Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Government Politics

New Security Bill Proposed 120

Posted by Hemos from the the-joy-of-the-legislative-process dept.
frdmfghtr writes "ZDnet is reporting on a new security bill coming up right before the election in November that is geared towards increasing security in the U.S. "One section anticipates storing the "lifetime travel history of each foreign national or United States citizen" into a database for the convenience of government officials." Senator McCain and HLS secretary Tom Ridge are mentioned specifically in the article: "McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings, telephone companies, Internet hubs and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Secretary Tom Ridge would appear to be authorized to issue new federal IDs--with biometric identifiers--that Americans could be required to show at checkpoints." Reminds me not-so-vaguely of checkpoints in Soviet Russia where you needed papers to pass."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Security Bill Proposed More

New Security Bill Proposed

Comments Filter:

  • Whoa There Kiddos (Score:5, Informative)

    by captnitro ( 160231 ) * on Monday October 25, 2004 @07:40AM (#10619705)
    Time is of the essence on this one, as those campaigning in tight races need something to prop up their electoral base. Somehow I find it refreshing or disturbing that for the past few weeks I've had to call in to Washington three times for poor legislation. So here's the the deal.

    The bill is S. 2845, [loc.gov] and the portion of debate here is (Information Sharing) Sec. 206, among others. Find your Senators here [senate.gov]. Then I want you to e-mail, call, whatever. I, personally, like to call and be firm but nonetheless polite. Don't contact Sen. McCain's office unless you're from Arizona: there is no, no, no, no national politic. None. Your message will be either be forwarded to your state Senators' offices or discarded, and I don't want some aide doing tallies to think that everybody who contacted them was from every state but the one with their voters.

    E-mail will also work, and hell, if you have all of ten minutes and $2, consider writing a very basic letter and overnighting it USPS. Remember: you don't have to convince them, all you need to let them know is that you are opposed to it. Paper talks.

    • Re:Whoa There Kiddos (Score:4, Informative)

      by captnitro ( 160231 ) * on Monday October 25, 2004 @07:47AM (#10619736)
      Apologies, Sec. 206 referred to the calendared version, the engrossed amendment splits it into, I believe, Sec. 1017 and any sections containing 'Information Sharing' or 'Screening'.
    • captnitro wrote: " there is no, no, no, no national politic. None. Your message will be either be forwarded to your state Senators' offices or discarded, and I don't want some aide doing tallies to think that everybody who contacted them was from every state but the one with their voters. "

      Would you be also applying this advise to when this bill reaches a Senate Committee or Sub-Committee? With Senators who are Chairpersons and members from different states? I've been able to correspond with the office
      • Yes, actually. And remember that reply doesn't always mean "gives a damn", but you're right, there are exceptions. While sometimes Senators will respond to legislation in-committee, there's a stamp labeled "Respectfully referred, not acknowledged" that gets stamped on every piece of non-constituent mail (paper mail). Senators are different in this regard, as I'd expect Senators to have the money and staff to deal with out-of-state mail. Congressional reps, not so much.
    • Two minor yet important nits on the USPS thing. One, overnight "Express Mail" postage is $13.65. Two, sending express may be redundant, since most local congressional offices will receive mail the next day if you put a $.37 stamp on it.

      That being said, perhaps sending it to the congresscritters' Washington DC offices may not be a bad idea.

    • Thanks! (Score:1, Troll)

      by JavaLord ( 680960 )
      E-mail will also work, and hell, if you have all of ten minutes and $2, consider writing a very basic letter and overnighting it USPS. Remember: you don't have to convince them, all you need to let them know is that you are opposed to it. Paper talks.

      Ok, thanks! I have to tell you though, I'm not opposed to it and I plan to write. From the article summary:

      McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, airports, bus stations, train stations, federal buildings
      • Yup. Our planes are vulnerable. Our trains are vulnerable. Our buses, our taxies are vulnerable. Any public transportation. I'm not even sure that our sidewalks are safe -- we should remember to track which sidewalks people have been on and scan them for bombs before they can step out onto the street. Mom and pop shops aren't safe either, they should be protected. Every last grocery store, ... and every vehicle, for sure. You know how many car bombs get used in, say, the middle-east? Protecting your subway
        • So do you suggest we make no attempt at security?

          Of course protecting one area will not prevent attacks on others. Protecting the subway will however protect the people who use the subways on a daily basis.

          I find you whole argument rediculous. It's preposterous to suggest that people should hire their own security instead of depending on the government to provide it. It is the government's responsibility to protect its citizens, whether that be from conventional military attacks or terrorist atta
        • Yup. Our planes are vulnerable.

          Yeah, but it's getting better. I'd like to see it get onto the level of Israli plane security.

          Our trains are vulnerable.

          Yes, they seem that way. At least the ones I've seen. Then again, I don't know what is going on behind the scenes.

          Our buses, our taxies are vulnerable. Any public transportation. I'm not even sure that our sidewalks are safe -- we should remember to track which sidewalks people have been on and scan them for bombs before they can step out ont

          • Re:Thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Unordained ( 262962 )
            I wouldn't consider the Murrah Federal building a place where "few people are". You've not shown a clear delineation of how many people should huddle together for protection before they deserve it, either. Nor would I consider it proof that our security is good to say that we haven't had an attack since 9/11 -- when was the previous one before 9/11? What attacks, precisely, have our counter-measures thwarted? We actually have no clue how good our security is, except for, say, research papers proving that et

          • Re:Thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Grym ( 725290 )

            This is where I believe you are wrong. To train a terrorist properly, to get them to the US and in the position to attack takes time, manpower and money.

            How much training and money does it take to legally buy an assault rifle and fire it in the mass of people that is a New York City sidewalk in the morning? Have you ever fired one? It's easy! Hell, nearly any fit person of legal age could wreak havoc, financing it by working a part-time job for a few months.

            How much training does it take to legally

            • "...will find our venerable points..."

              *vulnerable

              Argh! That's the last time I write a post at 5:30 in the morning!

              -Grym

            • Every system has a flaw. Every armor a chink. We can't sit back and pretend that just because our enemy is blinded by religion that they're stupid too. September 11th is proof that they can and will find our venerable points. Now we can either accept this as something which cannot be changed and resume life under the freedoms we supposedly cherish, or we can cower behind a false sense of protection that does little to address the real problem. This bill (along with the PATRIOT Act) represents the latt

              • If you prevent terrorists from hitting their primary target which would kill 3,000 and they hit something else that kills 300 instead isn't that worthwhile? Your logic, that we can't protect ourselves from everything so we might as well not put forth the effort to protect ourselves from anything is the same thinking naieve computer users have twards security.

                No. That's not my logic at all. My logic is that it's the government's responsibility to protect me from nuclear, biological, and chemical threa

      • Sorry man. I guess you're a troll because you don't oppose this.

  • Dare to Vote Against It (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @07:42AM (#10619716) Homepage Journal
    And Senators/Reps will be ripped as "soft on terror" - hounded from office.

    Don't say I didn't say all of this - right here three years ago.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @09:33AM (#10620488)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • The problem with voting records is that they attach all kinds of unrelated laws to records. For instance, if there is a bill proposed regarding airport security, one party can attach somthing pro/against abortion. When the other party votes against it, they have more fodder for the next election.

        You have to either look at the details of the votes or take it with a shaker of salt.
      • Yeah, but only if you're a Democrat... if you happen to be in the Republican party then voting for the bill means you care about Keeping America Safe and if you vote against you're showing your fiscal responsibility to the nation.

    • Re:Dare to Vote Against It (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @09:39AM (#10620573) Homepage Journal
      > And Senators/Reps will be ripped as "soft on terror"

      Too true. The opponents need to set the frame of the debate, not just reply to it.

      Bad: "This goes against our citizen's freedom." -> you are soft on terrorists.

      Good: "In yet another tax-and-spend government boondoogle, a few conservatives who should know better want to blow money on new big DMV and mass transit projects rather than actually fund anti-terrorist initiatives. By stealing money from Homeland Security to produce public works in each state, they're undermining the unified front against terrorism that we all need for security. Add in the logistic nightmare of easily broken 'citizen IDs' and you have yet another case for massive government misspending."

      Hmm... a bit too long, but workable. The short summary would be 'Which stops terrorism-- funding the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security, or tossing money into state public works. I'd bet the former, but this new bill wants our cash for boondoogles."

  • Internet hubs versus DC traffic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @07:43AM (#10619718) Homepage Journal
    Hmmm... "McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, [...] Internet hubs "

    Internet hubs? Man, that's going to suck. "The networked printer needs paper, dear, I'm heading down to the basement" 'Badge, sir?'

    More seriously, even when I drive into D.C. and pass in spitting distance of the Capital, the occassional roadblock/checkpoints don't ask for ID. They rely on an officer doing a quick visual survey of the vehicle and occupants.

    I don't see how IDs will help. 'Hmm... according to your ID, you're a known terrorist criminal. I'll have to search your car.' No, far more likely a potential terrorist will either be a clean slate (new recruit) or have a faked ID.

    So the only use is either to hassle ordinary citizens while pretending it's helping fight terrorism, without really increasing safety or security. I predict the bill will pass by a landslide.

    For the children's sake, of course.

    • Re:Internet hubs versus DC traffic (Score:4, Interesting)

      by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Monday October 25, 2004 @10:18AM (#10620915) Homepage Journal
      I don't see how IDs will help. 'Hmm... according to your ID, you're a known terrorist criminal. I'll have to search your car.' No, far more likely a potential terrorist will either be a clean slate (new recruit) or have a faked ID.
      More likely the information will be used as much of our "intelligence" has: Explanaing the events after the fact and finding who to blame or point a finger at domestically. I bet the information gets used for domestic law enforcement more than for combatting terrorism. "These government records place you within 1 mile of where the drug deal went down at a Linksys personal router. How can you deny you were there?" Of course, the prossecution will neglect to mention that 10,000 other people were within that square mile on Market Street in San Francisco.

      By the way, the "Internet Hub" thing would make for a great comedy sketch. Imagine the cost of putting up a checkpoint at a $60 piece of hardware... "That $76,253.00 bill is for the network hub in Accounting sir, but Homeland Security won't sign off on the checkpoint so Accounting still can't get email."

    • Re:Internet hubs versus DC traffic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bishop ( 4500 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @11:13AM (#10621537)
      So the only use is either to hassle ordinary citizens while pretending it's helping fight terrorism

      Some people would say that hassleing ordinary citizens is exactly the point of the chekcpoints. The idea is that checkpoints help to maintain a "culture of fear." The same people would say that the point of maintain this fear is to more easily control the citizens.

      I don't necessarily agree with these theories. But when I see legislation like this that only pretends to fight terrorism I tend to wonder.

  • Frightening (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pan T. Hose ( 707794 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @07:51AM (#10619752) Homepage Journal
    Of course we all know that it is only a pre-election PR stunt which will most probably get forgotten by most of people few months after the election, however it will continue silently violating privacy and after reading this article I must say that it sounds frightening. It is frightening because it goes much further than necessary, mostly affecting honest people. When new supposedly anti-terrorist security measures such as this one are introduced, Bruce Schneier always asks a great question: "would it have stopped 9/11 if we'd had it in place then?" Good question.

  • 1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ecotax ( 303198 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @07:55AM (#10619766)
    Maybe '1984' was just a deadline that slipped a little...

    • Re:1984 (Score:3, Funny)

      by skaffen42 ( 579313 )
      What did you expect? I mean, it is a government project!

    • Re:1984 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FFFish ( 7567 )
      Maybe this is what happens when The Red Terror collapses. Could it be that Soviet Russia was what kept the USA free? That a free society excells only when there is an equally repressive society against which to compare?

      • Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @12:41PM (#10622435)
        Maybe this is what happens when The Red Terror collapses. Could it be that Soviet Russia was what kept the USA free?

        Jorge Luis Borges has a provocative quote: "One inevitably comes to resemble one's enemies."

        I think that fear of the USSR actually led us to become more like the Soviet Union. Likewise, fear of the terrorists has led us to become more like them. I don't think the United States is the moral equivalent of al Qaeda, but I think that our religious zealotry, our killing of thousands of civilians, our brutal treatment of captives, and refusal to abide by international law- even our own laws- have headed us in that direction. Perhaps this will help us win a few battles here and there, but will it win the war if the world no longer respects us? Even if it does win the war, what does it win us, if America loses many of the values that made it worth fighting for? What does it profit America to gain the whole world, and lose its soul?

    • Why is privacy important? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pavon ( 30274 )
      We here are slashdot are very sensitive about the right to privacy, but it seems that many others in the country are not. They don't seem to see the problem with these bills, thinking "it will make me safer" and "I'm not doing anything wrong, so what do I have to hide". Typically when people do try to argue for it they invoke scary images of 1984 and evil shadowing totalitarian government, and the general public tends to respond to this by brushing them off as a bunch of conspiracy theorist loons. I must ad

  • I wish... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 25, 2004 @07:59AM (#10619797)
    I wish you could mod bills -1, Flamebait.

    • You can. Call or write [senate.gov] your Senators, tell them you're a constituent (and a voter, if applicable), and express your approval or disapproval of bills you like or dislike. Enough noise from the unwashed can get a bill killed, just like Uma Thurman did [imdb.com].

      • Re:I wish... (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You can. Call or write your Senators

        You are assuming that I am a USA citizen. I am not. Unfortunately, the USA turning into a police state affects the whole world, not just USA citizens.

  • Scare out the vote? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by redelm ( 54142 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @08:02AM (#10619816) Homepage
    This definitely sounds like electioneering. One thing reasonably certain -- with House & Senate bills so different (in length if nothing else), even if passed, both will have to go to a rather lengthy Conference Committee before they could be signed into law and struck down 4 years later by the USSC.

  • Just so everyone knows (Score:4, Funny)

    by BaldGhoti ( 265981 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @08:03AM (#10619820) Homepage
    They used the phrase "in Soviet Russia" in the writeup.

    That means you don't need to mention it here in the comments section.

  • Fascy - Mr. Bush's Politics Assistant (Score:5, Funny)

    by karnat10 ( 607738 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @08:04AM (#10619823)

    It looks like you're building a fascist police state. Do you want me to...
    • propose a casus belli?
    • alienate your allies?
    • edit civil rights?
    • enable judge dependencies?
    • launch election commander?
    • build a concentration camp?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) *
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Fascy - Mr. Bush's Politics Assistant (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @10:49AM (#10621279)
      Except we're talking about John McCain here. You know, one of the front-runners that ran against Bush in the '00 Republican primaries? The only Republican right-wing crazies hate?

      It's time people realize that the biggest threats to civil liberties in the US doesn't come from the White House but from the domed building down the street. Don't forget that Congress is still full of most of the people that were around to vote in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act.

  • the challenge (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chatooya ( 718043 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @08:13AM (#10619880)
    The challenge when bills like this are proposed it to come to where the proponents are, rather than setting up a civil liberties versus safety showdown. To oppose this, we need to frame the argument in ways that relate to the safety concerns that are driving the bill-- otherwise, people will always pick safety over some seemingly paranoid and vague worry about big brother. The case needs to be made that this restricts freedom, which is the goal of the terrorists, and that it will not increase safety, which probably could be easily demonstrated by analyzing previous attacks and whether or not this type of checkpoint would be able to head them off.

    - - - - - -
    The Regular [theregular.org] - slashdot for politics (news for wonks)

  • As oposed to... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by _LORAX_ ( 4790 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @08:19AM (#10619921) Homepage
    Not to be the voice of reason around here, but the only thing on that list where they legally can not demand ID is the subway ( yet ). So many people alow themselves to be tracked anyways because of subway passes and credit cards. There have been rulings on almost every other location saying that the police can demand ID on planes, trins, busses, federal installations, and other sensitive areas. This does take it to a new level and I think the courts will have to decide is the 4th amendment applies when dealing with national security.

    Despite my optimism I could see something like this going either way when it comes to the courts. I could see them saying that no seasure could take place unlesss there was suspision of wrongdoing, or I could see them saying this is a very limited seasure because it's already within police ability to stop and question people and check ID's at most of these locations.

    Up till not the courts have been split on issues like this, the most recent being that you can't require protesters who have done nothing wrong to be scanned by a metal detrctors.

    • Re:As oposed to... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by exi1ed0ne ( 647852 )

      ". . . courts will have to decide is the 4th amendment applies when dealing with national security."

      Umm, last I checked I had rights. The bill of rights was not written for us, it was written for government a a list of things to keep their hands off of. There is a preamble to the bill of rights:

      . . . in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

      I have a right to be secure in my "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

      • Welcome to the real world.

        "against UNREASONABLE search and seasure" The courts have held it within their discretion to determine what constitutes unreasonable and they have often weighed the reality and safty of a large number of people over the individual. If a police officer comes up to you in the airport and demands to see your ID, don't show them and then try to argue in front of a judge that the search was unreasonable.

        It's not that I don't agree with the sentiment that you are addressing, but we h

        • Re:As oposed to... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by exi1ed0ne ( 647852 ) <[ten.stsimissep] [ta] [elixe]> on Monday October 25, 2004 @02:32PM (#10623710) Homepage

          The definition of reasonable:

          no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

          A peace officer should have probable cause for asking me for my ID. Unfortunatly "shouldn't" isn't "can't". If a police officer asks me for an ID, I respond "What is the problem, officer?" The fact that everybody else in the country seems to feel that they must obey every request put to them is one of the biggest problems in this country (USA). I do live in the real world, and I respectfully challenge situations like this whenever they present themselves. I have yet to be arrested or charged with a crime. Government officials have no business in my affairs without probable cause. Drag me away and lock me up forever, but I will not submit without atleast some effort to defend my rights.

    • All good points there, except the goal is apparently to be able to set up checkpoints NEAR these places. I'd be mostly understanding if the proposed checkpoints were for entry to the locales, but this seems very much more invasive. Imagine walking by a phone company or something and being stopped and asked to show your shiny new government-issued biometric ID because... well, no reason, you're just kind of passing by the phone company, and now that fact is sitting on some computer somewhere, recallable at a
    • So many people alow themselves to be tracked anyways because of subway passes and credit cards.

      There's a world of difference between allowing yourself to be tracked, and being required to be tracked. Freedom means you can tell people where you are, and freedom means you can go somewhere without telling anyone that you're going there.

      If you lose that, you lose the freedom of assembly, because you no longer have the ability to come together in groups with anonymity. At this point, the freedom of democrac
  • McCain envisions erecting physical checkpoints, dubbed "screening points," near subways, ... and any other "critical infrastructure" facility deemed vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

    I know they have good sandwiches, but are they really a target for terrorist activity? I just can't see Osama Bin Laden blowing up my local Subway with a 747.

  • Someone has to say it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by skaffen42 ( 579313 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @08:32AM (#10620013)
    I for one welcome our new Department of Homeland Security overlords.

    I'd throw in a "In Soviet Union" joke as well, but I have to go and dig a hole in my garden to hide in when the guys in jackboots come for me...

  • Crazy McCain (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mintrepublic ( 821683 )
    This is the kind of thing tha keeps pushing me toward libertarian... /In Soviet Russia, (fill in yourself) //Family Guy

  • Yay for security! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tyndmyr ( 811713 ) * on Monday October 25, 2004 @08:44AM (#10620090)
    I love this bill! It makes me feel safe and happy, since now I know little billy wont be killed in the playground by terrorists.

    I didn't need those civil rights anyhow... Im sure the politicians, which are mostly nice people anyhow, except for those dirty (other party) who eat babies, wont do anything wrong with that info.

    (/sarcasm)

    • Sure, you might have some inconvenience(loss of civil liberties) now, but once we win the war on terror, I am sure we will be returned all those rights.

      Wait, you mean to tell me the war on terror is an endless battle of extremists? You mean the war cannot be won? You mean the President admitted this and doesn't believe it will end either?

      I want my civil liberties and privacy back please, Mr. Bush.

  • Open Letter from The World to The Americans (Score:5, Funny)

    by karnat10 ( 607738 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @08:56AM (#10620172)
    Dear Americans,

    we have always seen your nation and its many achievements with the highest respect. After the dreadful 9/11 attacks, we have responded with tremendous loyalty and friendship, and we were sure that one of the planet's oldest democracies would react wisely and adequately.

    However, after three years, we have come to the conclusion that your government is curtailing your rights and stealing your money. While this is a domestic issue and not of our business, your government's international behaviour is a wholly different story. International treaties have been breached. Old friends have been alienated. Fear has been spreaded. In general, we think your current administration has made the world more dangerous.

    After the breach of international law, we do not have much trust left in your country. So, dear Americans, if you wish to participate again in the international family of peoples, feel free to join us! Just get rid of that jackasses.

    Should you choose to keep your current government however, we, The World, would feel obligated to intervene. Like it should have be done after Munich 1938, your government will then be forced from power by an international coalition of the willing, to prevent further damage.

    You see, you're either with us or against us!

    Yours sincerely,
    The World
    • Like it should have be done after Munich 1938, your government will then be forced from power by an international coalition of the willing, to prevent further damage.

      I'm curious. Just how, exactly, do you propose to force our government from power?

      If your chosen technique involves military force, and does NOT involve nuclear weapons, good luck!

      Personally, I'd suggest econominc sanctions, since they have proved themselves time and again when used to remove governments the UN disapproves of.

      • The american economy is totally and completly depended on the rest of the world playing its game. Check wich countries dared to accept euros instead of dollars for their oil and what happened to them.

        If the rest of the world made a united attempt to reduce america it would happen. Not that it is ever likely to happen.

        • This is not a likely scenario. All it takes is one country to be willing to turn against the rest and accept United States favoritism to crack up the sanctions. All the other countries in Europe participating in embargoes against the US? Maybe Germany would like free grain, or steel, or timber? And in that instant, the group against the US starts to break up.
      • A Sino / Russian military alliance would EASILY defeat the US Military. Combine that with the fact of how fragmented we are in this country as it is, if a mandatory draft was ever enacted, civil war would ensue. All the "rest of the World" would have to do is supply arms and munitions to the other side, possibly some troops of there own...

        If Bush gets elected me thinks I need some training with an Assault Rifle, cause there will be War, whether it is a Civil War, or a Sino/Russian invasion (which would l
        • A Sino / Russian military alliance would EASILY defeat the US Military.

          Umm, no. A Sino/Russian military alliance couldn't even reach the USA. It takes control of the seas to put troops here, and neither of them has it.

          It also takes the ability to operate at the end of 3000+ mile (5000+ Km) supply lines. Neither of them have that, either.

          This ignoring the fact that Gulf War 1 & 2 demonstrated the inadequacy of Soviet weaponry and doctrine for use of same, vis a vis our own weapons and doctrine. A

    • You speak as "The World", but are obviously an American public high school student. No one else would have such a poor grasp of the English language.

      But to play your game: if you're so fond of the world, why don't you just move there!

      Er, um, never mind.
      • You speak as "The World", but are obviously an American public high school student.

        If I was, how could I know there exists such a thing as "The World"?

        Sorry folks, that wasn't meant personally. He started.

        Btw, I already live in The World. And fond of it, thanks.
    • Here, let me throw out some numbers: [cdi.org]

      In 2003, the U.S. military budget (not counting expenses allotted for the war in Iraq) was $399.1 billion. The two countries closest to us in spending, Russia and China, weigh in at $65 and $47 billion, respectively. The combined military spending of France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Spain in 2003 was $120.6 billion, less than a third of the US's spending.

      And these numbers don't tell the complete story. They don't tell about our our unrivalled submarin
      • And these numbers don't tell the complete story. They don't tell about our our unrivalled submarine fleet. They don't tell about our aircraft carriers and military bases across the globe. They don't tell of our air force, planes as numerous as locusts.

        There is no army in the world that can stand before our legions. There is no citadel that can withstand the hammer-blows we can bring to bear upon it. A single enemy we might ignore, to demolish later at our leisure. But if somehow -- in the face of all rea
      • It is true that Fortress America is safe from invasion. No country has anywhere near the naval fleet needed. The logistical demands alone are astounding.

        However, I forsee an economic war brewing, and in that realm we are in a world of hurt. We finance our deficit spending by printing money, which the rest of the world buys. We are now beginning to see this change. I expect to see a switch to the Euro as the default currency for trade over the next couple of years regardless of who wins the election. This w

  • Darn DC Blockbuster must be having..... (Score:3, Funny)

    by scupper ( 687418 ) * on Monday October 25, 2004 @09:22AM (#10620393) Homepage
    a marked down sale on used Minority Report DVDs. Next thing you'll see is some bill proposing funding for a project to develop precognitive abilities in drug babies.

  • USSA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pizpot ( 622748 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @09:34AM (#10620507)
    Wow, sorry to hear this news. Watching from Canada, it's sad, scary and funny. Nice how the USSA and former USSR have the same lack of privacy with total different governemt structures. And how democracy doesn't help... or we will find that out after the presidential election I guess. I vote that Canada joins the EU!!
    • Yes. Both authoritarian, both federalist, one extreme left, the other extreme right. It scares me quite a bit. I think of myself as fairly centrist economically, but quite libritarian, and quite in favor of local governments over federal governments. The current government seems to be pretty much the opposite of what I like. Kerry is not much different, unfortunately. A bit more to my liking in some areas, but still seems fairly federalist and authoritarian.
    • Watching from Canada...

      If this goes on much longer I probably be joining you...That is until the American people wake up and see that the precious gift of Freedom has been taken away from them as they have indulged in Big Macs, Fear Factor, and The West Wing. Once that happens I will gladly come back down and help in the ensuing Civil War, hopefully we can get support from the rest of the World (shouldn't be to hard, the US is already number one in the "Most Hated Nation" category).

  • Notice how much of this starts in the Senate (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @09:36AM (#10620522) Homepage
    Ever notice how many of these bills get put together in the Senate, versus the House? There's a reason why the people didn't popularly elect the Senate in the original constitution: the state legislature is better able to control a state's senators than its own people.

    What we need is to abolish the popular election of the Senate and let the state legislatures remove their senators whenever they feel they aren't doing a good job. Most of the millionaire/billionaire assholes that have been in the Senate in the past 30-50 years would probably never have gotten there if the states had control and could remove that at will for sponsoring bad legislation.

    Let's face it, the number of voters informed enough to know the parallels between the Soviet Union and Tom Ridge's proposals are few enough that they couldn't vote these guys out.
    • "What we need is to abolish the popular election of the Senate and let the state legislatures remove their senators whenever they feel they aren't doing a good job."

      [btw, there are good reasons the Constitution was changed to popular election of Senators.]

      I trust the popular vote more than I trust the kind of dorks who get elected to state office.
      Also, your proposal creates a conflict of interest for ambitious state legislators.

      If we're going to remove Senators, let it be by popular vote.
      I've long been i
    • Why don't we just put term limits on Senators? Say 2 terms(12 years)? I mean really, 12 years in the Senate is plenty of time. Why should these guys be allowed to serve longer than the President? Of course this will never happen because the career politicians would never vote to limit their careers.

      This would get rid of career politicians like Ted Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Robert Byrd, the late Strom Thurmond, and needless to say John Kerry. It would get us back to what the Framers intended - to serve for
      • Term limits are nothing but pure idiocy. Most communities who enacted them back in the early 90's are now learning to regret them.

        The Framers certainly never intended to have Senators serve in a transitory manner. The Senate was deliberately designed to be a conservative institution that would have the power to slow change in government. The framers shared a fundamental cynicism in the ability of the people to elect suitable legislators.... which is why it is very difficult for members of the House of Repr
      • *sigh*

        "What good does it do we, the people, to have these kinds of people representing us for 30 or 40 years?"

        Because we the people have chosen that man to be the best representative of our values and beliefs in the federal government, we made that choice as a majority democratic vote.

        The people want Senator X, they like and agree with him. Now, after 12 years, with a 70% approval record and noone who so accurately agrees with the populace as this Senator, you want to remove him from power. Why? The peop
    • The original intent was to have the House more subject to the "whims" of the voters, all its members having to face election every other year, while Senators, with six-year terms, would be a bit safer from having to shift according to how the political "winds" were blowing. The Senate would then be able to take a longer-term view and offset some of the volatility of the House.
      Ironically, despite having to face the voters three times as often as Senators, House members are now "safer" than Senators, beca

  • Why a travel database is useless... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zymurgy_cat ( 627260 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @09:39AM (#10620568) Homepage
    Basically, complacency. If a terrorist really wanted to accomplish some task (and let's assume he/she doesn't mind getting killed in the process), this travel database is good only for post-mortem analysis. Why? Simple, the terrorist just starts taking "regular trips" to establish a history. Once people are comfortable or consider such trips normal, the terrorist can move with near impunity. Heck, the 9/11 guys conducted test runs!

    This is simple social engineering. In my job, I service customer accounts. During my first few visits, I may get asked who I am by several people wondering if I'm where I should be. After a while, even the most security-conscious place treats my coming and going as a normal routine requiring no scrutiny. After that, I'm free to walk through almost the entire plant without question. If I wanted to, I could steal a lot of information or cause damage.

    The same applies to the travel database. If the 9/11 guys were willing to plan for years to pull off the attack, what makes anyone think they wouldn't take the time to "establish" themselves as "normal" travelers. This database, like CAPPS, won't do anything but let the government obtain information about its own citizens.

  • Defending against terror (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @10:01AM (#10620764) Homepage Journal
    I'm usually not the one to worry about the erosion of civil liberties, being somewhere to the right of Newt Gingrich, but the idea of monitoring foreign visitors is just plain stupid. My reasons may not fit with the way a typical knee-jerk slashdotter would think about it, but in no particular order, here they are.

    First, there's the manpower problem. Who does the monitoring?

    Second, how do you know who to monitor, or does everyone get checked around important places? From a practical point of view, that places undue burden on society. After all, these are supposedly the most important places, and will usually be very busy already.

    Finally, you can't monitor everyplace. What if someone starts buying tankfuls of diesel fuel and dumping them in major rivers? Or, a simple underwater mine could distrupt shipping on the Mississippi River. A concerted attack at all of the locks would be very effective, and the attacker could just drive away from most of them.

    What about the miles and miles of unprotected railways in the U.S.? Most of the time, the geniuses in charge of railroad routing put all the tank cars in a train together. Since they're all going to the same place, usually, this is an obvious thing to do. The trouble is, you have tank cars full of sulphur trioxide (or even sulfuric acid) and hydrochloric acid right next to tank cars full of anhydrous ammonia. Ever mix a liter of HCl with a liter of ammonia and take a whiff? (No, because you're still alive.) A relatively small charge can derail a train; well-placed bomb would be disastrous.

    Since it's impossible to defend against specific acts of terror, the only sensible alternative is to find and preemptively attack the organizations that sponsor and use terrorist tactics.
    • Why, we won't need manpower if we require subcutaneous RFID chips at the border. It's not just biometric, it's biowired!

      This is the kind of crapola that happens when people demand the government protect them in inappropriate ways. We wouldn't need a TSA if we armed the cockpit crew. They used to be armed... when they carried the mail for the USPS. But we've got a government (not an administration, but the whole firken system) that thinks we should protect contest notices with deadly force, but not hu
      • that thinks we should protect contest notices with deadly force, but not human passengers.

        I think the difference is that contest notices can not piss off a pilot enough to want to use deadly force, while a drunk buisness travel will do so every day.

  • Congress Is Not In Session (Score:5, Informative)

    by ec_hack ( 247907 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @10:01AM (#10620765)
    ..a new security bill coming up right before the election in November.

    Except a quick check of the calendar at http://www.congress.gov/ [congress.gov] shows that congress is not in session right now. The House has nothing on the schedule this week, and the Senate is not scheduled to convene until mid-November. Sigh. Can't journalists use the web yet?

    • True, but something more important happens in just 1 week: an election. ALL the representatives, and 1/3rd of the senators are up for election. If they see a response now, they know it is an issue. Make sure you mention that you are basing your vote on how they vote on this - that will get attention. Then vote both this election based on their promise. If they break the promise (or take the wrong side and get elected anyway), vote against them next time around.

      There is one thing congressmen fear mor

  • Following the link in the story takes me to the parent page of the gigantic bill written to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. There are dozens of amendments, and some comments above pointing me to 1017 and 3081, but I'm having trouble following the maze of links.

    Could someone link to the controversial portion please?

    • Search the congressional record for Sept 30th. Choose the senate, and then text of amendments. You are looking for pages s10082-s10087.

      http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html

  • Vote the lesser of two evils..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @11:16AM (#10621573) Homepage Journal
    and this is what you get.

  • Instead of taking away our civil liberties (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @12:41PM (#10622428)
    Why don't they concentrate on safeguarding dangerous materials?
    The plane that crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland (killing 270) was brought down with 400 grams of Semtex, an RDX-based compound.

  • Doublespeak in action (Score:3, Informative)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @02:03PM (#10623293) Homepage Journal
    http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html click senate, on sept 30th. Choose text of amendments. Look for pages s10154-s10155
    Here are some interesting excerpts:

    SEC. __01. AMENDMENTS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT RELATING TO IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) ANTIFRAUD MEASURES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS.--Section 205(c)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(G)) is amended--

    (1) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(G)'';

    (2) by striking ``banknote paper'' and inserting ``durable plastic or similar material''; and

    (3) by adding at the end the following new clauses:

    ``(ii) Each Social security card issued under this subparagraph shall include an encrypted electronic identification strip which
    shall be unique to the individual to whom the card is issued and such biometric information as is determined by the Commissioner and
    the Secretary of Homeland Security to be necessary for identifying the person to whom to the card is issued    . The Commissioner shall
    develop such electronic identification strip in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, so as to enable employers to
    use such strip in accordance with section __03(b) of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 to obtain access to the Employment
    Eligibility Database established by such Secretary pursuant to section __02 of such Act with respect to the individual to whom the card
    is issued.

    SEC. __02. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY DATABASE.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security (hereinafter in this title referred to as ``the Secretary'') shall establish
    and maintain an Employment Eligibility Database. The Database shall include data comprised of the citizenship status of individuals
    and the work and residency eligibility information (including expiration dates) with respect to individuals who are not citizens or
    nationals of the United States but are authorized to work in the United States. Such data shall include all such data maintained by
    the Department of Homeland Security as of the date of the establishment of such database and information obtained from the Commissioner
    of Social Security pursuant to section 205(c)(2)(I) of the Social Security Act. The Secretary shall maintain ongoing consultations with
    the Commissioner to ensure efficient and effective operation of the Database.

    (1) IN GENERAL.--No employer may employ an individual in the United States in any capacity if, as soon as practical after such
    individual has been hired, such individual has not been verified by the employer to have a social security card issued to such individual
    pursuant to section 205(c)(2)(G) of the Social Security Act and to be authorized to work in the United States in such capacity. Such
    verification shall be made in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary for the purposes of ensuring against fraudulent use
    of the card and accurate and prompt verification of the authorization of such individual to work in the United States in such capacity.

    (c) CRIMINAL PENALTY.--Any person who--

    (1) continues to employ an individual in the United States in any capacity who such person knows not to be authorized to work in
    the United States in such capacity, or

    (2) hires for employment any individual in the United States and fails to comply with the procedures prescribed by the Secretary
    pursuant to section __03(b) in connection with the hiring of such individual,

    [Page: S10156] GPO's PDF
    shall upon conviction be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both

    SEC. __07. USE OF CARD; RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this title or the amendments made by this title shall be construed to establish a national identification card, and it
    is the policy of the United States that the social security card shall not be used as a national identification
  • They could do so much better and without the checkpoints. All they need are a tracking chip in your passport and/or national ID card and readers embedded in entrances to transportation systems. They could make it very attractive and sell it as a "freedom pass" so you could bypass customs, immigrations, and airport security. Yeah, if they put a positive spin on it, they could get 90% of the population to approve, then the other 10% would look like we've got something to hide and get the punishment we dese

  • This is so stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Monday October 25, 2004 @05:25PM (#10625909)
    There is nothing much more than I can say than that this is so stupid.

    We've heard from conspiracy "nuts" back in the 80s and 90s warning us about this kind of thing, and what will happen. Big Brother is getting too much power.

    I seriously hope this doesn't pass.
  • "Subways"? Are they nuts? Have they ever seen a horde of hectic New Yorkers hustling to make their trains during rush hour? They can't even stop turnstile jumpers, and they're going to stop terrorists? Just blowing up a subway entrance, outside the checkpoint, in Times Square will do their dirty work. This is yet another stab at police state and its corporate welfare.

Slashdot Top Deals

Your own mileage may vary.

Close