Patriot Act Author Introduces Bill To Limit Use of Patriot Act 189
wjcofkc writes "In an ironic but welcome twist, the author of the Patriot Act, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is introducing the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill specifically aimed at countering the portions of the Patriot Act that were interpreted to let the NSA collect telephone metadata in bulk. The congressman has been a vocal opponent of the NSA's interpretation and misuse of the Patriot Act since Edward Snowden first leaked evidence of the program in June. On Wednesday, he wrote (PDF) to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that the 'collection of a wide array of data on innocent Americans has led to serious questions about how government will use — or misuse — such information.'"
shoulda got it right the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's betting that it will take much longer to get the anti-PATRIOT passed than the eyeblink it took to get the PATRIOT passed. I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting out all the incumbents.
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent +1 Delusional for ever thinking Obama didn't love the Patriot Act. The man jerks off to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The author of this bill loves it too.
>>> countering the portions of the Patriot Act that were interpreted to let the NSA collect telephone metadata in bulk
Way to distract people by focusing on some archaic legacy communication tool.
Now if his new bill would ban them from mining Google and Tor, you'd be getting somewhere.
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:5, Informative)
This is a third party doctrine issue. The 3PD conflates "perfect secrecy" with "reasonable expectation of privacy". The 3PD is the rule that if you share info w/ a third party, even if that party promises you confidentiality, and even if they never actually breach your confidence, then the Feds can just have the data because the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at all (you have no reasonable expectation of privacy). Even Justice Sotomayer is starting to think that the 3PD is outdated. See her concurrence, specifically, the paragraph starting at PDF page 19: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf [cornell.edu]
If the 3PD disappeared, all of this stuff would have to go through a 4th amendment analysis and a third grader could demonstrate it fails to comply. The only reason Section 215 of PATRIOT Act has the effect it has, and all of these programs are "legal" -- is the 3PD. Take that away, and it's all unconstitutional. Fail to address the 3PD, and any proposed reform is fig leaf.
As for Irony, the Feds are hell bent on getting Snowden, but if the rules that apply to people applied to it, it would have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents he released because the Feds shared that info with a third party, namely, Booz Allen Hamilton.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent +1 Delusional for ever thinking Obama didn't love the Patriot Act. The man jerks off to it.
How inconvenient for you must be that fact that in 2005 then-Senator Obama was one of the few who voted against extending the wiretap provisions of The Patriot Act. This, shortly after the abuses of those provisions had first come to light.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how they're all for freedom and following the constitution to the letter when there's a good chance the'll be unelectable in the next election, but they're willing to sell privacy and public rights to the highest bidder when they're the ones in power.
What do you think Obamacare is? Intrusive? Massive power grab? Enforced by the IRS? Plenty of other bad things?
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you think Social Security is? Intrusive? Massive power grab? Enforced by the SSA? Plenty of other bad things?
Seriously, the biggest complaint Republicans seem to have is they (1) offered Obamacare as an alterative to Universal Health Care, (2) figured Democrats would never support, and (3) are finally upset that Obamacare passed because (a) they can't claim they made it, (b) can't get behind it working because it goes against their "government can't do anything right" mantra, and (c) never really wanted people to have any sort of decent health care coverage because to actually deliver on anything good would basically cut off their ability to whine about it.
I mean, fuck, the whole Government Shutdown is *precisely* what the Republican mantra is--to cut off non-essential spending. So, why exactly are Republicans bothering with any sort of effort to fix the problem? Because as long as they act upset, they can whine and cry about the big, mean Democrats. Oh, and let's not forget, the very mantra they support if followed through would put said Republicans out of a job, especially if they realized how unnecessary they are. Non-essential, indeed.
Re: shoulda got it right the first time (Score:2)
the whole Government Shutdown is *precisely* what the Republican mantra is--to cut off non-essential spending.
Which is why I don't understand why one of the first bills they passed (unanimously even) was to guarantee backpay for all of the Federal workers which negates any possible savings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Heritage repudiated that plan long ago after rethinking it. They determined it was a bad idea. You should give them credit for being able to do so.
ObamaCare's Heritage [wsj.com]
In that 11th Circuit appeal, which is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department cited Heritage as an authority in support of its position. Heritage responded with an amicus brief explaining that its view had changed:
If citations to policy papers were subject to the same rules as legal citations, then the Heritage position quoted by the Department of Justice would have a red flag indicating it had been reversed. . . . Heritage has stopped supporting any insurance mandate.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage's legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Agreed, You know the only reason this is being introduced now is because the republican approval rating is circling the drain."
The Republican approval rating? You gotta be kidding!
According to a poll by Wasingtong Times the other day, all of Congress gets just a 5% approval rating (the lowest I have ever seen), while Obama's approval rating was also at a record low (37%).
Don't get me wrong; no doubt Republican approval rating IS down. But so is that of the Democrats... and which one is fighting hardest to go down the drain first is pretty much up in the air.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean SERIOUSLY? "Troll" for saying BOTH the Republicans and Democrats are sucking eggs right now? When polls show it to be true?
I have deserved a "troll" mod once in a great while, but this ain't one of those times.
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn. [kicks-ass.net]
Maybe it's for claiming that a 5% rating is in the same boat as one seven times higher, or for citing the right wing Republican rag, the Moonie Times. Which is about as credible as citing the right wing Democratic rag, DailyKos.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes Congress less popular than cockroaches, the U.S. going communist, BP during the oil spill, Paris Hilton, Nixon, and on and on.
They can't possibly really think they are doing a good job representing the people.
Re:Are you daft? (Score:4, Insightful)
He tried to close Guantanamo Bay - he signed the fucking executive order - and Congress moved to defund the effort.
if the president can kidnap, shoot people from the sky and start "conflicts" without asking the congress but can't close an internationally illegal domestically-loopholed prison camp that's fucking expensive to run... then something is pretty fucked up.
(he could have done it, but they would still be stuck with the problem of what to do with people they imprisoned with flimsy evidence and can't send anywhere, and most definitely don't want to send them to usa..)
Re: (Score:2)
Voting out all the incumbents.
We could call it 10/12...
Re: (Score:3)
No, voting out the Republicans.
Funny the democrats had no problem approving of it when it was up for renewal. It made it through the democrat dominated senate and was signed by a democratic president a few years ago. both parties are just as happy to screw over the people if you don't see that your either ignorant or stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Well wonder no more. It would be someone at the NSA using the illegally collected data to embarrass a congresscritter from each party. The most effective release would be adultery particularly if it involves some form of "deviant" sexuality. Think along the lines of propositioning a transsexual for sex. Other big winners are use of illegal drugs or sex with a minor.
In fact I pray the next "snowden" does just that.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's betting that it will take much longer to get the anti-PATRIOT passed than the eyeblink it took to get the PATRIOT passed. I wonder what the opposite of a 9/11 is to get government to act so swiftly?
Put all politicians, lobbyists, banksters, major corporate players in prison (like they did in Iceland) , cancel all debts and start over. Ventura and Stern '16.
Re: (Score:2)
Still yet, if he were in earshot, " Thanks for nothing , fuckbrains, hindsight somewhere around 20/40, eh?"
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:4, Insightful)
The government acted to quickly with PATRIOT
When in reality, they shouldn't have acted much at all.
but that's how the Government always acts.
No, it isn't. Almost without exception, they always act that quickly only when they stand to gain more power, and in those cases, we usually always lose some of our individual liberties.
It's doubtful people could have forseen that, and now they're trying to correct it.
"doubtful"? Are you kidding me? The PATRIOT ACT included so many provisions that violated people's freedoms and gave the government so much power that there is no way people did not foresee this. Your problem is that you are naive enough to give the government the benefit of the doubt; they deserve no such thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Your problem is that you are naive enough to give the government the benefit of the doubt; they deserve no such thing.
I would argue this is entirely why we went to war with Iraq. If enough people hadn't said, "I'm not sure, but he's our president so I'll trust him......" then we wouldn't have gone.
Re: (Score:2)
The American population HAS brought an end to a war before.
The war was in Viet Nam. A combination of popular disapproval and revelations such as were provided by "the Pentagon Papers" did the trick.
And at that, it took years. What they didn't do was prevent it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Armor the cockpit bulkheads. 2) create separate door for pilot entry. 3) no connection to passenger space. 4) only communication from passenger space is a large red button marked "pressing this button requests pilots to land at nearest medical facility."
That's it. No need to screw US civil rights or plane travel or write a PATRIOT act or anything. The PROBLEM was terrorists -- organized criminals -- using aircraft as directed kine
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, the lack of connection to passenger space is a bad idea:
1. Pilots need to use the restroom. I have seen a flight attendant take the pilot's place briefly in order to facilitate this (it would suck if the copoilot has a heart attack while the pilot is in the can and no one can open the door). A bathroom up front would be needed.
2. On longer flights pilots need to eat. Having redundant cooking facilities for two guys up front would waste valuable weight. If you require pilots to eat lousy food you are
Re: (Score:2)
Resolving all of this is trivial compared to the TRILLIONS of dollars wasted on the congressional and judicial stupidity that is the patriot act, the wars, and all the side effects. You're not looking at the big picture.
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm one of those "Security isn't worth it if it causes us to lose some of our individual liberties."
That was what was ironic to me. George W Bush said "They hate our freedom." so what do we do? We turned right around and reduced our freedom with things like the PATRIOT Act. Maybe they don't hate us quite as much now.
Re: shoulda got it right the first time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bin Laden's demand was that the US remove all troops from certain Middle Eastern countries, not that the US convert to Islam.
Re:shoulda got it right the first time (Score:4, Informative)
Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' [theguardian.com]
(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just rhetoric, to get the masses to follow. In reality, Bin Laden wanted the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. He was combining Muslim malcontent with the U.S., and especially religious zeal, to his own ends. And while merely being malcontent would make people wish to act, zeal causes people to act without thinking. The zealous will kill themselves for their cause if they believe their actions will gain them entry into paradise for their afterlife.
Re: (Score:2)
I left off the tags on my last sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
That should be the "sarcasm" tags.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter. The Patriot Act had little effect on the freedom of individual Americans, and they still hate us and our freedoms either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Obamacare will have a bigger effect on freedom than the Patriot Act.
No. The two aren't even in the same league. I'm not even going to bother refuting you. If you won't stop ruining America, then just kill yourself, you worthless fascist. Being forced to buy insurance (though not good) is no where near being spied on or being sent to prison for saying something the government thinks is scary. The oppressive techniques of the socialism you so thoroughly fear was not done by drowning people in paperwork, it was implemented with soldiers on the ground, shooting ``subversives''
Re: (Score:2)
That made me turn my back on the US after a year and return to Europe, here at least I can choose the country and the pol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have seen our gov lying to us about EVERYTHING ever since Vietnam, at least.
There is no clearer way of telling a former partner in a positive sum game that you are opting out of that game, are going zero- or negative-sum, than starting to lie to them.
Our gov is not on our side any longer, just the opposite.
"Remember the Maine!"
Sanity (Score:4, Insightful)
Government isn't bad. Bad government is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Government is bad government.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but tools given to one are (ab-)usable by the other.
Tell that to the NRA :)
Re: (Score:2)
And for the love of god, put election boundaries in the control of an independent authority?
(Here in NZ, the electoral boundaries are controlled based on sheer population, as determined using results of the census and implemented by the independent Electoral Commission, which even has the power to prosecute the government for violating electoral law).
Re: (Score:2)
And how do they do that squishing? By being evil.
Guess we'll see where Obama really stands... (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, but we already do, don't we?
In favor of bigger, "better", more-overweening government.
Can't be done (Score:5, Funny)
As has been pointed out to us in the last three weeks by the GOP, you can't simply "correct" what's wrong with a law, you have to repeal it ENTIRELY. Nothing short of that is acceptable. Even if there are things that are useful, the whole bathtub must be thrown out because to simply change the parts which are not working would be to admit that the Law isn't the end of civilization as we know it.
I'm with the GOP - repeal it entirely or I'll hold my breath until I pass out. Or something like that.
Re:Can't be done (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if there are things that are useful, the whole bathtub must be thrown out because to simply change the parts which are not working would be to admit that the Law isn't the end of civilization as we know it.
The entire law is actually garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there are things that are useful, the whole bathtub must be thrown out because to simply change the parts which are not working would be to admit that the Law isn't the end of civilization as we know it.
The entire law is actually garbage.
Especially the part getting rid of preexisting conditions. We need those or else insurance will have to actually pay bills.
Common sense does not apply (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the mess we have put ourselves in in the last 30 years. Bad laws are not repealed, and due to case law limitations they are nearly impossible to repeal. By our own insane laws, the only way to fix things is to pass laws which modify law.
If you think this is crazy you are not alone. A Lawyer would probably spit nails at this, but the corruption we see in Government has also been happening in Law. Except that in Law it has been happing for much longer. The corrupted Government could never have become so entrenched in a clean legal system.
We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits. We also need to get rid of numerous corrupt judges and justices, and start doing what you suggest in repealing laws. One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.
Re:Common sense does not apply (Score:4, Informative)
One of the first should be the ruling that allowed case law to take precedence over legal matters.
Case law is what determines the current valid meaning of the written laws, as precedent. Get rid of case law, and all the clarity of modern law disappears. Goodbye, privacy. Free speech? Well that still probably applies to things you say, but nothing written online... or maybe it's just going to cover the use of your wine press. After all, it was Supreme Court cases that established our current interpretations of these basic laws. "Freedom of speech, or of the press", as written, really only covered printed documents and verbal speech, and the "unreasonable searches" in the Fourth Amendment meant physically going through a person's personal effects.
Without the baseline of case law, the vague written law is no help in determining what's legal or not. You could be arrested for anything, and it must go to court for a judge to decide. Older similar cases can't be used as precedent, so the prosecutor could argue any crazy theory he wants, and know that he'll be able to at least present evidence... but evidence standards are based in case law, too, so the judge has no reason to reject evidence that, for example, showed up at the police station's door with a note saying it came from your car. Let's hope the jury is on your side, but since you're defending yourself against someone who's well-trained in the art of convincing people to believe a story (because, without case law, that's the prosecutor's whole job), your acquittal is unlikely.
Sure, getting rid of case law would make the written law easier to understand, but practically useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Case law is what determines the current valid meaning of the written laws, as precedent. Get rid of case law, and all the clarity of modern law disappears.
No it doesn't. Case law allows the presentation of a similar case to make ruling without addressing the merits of the current case. The wording of a law is what defines that Law, or at lest what is supposed to define the law. Case Law allows the courts to not make decisions, it allows them to use similar enough previously decided cases to determine every aspect of a current case (without accountability for previous rulings right or wrong, hearing the current case and evidence, etc..).
On the surface, this
Re: (Score:2)
cases have been ruled previously that claim "you can't repeal this law".
[citation needed]
The legislature handles repealing laws, and the legislative branch isn't subject to precedent from the judicial branch at all.
What you seem to be confusing it with is a judge finding a law unconstitutional, which is a totally different matter from repeal. A judge may indeed choose to rule on whether a law is itself wrong, but that is a separate matter from the "merits of the case". Depending on the jurisdiction, it sometimes can only happen in the appellate court, which is restricted to mat
Re: (Score:3)
By our own insane laws, the only way to fix things is to pass laws which modify law.
Nothing in our laws prohibits repealing laws, and it is done all the time.
There is nothing in Case Law that holds any sway over the actions of Congress.
Of course, if a president who ran on a platform opposing the Patriot act hadn't switched his position once elected it would be a lot easier to get a majority in Congress. Is there even one person who doesn't believe both parties would rush to repeal the Patriot act IN TOTAL the minute the president asked them to?
Anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
We need to do much more than can the politicians and establish term limits.
The thing is, term limits would make repealing laws much easier. The problem right now is that repealing a law which was passed by someone who is still sitting is tantamount to admitting a mistake, something a politician is loath to do. Once all of the people who passed the law in the first place are out of office it becomes much easier to get rid of it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering how much Obama railed against the Patriot act when he was in Congress, you would think he would have made that a priority in his first two years as President. With a solid Democrat majority, he could have amended or done away with it. Yet, he and Democrats did nothing. Which should be the first clue that both Democrats and Republicans are beholden to the very large and very powerful bureaucracy. It is nearly impossible to reduce the size and spending of government.
The system is going to have
Re: (Score:2)
Well, remember how the Soviet Union went down? They went banncrupt due to their enormous military spendings. That hap[ppened to every large empire that has not been conquered by an enemy. The same is happening to the USA now. In a few decades the US empire will probably collapse as well. I hope for the sake of its population that the US remnant will not start another civil war to keep the parts that declare independence under their rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it's almost certain they'll declare war on secessionist. At least the first one or two, anyway, until they are so broke they can't pay the military and generals start selling black market weapons on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it's almost certain they'll declare war on secessionist.
Puhleeze, can you show me precedence for something like that?
Re: (Score:2)
There were many reasons for that, military spending was just a small part of it.
Re:Can't be done (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you give Obama too much credit. He saw how to exploit this just like he saw how to exploit the IRS [dailycaller.com] and use it against his political enemies. Obama railed against raising the debt limit when he was senator calling it unpatriotic [youtu.be] and now he insists on no negotiations to lower the deficit as a condition to raising the debt limit. (yes, I know that is a political add, but it has Obama's own voice in it).
Despite amending or doing away with it, Obama could also through legitimate power as the head of the executive, ensure that US agencies used the power the Patriot Act gave the government in ways that we would not be concerned with today. Instead, he used that same power to expand the surveillance and even justify that expansion through the Patriot act.
He and the democrats did nothing because they saw it as a way to increase their power and objectives. They took the ball and ran because they wanted to. If you look at how Obama was elected to senator, you would see that It has nothing to do with being beholden to anything other then their ideology. The entire Obamacare debacle proves this. Harry Reid himself called the medical device tax a stupid tax [realclearpolitics.com] yet he refuses to consider anything to repeal it or any changes to the Affordable Care Act out of ideological persistence.
Yet, I have no problems with believing either side will attempt to be against the other side when they are in power. It's all ideology if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans complaining about the deficit is rich considering that the last 2 Democratic presidents got it down to zero only to have the succeeding Republican blow it back up again.
Obama already has the deficit falling again.
I'm not particularly happy with either party, but The Ds seem marginally better than the Rs, much like the flu is better than west nile.
Re: (Score:2)
I never mentioned any IRS "scandal". I say the administration exploited the IRS and use it against his political enemies. If you think that is a scandal, it says much more about what you think about it than what I do.
I can understand why you chose to reply AC instead of logging in to a psudo anonymous identify that could follow you around a bit. Everyone who reads your "I don't want to believe something so I won't read it- insert ad hominem" diatribe is more stupid then any other time in their life during t
Re: (Score:2)
And saying you're repeating debunked right wing BS that's been a Zombie Lie for months. Hint: groups on both the left and the right were scrutinized - as they should be to prevent corruption and slush money - and in fact the only group to be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one.
While you wingers are running around making up stupid bullshit, Obama's getting away with literal (drone) murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't be done (Score:5, Insightful)
In June 2013 67 Democratic and 214 Republican Senators and Representatives voted for the most recent reauthorisation of the Patriot Act. The GOP doesn't seem to want it repealed going by those numbers. Maybe you should push to get more Democrats elected instead.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the law of the land now. To repeal or alter it will take a vote in the Legislature comprising majorities in favour in both the House and the Senate plus a signature by the President. There are complications in that process (supermajority for cloture required in the Senate, possible veto by the President, possible override of any veto by Congress etc.) but that's how it's done in the US, as prescribed by the Constitution. Electing more and better legislators who would vote to repeal or modify the law is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Going by the votes on the Act over the past few years if you want to work to elect candidates who might do your will then supporting the Democratic Party is probably your best choice.
Both parties have shown that they hate freedom, so voting for either Republicans or Democrats is simply inadvisable.
Re: (Score:2)
Or: just let it expire rather than constantly re-authorizing it. Then either the House, the Senate, or the White House call kill it, barring a veto override.
Re:Yes, cause apathy wins elections! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh no wait, it's Green party fucks, right? Or Libertarians? Or [insert a worthless third party here].
It's whichever third party you agree with. Republicans and Democrats have had their chance, and they've shown that they both despise freedom.
The thing created turned on its creator (Score:3, Insightful)
The retardlicans created the patriot act so they could do "this and that," but now that the dummycrats have been using it, the rerardlicans think its bad.
Now, sit back and realize the people making all of these decisions are your elected officials.
Re:The thing created turned on its creator (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I couldn't keep a straight face either.
Re:The thing created turned on its creator (Score:4, Insightful)
Or perhaps someone independent of his/her political affiliations believes this will truly improve things for America and its citizens?
Obviously improving things for the US and its citizens would never be a Congressman's motivation, however, it is rather refreshing that a politician is doing something to brownnose his constituents rather than brownnosing corporate campaign contributors.
Pandora's Box (Score:3, Interesting)
When Obama vetoes this (Score:5, Insightful)
When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:When Obama vetoes this (Score:5, Insightful)
When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?
Yes. Bush was the one who got it passed. He was the one who lied to us about what he would do with it. Obama is simply working with what Bush left him. He wouldn't lie to us the way Bush did. He told us he would end warrantless wiretapping, he told us he would close Gitmo, he told us he would bring the troops home from the Middle East. What? Gitmo is still open and torturing people without due process? The NSA is tapping everything without due process? Troop levels in Afghanistan have more than tripled since he took office? Nevermind.
Re: (Score:3)
Totally agree with you except for Gitmo. His opponents tried to make it sound like by giving those bastards a trial and bringing them to NYC that somehow everybody was in danger, and they were gonna get off easy (in NYC yeah right). If I recall for whatever reason he doesn't have the authority to force the issue because he can't bring them to the states without congress.
That said he is a coward who did the base minimum to say he tried when people called him on it. If he had pushed back against the fear mon
Re: (Score:2)
A quick reminder that most (if not all) of the inmates claim that they are innocent, and we know for a fact that the authorities don't have enough evidence to convict most of them to the normal civil standard (or they would have just convened a court and done so). So, for one, let's remember the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty". And for two, you've got to think to what will happen if you ship these guys to New York, put them on trial, and they're acquitted and free to live their lives like normal
Re: (Score:2)
That was the charade set up when they "blocked" funds for transferring prisoners. Obama can operate vast spy programs outside of Congressional oversight (Senators learn about this stuff from the paper first) but cannot do a prisoner transfer without express legislative approval first? When he didn't need approval to start a war with Libya and claims he can do with S
Re:When Obama vetoes this (Score:4, Insightful)
When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?
The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.
Re: (Score:3)
When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?
The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.
It's not mutually exclusive. One is at fault for allowing it in the first place and the other is at fault for allowing it to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy who created it, or the guy who didn't get rid of it? Yes, it's Bush's fault for giving Obama such a nasty toy to play with.
The Patriot Act would have gone away if it hadn't been reauthorized, so no. It is all Obama at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
--Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. There's a difference betweet Sauron who forged the ring, and Frodo who didn't want to give it back after using it a while...
Re: (Score:3)
So I was trying to think about who would be Gollum in this scenario... and came up with Dick Cheney. We're doomed.
Re:When Obama vetoes this (Score:4, Insightful)
Diane Feinstein as Grima Wormtongue, Edward Snowden as Frodo and John Boehner as Jar Jar Binks.
Re: (Score:2)
When Obama vetoes this, will it still be Bush's fault?
It's a moot point. The bill will never make it to Obama, the Republicans in the House will kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
obama and dems(and repbs) already extended patriot act.
anyhow, if past act names are anything to go by then something named FREEDOM must be laced with some extreme loop holes for cuffing freedom.
stopping patriot act would have been very easy by not extending it.
What a Scam (Score:4, Insightful)
First he gets to grandstand for "protecting our freedom", then he gets to grandstand for "protecting our privacy".
Kind of like Dick Cheney: first he makes millions destroying Iraq then he makes millions rebuilding it. Then repeat.
Captcha = "bilked"
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the term is: Demagogue
The interesting thing is that the people's votes don't actually matter, you'll just get more of the same elected under a different banner. If you want to affect any political process you must be loud and obnoxious and show how foolish and corrupt your opponents are. Sadly the most high minded and rational folk think this behavior beneath them and so make poor Activists; Thus they are effectively cowed.
Do not toss red and blue tokens into the wishing well of infinite depth,
Better idea (Score:3)
Simple. Repeal the fucking thing in its entirety. Declare victory, if that's what it takes to float your boat. Then repeal it as the abomination it is. Let the rule of law return as it was. Yeah, the US wasn't a perfect garden of eden even before 9/11, but it was a hell of a lot better starting point than it is now.
Sensenbrenner Video (Score:2)
Jim Sensenbrenner spoke at the Cato Institute on October 9, 2013. Video and podcast here ...
http://www.cato.org/events/nsa-surveillance-what-we-know-what-do-about-it [cato.org]
Xzibit's summarizes (Score:2)
Creator of out-of-control killer robot (Score:2)
What a fucking piece of shit (Score:2)
Re:This is why America is still great,in my mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"it would be easier to shave a lion in Africa during the night with a pocket knife"
Wow! Now that's a picture. A Bugs Bunny(or other character) cartoon of that could be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont see this going anywhere, the problem isnt the laws its the check and balances (oversight) that was put in place to stop these abuses.
The problem is with the law; you cannot seriously expect the government to provide oversight for itself.