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.
OUTGOING (Score:2, Interesting)
51596 51596
HELLO WORLD
92767 92767 35000 35000 60456 60456 36752 36752 17830 17830
64664 64664 97327 97327 46977 46977 61133 61133 17346 17346
61009 61009 73048 73048 04488 04488 14216 14216 60017 60017
14441 14441 56190 56190 63745 63745 23710 23710 72740 72740
32909 32909 37659 37659 25417 25417 81921 81921 94564 94564
09618 09618 86777 86777 35751 35751 30903 30903 36870 36870
04051 04051 45024 45024 46030 46030 52779 52779 98768 98768
38939 38939 29424 29424 95370 95370 39757 39757 76214 76214
33500 3
Re:OUTGOING - Mod parent up for cleverness (Score:4, Interesting)
A Numbers Station? (Score:3, Interesting)
HELLO WORLD -- Station identification?
51596 51596 -- One time pad?
HELLO WORLD -- Station identification?
And then the message starts.
5 numbers per group, with each group repeated once, which is very common, as well.
This has me thinking, really. Spies used to get messages like these from shortwave radio stations because shortwave can't be traced to the recipient and shortwave radios were commonplace. But shortwave radios a
Someone please explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone please explain (Score:2)
They didn't have a good response for it the first time around.
/not trolling, just tired of seeing semi-informed talking points being used as legitimate replies.
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."
Re:Someone please explain (Score:2)
This is the rhetorical question that was posed by judges on the FISA court in recent days. They don't seem to realize the importance of PR.
If your actions are made legal, there are positive PR consequences to be had!
The PATRIOT Act works (Score:5, Funny)
Next step: Instituting a federal Bear Patrol to stop these constant bear attacks [wikipedia.org]. I also hear there's a little girl who has a rock that keeps tigers away, this should also be investigated.
Re:The PATRIOT Act works (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Obligatory Simpsons quote (Score:3, Funny)
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Re:The PATRIOT Act works (Score:3, Interesting)
Terrorists seem to be a lot more dangerous than bears.
Re:The PATRIOT Act works (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the number I get from adding up the number of casualties listed, although I ignored the couple dozen assassinations, because those are, well.. assassinations. Of course, it's not (and doesn't claim to be) an exhaustive list, and some of the numbers are "at least," so we'll generously double it and say ~14,000 people died worldwide as a result of terrorism from 1961-2003.
That's about 318 per year (at double the available statistics)
In an average year, in the US alone:
360 people are struck by lightning, about 90 fatally.
120 people die in airplane crashes
776 people die from the accidental discharge of firearms
3,840 people drown
12,760 people are poisoned
15,000 people are murdered
16,250 people are killed by a fall
40,000 die in car crashes
936,923 die from heart disease
(Sources: http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm [nsc.org], http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.ht
That's not to say that we should ignore the threat of terrorism. However, the threat should be kept in perspective, and our response should be measured accordingly.
Re:The PATRIOT Act works (Score:5, Interesting)
You may be correct. But it's still one more paving stone on one very famous road...
America is referred to as the Land of the Free for a reason-our freedoms are what makes us a great nation. Not our military, not our economic strength, not our President, good or bad, not our Congressional system, not our massive land area. Our freedoms, as enshrined in the US Constitution.
The PATRIOT Act undermines those guarantees-and therefore, no matter what else is to be said about it, it is unpatriotic in the extreme. It may be done with the best of intentions, but it is still the worst of laws. In the America that I know and love, the government is the one who follows "If you've got nothing to hide, don't hide anything", and opens its workings transparently to the American people. The government has no problem following the rules set forth for it, in terms of the due process of law and the Congressional guarantee of freedom.
I will oppose anything which will destroy this America, that I love. The PATRIOT Act is one of those things-and so, regardless of good intentions, bad intentions, or simple inattention, on the part of those who pass it, I oppose it.
Re:Someone please explain (Score:3, Funny)
Then again, Bush is in the Middle East with our
Update: House Passes One Month Extension (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Someone please explain (Score:2)
But, then, a joke that needs explaining...
Re:Someone please explain (Score:4, Insightful)
They're admissible in Gitmo...
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 k
eh not really (Score:3, Informative)
NAFTA article [epinet.org]
A money quote from above article:
"In addition, NAFTA included unprecedented guarantees to protect the value of corporate investments and even the rights to earn profits in the future arising out of changes in government regulations or policy. In particular, NAFTA created specific clauses that provide for compensation for lost investments and loss of future profits due to regulations that ar
Win a little - lose a little (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Democracy In Action and Inaction (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually MOST congressional districts are so gerrymandered that very few of the seats are actually seriously contested in each election. The districts have been drawn so that the party that did the gerrymandering pretty
Clarification on electoral college (Score:5, Informative)
"President is only voted for by the Electoral College, any member of whom can vote for anybody they want."
is substantially incorrect. It's much closer to your next sentence about the "all-or-none nature of each state" - 29 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia have what are called "Faithless Elector" laws, in which an elector is required by state law, and is in violation of that law, if they do not vote for the majority candidate for the state.
Further, there is no provision for apportioning electors between multiple candidates - these laws are in fact "majority rule", where all electoral votes go to a signle candidate based on the state popular vote.
Several states impose fines on electors who violate these laws, and one, New Mexico, treats it as a 4th degree felony (the penalty for a felony includes stripping certain rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in future elections, until and unless the felon is pardoned or the stripped rights are otherwise restored by an act of government).
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/elect/Elector
Also, your statement:
"And the electoral college came about becuase they decided that stupid people shouldn't vote and that an intelligent person should represent their overall preference."
Isn't really that correct, although that was the rationalization used to sell the idea to the Federalists. The actual explanation has more to do with voing technology and communications delays than a plot to disenfranchise "the unwashed masses". It would have been nearly impossible, in the early days of the Republic, to communicate results from polling places to the county seat, and then to the secretary of state, and then to Washington, in under some number of months, effectively leaving us without a rubber-stamped government for large stretches of time following each election.
-- Terry
consumption and economic growth (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.
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.
Re:...a win for America's safety and security... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm going to quote an old post [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]
With an attitude like that you're qualified to moderate slashdot.
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.
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:It will be extended only to a certain extent (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:It will be extended only to a certain extent (Score:2)
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The current government has no plan to EVER give up the these powers.
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah!!! (Score:2)
Agh (Score:3, Insightful)
Not 1984 (Score:2)
/tinfoil tv cover
And thank God we don't have mandatory morning calisthenics.
Half the
/. UID 1984 (Score:2)
Why is a warrant needed? (Score:2, Interesting)
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:Other presidents have done the same thing... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610
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 tha
Re:Why is a warrant needed? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why is a warrant needed? (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton and Carter created Executive Orders PURSUANT to FISA - which FOBIDS spying on US citizens. The executive orders that Clinton and Carter create were nothing more than a list of delegates (in his cabinet) who can use FISA powers.
NO WHERE in ANY ONE of those Executive Orders or FISA about search US citizens without warrants (in fact, it is specifically prohibited).
Why don't you research something on your own instead of repeating what Rush and Fox News says? ...Idiot
Re:Why is a warrant needed? (Score:3, Informative)
Bush authorized taps on international calls. There is no wholesale wiretapping of citizens.
Wow, such monumental ignorance is hard to rebutt, but I will try. First, FISA specifically states that the govt has freedom to wire tap ANY electronic transmissions that happens inside or outside our borders. However, it also states CLEARLY that if a US citizen is involved in that communication, you MUST GET A WARRANT.
Bush
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: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: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.
Re:Why is a warrant needed? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is a warrant needed? (Score:2, Troll)
Take a look at this: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610
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 t
Re:Why is a warrant needed? (Score:4, Informative)
Clinton was arguing that since FISA allowed warrant-less wire tapping for FOREIGN AGENTS, the president should be able to do the same for physical searches - for FOREIGN AGENTS! (FISA was later amended to include this)
FISA specifically outlaws wireless taps on US citizens without warrants. What part of US Citizen do you not understand?
Nobody is criticizing Bush for wire tapping Bin Laden without warrants. Everybody is PISSED because he did that on US Citizens and BROKE THE LAW he is supposed to protect!
Extending our Freedom to be Safe? Or Spyed on? (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, this doesn't guarantee it will pass. One of the provisions I agree with is the one that eliminates barriers to intelligence agents and prosecutors sharing information. This act has already infringed on many peoples freedom, but has also opened up the government to be more scrutinous in the case of certain suspicious entities. Has it overall had a positive or negative effect? Since we as the general public cannot easily gauge what information they have collected entirely as a result, who can say for sure.
For those interested in the provisions the House passed, this site explains most of them in plain english LA Times Provisions [latimes.com]
This site has the latest in how the patriot act [epic.org] currently stands.
and anybody who disagrees with the Patriot Act... (Score:3, Funny)
I guess- (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I guess- (Score:2)
Re:I guess- (Score:2)
Re:I guess- (Score:3, Insightful)
Since it wouldn't be a law, it wouldn't continue Fristing my future children.
Now is the time! (Score:5, Informative)
Write, phone, email your Representatives and Senators - and ask them to knock down at least some of the more onerous provisions of the Patriot Act - I'm thinking of provisions like the one allowing secret warrants, for example.
Many of them will be back in their districts for the holidays. Visit their offices and talk politely with their staff. Inform yourselves of the Act's details, and make to-the-point suggestions.
Exercise democracy. The Act is vulnerable at this moment.
Re:Now is the time! (Score:3, Funny)
You have been reported to the Dept of Homeland Security for scurrilous and subversive talk about the Patriot Act. Turn yourself in. We know where you live.
Brought to you by the Government of the United States, keeping it's citizens safe from democracy for over 200 years.
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.
The Beatles said it best: Back in the USSA! (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, if the Iron Curtain was so much fun 1960s, well... the USSA can be fun, too.
With apologies to the Beatles...
Oh, flew into Miami Beach econo-class,
Didn't get to bed last night,
TSA guy's rubber glove still up my ass,
Man I had a dreadful flight,
I'm back in the USSA!
They're watchin' you every day, hey,
Back in the USSA!
Been away so long I hardly knew the place,
Gee it's good to be back home,
Leave it till tomorrow to unpack my case,
Honey disconnect the phone,
I'm back in the USSA.
They're watchin' you every day, hey,
Back in the US,
More flak in the US,
No slack in the USSA!
Well the Midwest girls really knock me out
They leave Moscow behind
And DC girls make me sing and shout
'Cuz Washington is always on my mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mi-mind!
Oh, they're sayin' it's for reasons of security,
Naw, it ain't no politics,
And now they've redefined the meaning of "be free",
To shiny boots and big nightsticks!
We're back in the USSA!
They're watchin' you every day, hey,
Back in the USSA!
Oh let me tell you, honey! (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Oh, show me around your desert wastelands way down south,
Hire Chicanos for your farm,
Let me hear your patriotic acts ring out,
Shock and awe your comrades warm!
I'm back in the USSA!
They're watchin' you every day, hey,
Back in the USSA!
Oh let me tell you, honey! (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Hey, I'm back! (Ooh ooh ooh!)
I'm back in the USSA. (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Yes, I'm free! (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Yeah, back in the USSA.. (Ooh ooh ooh!)
Spelling bee (Score:2, Funny)
Almost as bad as the guy that posted "czech this out" on the front page.
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:Better than nothing... (Score:2)
It comes naturally to him.
Re:Better than nothing... (Score:2)
Thanks, but I was dissatisfied before 9-11, and I he'd completely lost my support well before we were ever in Iraq.
Maybe next time you can cut the sarcasm long enough to actually find a target that's worth it.
House voted for original renewal, not extension (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently the bill still needs to go to the House, as the House originally voted for it to be renewed in it's original form, not an extension. According to that article, because it's different than what the House voted to pass, it has to go up for another vote.
It was also pointed out that the House is scheduled to be in recess until January 31, a month after the original provisions will expire and be off the books--and it's hard to extend something that is already expired (although I wouldn't put anything past this administration--I'll be so glad when W is out of office!)
In my not-so-educated opinion, it would appear that given what little I know, the extension doesn't stand much chance of passing since a recessed House would have to reconvene, debate, and vote on the changes, in less than nine days, during the holiday season.
Re:House voted for original renewal, not extension (Score:2)
Palpatine anyone? (Score:2, Funny)
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.
can someone provide an example? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:can someone provide an example? (Score:5, Informative)
Search Google for "patriot act pufferbelly toy store" for lots of entertaining details.
P.S. -- The Magic Cube was a properly licensed toy. Even if this WAS in the purvue of the Dept of Homeland Security, they were wrong. Something that would have come up in a normal "cease and desist" law case.
-Charles
Re:can someone provide an example? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/1441 [2600.com] [Photographing the VPs entourage at a public hotel]
http://reviewjournal.printthis.clickability.com/p
-Charles
Which Countries Are Upholding Their Civil Rights? (Score:2)
I will not leave.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Often overlooked (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Votes database (Score:3, Interesting)
Here [washingtonpost.com], for instance, is the House vote mentioned in this Slashdot blurb.
Disclaimer: I'm the Web developer who worked on this database.
Dems Cave in Again (Score:3, Interesting)
The Senate Democrats showed themselves to be toothless watchdogs when they joined the 98-1 vote in favor of the original Patriot Act. It was later disclosed that most Senators joining in the vote didn't even read the legislation. And they slavishly voted in favor of the resolutions leading to the Iraq war with just as little questioning of the administration (with a very small number of honorable exceptions). Later, they trot out lame excuses: that they were deceived, they didn't know what they were voting for, they were just supporting the president in time of need, etc. This is what is wrong with the Democratic Party. They'll whine a litte, try to mitigate some effects, but they're part of the same rotten system, and are part of a herd mentality that afflicts the entire power elite in Washington. If the Republicans adovated the genocide of ten million, the Dems would offer a counter-proposal of five million, and fret about getting a Presidential assurance that only humane killing methods would be used.
They don't WANT the soap on a rope.
This is what the Democrats wanted! (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I think they mean... (Score:2)
Re:I think they mean... (Score:3, Funny)
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
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.
Re:6months is not enough time (Score:3, Informative)
I suggest you visit this site [infoplease.com] and familiarize yourself with the event in question.
From the site (emphasis mine):
Re:6months is not enough time (Score:2)
And how has he done that? I don't see any police hanging around my neighborhood. No one's checking my papers. No one's stopping me and asking me where I'm going. No one's tapping my phone because I'm a) not calling overseas to countries that might harbou
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.
Re:6months is not enough time (Score:2)
I imagined it, and a lot of other people did as well. We were quashed right out of public discourse, the corporate controlled mass media completely suppressed all dissent until sometime around mid 2004.
Re:6months is not enough time (Score:2)
Vast majority of Patriot Act is permanent. Only few fringe statues are in play here. Even with those, majority of them have bi-partisan support (sad, but true).
We are only talking about 2 or 3 provisions being RENEWED with added safeguards.
NO ONE is talking about getting rid of the Act all together.
Re:PATRIOT act mythology (Score:2)
Re:PATRIOT act mythology (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.devshed.com/showblog/1305/PATRIOT-Act-
Mod Parent (-1, Moron) (Score:2, Insightful)
The point of the matter is - some provisions violate the 4th and 5t
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:PATRIOT act mythology (Score:3, Interesting)
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.