they'd not want to pare down any of the civil-liberties-stomping aspects.
~Philly
Other presidents have done the same thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
How about we strike a deal? The government will prevent people from blowing stuff up, like the Brooklyn Bridge, and they won't use those tapes in court at a trial.
Re:I guess- (Score:3, Insightful)
Since it wouldn't be a law, it wouldn't continue Fristing my future children.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, at this point that's better than the alternative... A permanent extension to the already overreaching powers that the Federal Government has. If this extension is going to have to come up and up again, perhaps -- just perhaps someone will have the fucking balls to stand up and tell the New Aged GOP douchebags that eroding the civil liberties of the American people isn't what this country was founded on. While it may not work, we can at least have it in the news and possibly get more and more people pissed off about it.
When it's already written into law, permanently, it gets ignored and more important news items like the breakup of Jessica and Nick and the possible pregnancies of Angelina and Jennifer get all over airwaves instead.
But what does that all matter when the President can just got behind the public's back and act like a dictactor and issue whatever atrocities against the American public that he feels like -- just as long as it's "to protect us" from the terrorists. Sounds like something that would have happened in Iraq, doesn't it?
neverending soap opera (Score:3, Insightful)
What did you think those thousands of CIA agents, NSA agents, FBI agents did all day? Eat donuts?
Now that they actually tried to ratify their activities on paper, every conspiracy theorist now says it never happened before and acts like defeating the patriot act is going to make a difference.
Re:6months is not enough time (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody imagined that that son of a bitch Bush II and his minions would have spent the intervening years abusing/hiding behind it while turning the U.S. into a police state...
Um...just for the record...I imagined it. I started imagining it just about when the Republican-dominated Supreme Court of the Unites States handed Dubya the Presidency.
can someone provide an example? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Other presidents have done the same thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if all of the new "domestic security measures" are actually any better than the pre-9/11 security measures. Those measures failed to prevent 9/11 (and I doubt that anything could have), true; but it seems likely to me that they DID prevent a good number of attacks before 9/11 anyway. The Administration says they've prevented a number of attacks since 9/11; I say (and Congress should be saying), "Show me the money."
Mod Parent (-1, Moron) (Score:2, Insightful)
The point of the matter is - some provisions violate the 4th and 5th Amendments of the Constitution, which, among other things, are supposed to protect the right to unreasonable searches and seizures and the rights of the accused. I did a long report on this my first year in college, and there's a lot to be worried over.
Quit blowing partisan smoke out your ass AND WAKE UP! America as we know it is falling apart, and idiots like you that spout off talking points aren't helping matters any.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The current government has no plan to EVER give up the these powers.
Re:...a win for America's safety and security... (Score:1, Insightful)
If we lose liberties present in The Constitution, The Amendments and The Bill of Rights, have the terrorists won?
NO. It seems you've bought into the propaganda that "they hate us because of our freedom!" That's bullshit. They hate us because we won't stop fucking around in the middle east. Get out of Israel, get out of Afghanistan, get out of Iraq, get out of all the other sovereign nations we are interfering with, and then the terrorists will have won. And you know what? We'll have won too. This isn't a zero sum game. It's only religious presidents and arse-licking prime ministers with agendas beyond doing what's best for their countries that lose.
Often overlooked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is a warrant needed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because Clinton and Carter were better Presidents than Bush has any hope of being doesn't mean they were above being criticized when they do something wrong.
Please don't presume that I am willing to support Democrats in whatever they do just because they are Democrats. Honestly, I'm cynical about all politicians; they're all petty-minded power grabbers, and very few of them actually give a toss about what's best for the country. It's just that I find the Democrats a bit less reprehensible than the Republicans, and somewhat less likely to do something appalling (note that this is different from saying that they will never do something appalling, because I KNOW someone will interpret my statement that way).
Myth (Score:3, Insightful)
Delayed notification search warrants are a long-existing, crime-fighting tool upheld by courts nationwide for decades in organized crime, drug cases and child pornography [lifeandliberty.gov]
DA's have been seizing library records for years, and roving wire taps just make sense. If a terrorist walks into Best Buy and can buy 10 pre-paid phones, we should be able to keep tapping him.
Re:Someone please explain (Score:4, Insightful)
They're admissible in Gitmo...
Democracy In Action and Inaction (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, you did elect a democratically controlled sentate/house. It's just that a combination of events allowed most of the checks and balances to be overcome.
Ultimately, the 2000 election aside, a Republican president got elected in to office. In 2004 he got elected back in again. In 2008 he has to leave and either a Republican will be elected in to follow him or a Democrat to replace him. Pretty much democracy in action.
Congress and the Senate, similarly, were populated by votes. Granted there was some dubious redistricting by a guy who's now under criminal investigation - but those offices were all populated by votes and can have their population changed by votes. Again, pretty much democracy in action.
None of those offices, despite some glaring similarities, are dictatorships and, certainly, none of them are "for life" (save the Supreme Court but that's long been accepted). Every one of them can be changes [at regular intervals] by the will of the people. Thus, by definition, it is a democracy.
The problem is, when you allow the will of the people, you have to allow that people are stupid.
9/11 and the threat of the boogie man have worked as a great tool for scaring people and getting them to vote pro-conservative. It worked for the Nazi party in the 1940s, it worked for the Conservatives in Britain during the Falkands and the first Gulf war, and it's working for the Republicans now.
As Jimmy Carter pointed out on The Daily Show last night: "There's 9-10% of the population that, regardless of political affiliation, will always vote to support the current commander in chief whenever there's a war on and America's young men and women are fighting." Most of the margins are well within that 9-10% and, so long as there's a war on, it's an instant bonus for the party in power.
So, sadly, it is, by definition, a democratically elected government. It's just that part of democracy is allowing stupid people to vote, that stupid people can be manipulated, and that smart politicians will, eventually, find a way around almost any checks and balances. But that doesn't stop it being democratically elected.
Re:Why is a warrant needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
sorry, but when congress authorized bush to use all means, they didn't mean "even the ones that violate federal law and the constitution". i really didn't think that congress needed to start putting that qualifier into bills, but apparently bush has demonstrated it's necessity.
sigh.
Re:PATRIOT act mythology - debunked (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm well aware of the original vote tally passing the "patriot" act. I think we've seen it was an overreaction, that it has been abused, and the White House has overstepped even the wide powers it got from that ill considered peace of legislation.
Every time Condi talks about it, she always says "The first smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud over a major city." My guess is that she's trying to scare and stampeed people into unwise actions.
America is about freedom.
The Administration is always talking about how "they" hate and despise our freedomes.
Seems to me that we shouldn't be limiting freedoms then. Otherwise, we are doing the work of destroying our country for them.
Getting down to cases, I think it's been shown what has done with the special powers granted in the act. EG: Not a lot of good things. We've invaded two countries, installed governments to our liking, and still people are shooting at each other and innocents are still dying. No improvement there, other than getting the Taliban and Saddam out of power. That is aregueably a good thing, but the price is much too high in my opinion. I thought at the time that we should have waited, but I was also concerned about the yellow cake situation. A stiuation it turns out just wasn't true.
Next is that "Congress saw all the same intelligence we did!" Well, sir, that turns out not to be the case. Seems that source assessment reports on the intelligence was NOT shared with congress, but WAS shared with the Administration. A source assessment report grades the source of the intelligence, some "spy" books range it as "Accepted as truth", "Trusted source, personally received", down to "known counterintelligence operat." There are good reasons not to share that information, but it seems most of the most damaging and most pointed to intelligence was from people known to be undependable, and that the administration knew they were but didn't say so, and there were some in the intelligence community that kept trying to point it out these sources were undependable. Some were gagged, some were transferred, some were fired, most were just ignored.
No sir. This is bad law and it isn't good for our country. I will say this, I have no doubt whatever that someone that has a known bad guy and needs the information to protect the country will do what it takes to get the information, even breaking the law to do it if it's that important. When that happens, it will either get covered up, or it will become public. Only if it becomes public will it go to a court, where 12 citizen will sit there and put themselves in the position of the agent and decide if what he did was illegal but justified. Even if it were illegal, I believe that a jury won't find him guilty if it was important enough.
Lastly, I love my country. I do not have to love the administration, and I refuse to accept being called unpatriotic because I disagree with your opinions. That is unworthy of a patriot, and the supporters of this administration should find a more mature way to disagree with people. What I see is that many confuse critizing the administrations actions with hating America. That isn't true. It's called loving your country to want to make it better, no matter how good it already is.
Re:...a win for America's safety and security... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but we've lost. The only winners are the symbiotic politician/military-industrial complexes.
Hilariously incoherent even w/in your own post (Score:5, Insightful)
We well remember the circumstances under which a law called "the PATRIOT Act" got passed to begin with. Yes. You might do better for your side of the ideological divide not to remind anyone of that process. This discussion is already about the abuse of power, you don't need to score points for the other side.
does NOT introduce one new power not already available to the government or a DA in some form to Drug Dealers.
You need to maybe edit this sentence so we have the slightest idea what you're saying. I think I can make a guess, but your point is badly garbled.
do the research and actually read through the entire legislation before making a judgement
Had you noticed that the debate about this law's renewal has had two sides:
Which of those sides seems to be staking out an adult position? Which reflects a thorough understanding of the bill? I ask you.
The objections to this legislation reflect specific concerns about it, they aren't an incoherent rant on the level of your post. I guess we'll just have to cut you some slack, though, as you're busy reading the 342-page text of the act [epic.org], I feel certain.
Re:The PATRIOT Act works (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:6months is not enough time (Score:5, Insightful)
No one's checking my papers.
What makes you think you would be told if they were doing this? The PATRIOT act and FISA allow such surveillance to be done in secret, which means that you wouldn't be told. You might well be being monitored right this very minute; this very post may have gone into the "jav1231" file.
And you would simply never know.
Which side of the fence are you on? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a Democrat, leaning libertarian, but some of the krap Clinton tried to pull, like the Clipper chip, and things he did get away with, like NAFTA, really pissed me off.
I guess I'm one of the few who rationally looks at legislation, regardless of whether it's proposed by "my party" or not.
It really blows my mind that the once "small government" Republicans (you know who you are...) are now the ones hell bent on making the U.S. some kind of police state.
IMHO, the Republicans who voted with the Democrats on this latest round of the Patriot Act have way bigger balls than the Bill Frists, et al.
Re:...a win for America's safety and security... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Patrick Henry's quote is far more apropos, given Republicans say stripping civil liberties are useless if you're dead from a terror attack. What did Patrick Henry claim? Give me Liberty, or give me death!
And just remember, this was during a time of far greater uncertainty than today. Colonists weren't scared of a terror boogeyman that could pop up . They were more concerned about how a bunch of back-woods colonists in relatively newly-inhabited (from their view) lands could hold their own against the mighty British empire.
They had far more courage sticking up for liberties, and against far greater threats, than the Republicans and Bush-defenders of today that whine about how cowardly it is to cut and run in Iraq (while they're safe over here) but then whore out their civil liberties for the illusion of safety from terrorism.
Re:Who's the Liar? (Score:5, Insightful)
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Did you even read my post? FISA (the "Act" this order is referring to) explicitly grants permission to the President to authorize warrantless search for Foreign Governments and its Agents.
However, it EXPLICITLY FORBIDS the government from doing the same search on US Citizens without warrants.
Here, [cornell.edu] you can read it yourself.
Did you even READ this executive order? It does EXACTLY what I said it does. It says that since FISA gives me this power to search foreign powers, I am going to delegate this power to my Attorney General and other top cabinet officals.
WHERE does it say that even though FISA prohibits it, you are authorized to search US citizens without a warrant? Do you see ANY sentence here that says you should ignore FISA (in fact, EVERY paragraph starts with "Pursuant to FISA...")?
Why is this so hard to understand. I get that Rush and Fox News is distorting it, but gosh darn it, it is right here in black and white. ANY cursory reading of this order and FISA would lead any sane mind to fact that Clinton is going WITH the FISA while Bush is going AGAINST it.
Re:Time for the "I" Word? (Score:2, Insightful)
Outside of this process, there is only the option of rebellion or coup d'état, and nobody is *that* upset thus far.
With a sufficiently loyal Congress, the President of the United States is effectively above any rule of law, and beyond the reach of any consequences of his actions.
People keep repeating the "I" word as though there is a conceivable scenario under which it could happen. Perhaps Winter 2006 will see a new Congress dominated by opposition party members who are actually willing to press charges against the President, but I would not count on this.
President Bush will end his term in 2009. When he does, the incoming administration will acquire whatever powers the current administration posseses today. Whether that incoming administration will be a Democratic challenger, or whether it will be Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, all remains to be seen.
But there is no chance of impeachment unless evidence comes to light that is so compelling, it turns some of the most stingently aligned and loyal politicians in history, 180 away from thier current position. You will need a great deal more than the phone tapping ideas, something as yet not ruled to be a crime by any judge. The Iraq lies didn't do it. The Plame case might make some headway, but I doubt it.
There's no Impeachment coming, and there is nobody stupid enough, brave enough, or upset enough to worry about a coup or a rebellion. This will remain the status quo until January of 2009.
Re:The sad part (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, no shit. The problem is that it isn't used for terrorists, it's used for terror suspects who are presumed guilty without trial or any chance to defend themselves.
consumption and economic growth (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, we should spend more money on electric passenger and freight railroad systems. Maybe electrically-powered freight could even replace a lot of long-distance trucks in the next 20-30 years (using roll-on roll-off cars where the trailers are driven onto the railcars). Energy itself can also be saved by people adopting more reasonable lifestyles. The majority of incandescent bulbs' power input goes into generating heat. Replace those bulbs with compact fluorescents or LEDs and you're using 25% as much energy as before for lighting (and before someone starts complaining about Hg in CF bulbs, yes, CF bulbs are recyclable). In addition, who needs a 4,000 sq ft McMansion in the suburps for a 4- or 5- person family. Maybe development will become denser and smaller and heating/AC costs will go down that way.
Drilling the ANWR is a Bandaid for a gunshot wound. It might temporarily stop the bleeding, but the patient's still going to croak without major surgery.
-b.