Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bush Wants More Spy Power.

Erris (531066) writes | more than 7 years ago

United States 346

The Bush administration is seeking even less judicial oversight in it's spying program. The changes would apply to US email and phone accounts and would shield companies who comply with illegal orders for information.

The Bush administration is seeking even less judicial oversight in it's spying program. The changes would apply to US email and phone accounts and would shield companies who comply with illegal orders for information.

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell has circulated a draft bill that would expand the government's powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, liberalizing how that law can be used. ... Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States. ... Determinations about whether a court order is required should be based on considerations about the target of the surveillance ... [reduce] sandards the FBI and NSA must use to get court orders for basic information about calls and e-mails ... Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush's terrorist surveillance program ... Extend from 72 hours to one week the amount of time the government can conduct surveillance without a court order in emergencies.

Security, liberty, eh, who needs them?

cancel ×

346 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

As someone who voted republican... (4, Insightful)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705327)

...fuck you Bush, get the hell out of office. I want my country back.

As someone who voted democratic... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705523)

...fuck you and Bush. I want my country back.

As someone who voted for Ralph Nader (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705583)

What was I thinking?

As someone who voted for Cthulhu (2, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705893)

Ia Ia - Cthulhu fhtagn!

As someone else who voted for Cthulhu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706019)

Why settle for the lesser evil?

Re:As someone who voted for Ralph Nader (1)

fang2415 (987165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706079)

Maybe you were thinking of how the decoy effect [washingtonpost.com] means you were actually helping Gore.

Or maybe you were just doing something crazy and voting for values you actually believed in.

Thanks for fallin' for it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706155)

You helped get us (s)elected.

-Turdblossom

Re:As someone who voted for Ralph Nader (0)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706257)

What was I thinking?

I don't know, but if 33% of everyone else thought the same thing, we might have a working republic. Carry on, sir.

Re:As someone who voted democratic... (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705735)

Too late. You didn't respond when they used Terrorism to erode many of your own rights. You didn't respond when they commenced a war against consensual, victimless "crime." You didn't respond when they redefined the commerce clause as meaning "anything we want it to mean." You didn't respond when they implemented FISA, the true beginning of legal "we don't need no warrant." You didn't respond when they put people on you-cannot-travel lists. You didn't respond when they put people on you-cannot-sell-to lists. You didn't respond when they violated the sex offender's rights, and the gun owner's rights, by imposing ex post facto punishment. You didn't respond when they began to sponsor religion. You didn't respond when they decided they could torture. You didn't respond when they put domestic internment camps into place. You didn't respond when martial law became valid for "anything the executive says it is." You didn't respond when warrants became secondary and the police became able to break and enter.

Too late. Now any response you make will separate you from your comfort, your property, your family. And you won't do that. Too late.

Re:As someone who voted democratic... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706283)

Please STFU. If you had only mentioned real abuses, I'd totally agree. But you didn't. You lied. So fuck you liar.

What's that? What lie you say?

Look over your post and tell me yourself. If such a brilliant observer of the facts, find the one that you fucked up and correct it.

Or pretend you weren't lying and be the piece of shit you are.

11 outta 12 ain't bad (0, Flamebait)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706339)

Bush himself is 0 for 4 with his excuses for starting an optional war.

At least it's mostly Bush voters suffering in Iraq...not that it makes a dishonorable conflict any more palatable.

Re:As someone who voted democratic... (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706563)

Please STFU. If you had only mentioned real abuses, I'd totally agree. But you didn't. You lied. So fuck you liar...

My colleagues and I want you to be the host of our conservative talk show. Please send us more written sample material, and a picture of your best angry face.

Re:As someone who voted democratic... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706433)

Did you resond when they burned up kids at Waco? Did you respond when the CIA was gutted for political correctness? Did you respond when Clinton told FBI to drop Islamic groups and focus on Americans? Did you respond when the ACLU took the side of terrorists while going after Boyscouts for not allowing pervets in? Did you respond when millions of illegals were allowed to cross over with no checks and creating financial, health and security risks? Did you respond when Clinton shot crusie missles at people to distract people from the intern whose vagina he stuck cigars in? People keep focusing on there little pet issues while ignoring the big picture.

as someone who is confused (2, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706599)

specifically

You didn't respond when they redefined the commerce clause as meaning "anything we want it to mean."

?? That clause is actually one that most conservatives dislike and think its been interpreted too widely by Liberals. This was the reasoning behind Clarance Thomas voting against the regulation of marijuana [cornell.edu]

You didn't respond when they put people on you-cannot-sell-to lists.
?? Export controls? Those have been around for years and years, and really aren't specific to a single party AFAIK.

In general most of your rant is on target, but you should stick to things that are true and verifiable, otherwise a casual observer might remark that both sides are equally dishonest.

Re:As someone who voted Libertarian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705879)

Fuck all y'all. I want my country back!

Re:As someone who voted republican... (2, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705603)

At the risk of going completely offtopic, can you elaborate on what led you to vote for Bush in 2004?

I can completely understand why a Republican would vote for Bush over Gore in 2000. But part of what made Democrats so suicidally distraught after the November 2004 was that they were sure that nobody, not even John Kerry, could lose to Bush after the PATRIOT Act, Abu Ghraib, etc.

So I'm curious about what made you change your mind between then and now.

Re:As someone who voted republican... (2, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705651)

I ultimately voted for Kerry, but I practically had to force my hand down on the lever like Dr. Strangelove.

Kerry was such... a... tool. And his rhetoric since the election has me unsure if we'd really have been better off with him instead of Bush. We certainly wouldn't have a democratic congress right now. If I didn't dislike Bush so much, I would have gone 3rd party.

Re:As someone who voted republican... (4, Interesting)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705761)

In 2004, my decision was between someone who was a little off on the margins and someone who I honestly couldn't pin down, and any time I did, I hated what he had to say.

As much as people rail at Bush for being daddy's boy, Kerry made me believe MUCH more that he wanted power for the sake of power, and at the time, that looked like something worse.

Since he was reelected though, it's like he misplaced his... humanity or something. He doesn't stand for what he did the first term, he doesn't stand for freedom or justice, he doesn't even seem to stand for the conservative principals that got him elected in the first place.

It was Kerry that made me vote Bush. I voted for Bush and I'm a registered Libertarian... that should tell you something...

Re:As someone who voted republican... (0, Troll)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705791)

It was Kerry that made me vote Bush. I voted for Bush and I'm a registered Libertarian... that should tell you something...
Yes, that you live in a fantasy land where nonsensical political ideologies somehow work.

Re:As someone who voted republican... (2, Funny)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706241)

Yes, that you live in a fantasy land where nonsensical political ideologies somehow work.

Well spoken tovarish.

Re:As someone who voted republican... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705837)

Plenty of people told you back in '04 that neither Kerry nor Bush was the lesser evil, and that the lesser of two evils is still evil. Why didn't you listen? Shit, why are you still talking about it like any vote changed anything? You're just hurting the possibility of true reform.

Re:As someone who voted republican... (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706385)

A lot of what the Decider has been doing started back in his first term, it's just that it was kept secret until after the second election. Wiretapping, waterboarding-is-not-torture, and so on.

From what I remember... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706031)

I remember the Florida recounts, that Democrats were whining, and "Dear God, when will this END!?"

I remember 9-11, and flying the biggest damn flag I could find.

Then I remember rumors of war with Iraq, and thinking we'd never do that--it was just about the stupidest thing we could do right then.

Then I remember them doing it, anyway.

Then I remember Kerry vs. Bush, no great candidate on either side. I remember thinking it was his mess, and he should clean the damn thing up. Neither one was that great, right?

Then I remember more Diebold scandals. I still feel like they're frauds.

Then I remember Haliburton, we're paying them HOW MUCH!? As if we aren't far enough in debt.

Then I remember oil companies posting record profits while the rest of us were suffering. I didn't buy the "War for Oil" bit at first--Saddam was a bad guy--but damn if the oil companies weren't out to screw us over. I still think he got what he deserved in the end, but I don't think it was worth it in terms of the lives lost, let alone the way we went about it.

Then I remember Abu Garib... since when is America allowed to torture people!?

Then I remember hearing that they were holding American citizens and suspending habeus corpus. Isn't that illegal? If not, it sure ought to be. Even terrorists deserve a fair trial. NO government should be allowed to lock people up and throw away the key. Although I admit that I might be inclined to bend that rule if the people who originally did it were charged with treason and thrown in prison without trial...

Then I remember hearing that our own country was spying on us for no reason and suing to make sure we didn't hear about it.

Then I remember them blowing up lite brites in Boston, and getting even stupider, rather than calming down with respect to stupid security theater measures. Mind you, I've only flown twice since 9-11 and NOT because I'm scared. At this point, I'd almost rather walk than deal with airport "security" that's stupid, reactive and pointless.

Then I remember a few other things, but mostly I remember getting so pissed at the Republican party that I turned my back on it and helped vote their ass out of congress in the mid term elections.

I suspect other people may have similar stories.

At the risk of sounding like *shudder* Limbaugh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705609)

Ditto.

As someone who voted for Kodos... (-1, Troll)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705633)

...don't blame me!

I hope that Bush has to bury his slutty daughters.

Re:As someone who voted for Kodos... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705709)

I'm torn - I love the Simpson's reference... but on the other hand, wishing someone's daughters dead is not the mark of a stable person.

Re:As someone who voted for Kodos... (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705819)

I'm torn - I love the Simpson's reference... but on the other hand, wishing someone's daughters dead is not the mark of a stable person.

Everyone dies. He's just hoping it happens in a particular order.

Re:As someone who voted for Kodos... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706345)

So he's either wishing for the premature deaths of Bush's "slut" daughters (what is he, Imus?)... or he's hoping that Bush has much greater-than-average longevity.

Either way, not something I can get on board with :)

Lying to start a war merits such hatred. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706125)

This man deserves to suffer for his abuses. What better way than to have his children die before him.

Re:Lying to start a war merits such hatred. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706307)

Perhaps some method that does not involve the deaths of others?

I'm just not that big of a person. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706489)

His actions have condemed upwards of 100,000s of innocents to death. All in the name of bringing them freedom from a genocidal dictator...but only after the claims of al-quieda connections and yellow cake acquisition and ownership of WMDs were dismissed as lies. He fired experts that predicted all these current problems in Iraq

No...I'm too angry at his idiocy and treason to agree with you.

Re:Lying to start a war merits such hatred. (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706531)

Maybe his kids should go to Iraq first? I'm not an animal but there is a certain retributive justice in it, except you know Bush doesn't have thousands of kids. Personally I think he should be hung on the white house lawn. Then immortalized in statue form for future presidents to think about.

Re:As someone who voted republican... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705673)

Can't you just restore it from a backup? You did make a backup, right?

Re:As someone who voted republican... (4, Interesting)

70Bang (805280) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705681)


But have you given thought to the slippery slope?

Those "powers" will be in place for the next White House occupant. And if you think they'll rescind them, regardless of the political leanings, you're sorely mistaken. They will only add to the tools they have available. Pre Homeland Security, the CIA had no jurisdiction in the US. Now that Homeland Security is in place, they can simply make a request of someone at a higher level who can pose it to someone who does have the authority, then throw it back over the wall for the CIA to use.

Perhaps we need to heed Dr. Kurtzweil from the X-Files movie?

...during a vacation when everyone is away from home, a national emergency is declared, FEMA takes over...

(Or should we be wearing tinfoil hats, waiting for the black helicopters?)

Re:As someone who voted republican... (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706003)

But have you given thought to the slippery slope?

Your post is a good example of why the "slipper slope" is NEVER a good argument. Government power ebbs and flows all the time, and has throughout history. You think the FBI today has power? The FBI is a shell of its former self of the 50s and 60s.

You think there are restrictions on freedom? Take a look at the laws that were passed during WW/II (illegal to own gold, Japanese concentration camps, etc). Hell, we had price controls in the 70s! By a republican!

People always think modern life has never been worse. Modern life is so much better than it used to be that it's laughable about what people complain about.

Re:As someone who voted republican... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706575)

Those "powers" will be in place for the next White House occupant.

One of my favorite .sig's is along the lines of "will you still be happy with _________ (the patriot act, etc etc etc) when Hillary is president?"

Might I suggest you act instead of shout? (2, Insightful)

nietsch (112711) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705745)

It is bad enough that you are one of those morons that unleashed another four years of misery on the world by voting for a party color instead of using your brain and look past the mudslinging. The main problem your country faces is it's two party/district system. That concentrates the power in two parties that inevitably will be very similar and will be mostly serving their own interests. You vote not (only) because you think your candidate is the best the country has to offer, but because the other lizard is even worse.
I would not know how exactly, but it is up to you (and the rest of the USian people) to change your country in such a way that excesses like BabyBush can not happen anymore. Getting rid of district and inderect voting would be a very good start (and likely cause a civil war as your overlords do not like to give up their cushy jobs).

Re:Might I suggest you act instead of shout? (1)

JordanL (886154) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705831)

The main problem your country faces is it's two party/district system.
Actually, our two-party system saves us in many ways. I can't ellaborate much further, I spent an entire term studying the benefits and costs, and I can't concatonate that down to a /. post.

Re:Might I suggest you act instead of shout? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706397)

Thank you for your deeply insightful post. By the way, what the hell do "ellaborate" and "concatonate" mean?

Re:Might I suggest you act instead of shout? (2, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706427)

That he voted for Bush. Twice.

Re:Might I suggest you act instead of shout? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706075)

In my country it is forbidden for anybody working for parliament to have any connection with business, whether it is a position or stock options. As far as I know this is not the case in the US so they will never be able to solve this.

Re:Might I suggest you act instead of shout? (3, Interesting)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706095)

Even if there were no political parties, individual candidates would still favor middle-of-the-road approaches because they generally appeal to the largest number of voters. Depending on the size of different interest groups (say, environmentalists) you may be able to pull more votes by taking a strong stance on a limited scope issue, but another candidate might still beat you by taking a position halfway between the extreme and the middle.

As for the electoral college system...eh. Arguments for, arguments against. Beats the hell out of me. If politicians weren't universally so terrible, the voting system might not matter so much.

I like Lewis Black's quote: "In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in 12 years, we'll be voting for plants."

Re:Might I suggest you act instead of shout? (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706359)

but it is up to you (and the rest of the USian people) to change your country in such a way that excesses like BabyBush can not happen anymore.
Ha, instead we should be spending millions of dollars per year reminding people that persons from the United States of America are referred to as Americans. I've never heard of this US country you speak of. Do you refer to people from the UK as Ukkers?

I have a dream... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706341)

Bush and Cheney go duck hunting. Cheney shoots Bush in the face causing Cheney to have a heart attack, giving us our first woman President!

Oh shit, did I just commit a felony?

sounds great (0, Troll)

physicsboy500 (645835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705355)

it's not like we need civil liberties or anything

I really didn't think the patriot act went far enough anyways

Re:sounds great (1)

TheMadcapZ (868196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705621)

I agree, who cares if government thugs come in and ass rape our sisters at night. Aa long as it isn't a GODDAMN A-rab terrorist!!!

What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (4, Interesting)

computational super (740265) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705359)

I've often wondered - suppose they surveil a house, assume nobody's home, and break in ("legally", if not justifiably). Now, if you were home, just sleeping when they broke in, and you snuck up and attacked the person you thought was an intruder - are you guilty of assaulting a police officer? I fear that the answer would be yes...

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (3, Informative)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705427)

I'm a 100% sure that no matter what the actual events are the police report / fbi report will state you assulted the police officer without provocation after they had identified themselves. I can also promise that unless you are white, protastant, and affluent that you will be severely beaten if you managed to hurt that officer in anyway. Possibility of being murdered and then passed off as a guilty party is also there. These promises were valid before 9/11 as well.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1, Flamebait)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705447)

Too many fucking crooks get their way in suits when homeowners protect themselves against the illegal entry/theft. If those pieces of shit are getting their way I can't imagine that the "legalized" pieces of shit would be treated any differently.

I think that if the Bush Administration gets this that the American Public should have the ability to walk into Bush's bedroom at night -- after all, him and his lapdog cronies have perpetrated more spying, illegal activity and terrorism than any single citizen of this country.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705465)

Related to your question, what about states like Texas where you're allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself / family if you catch an intruder in your home? I imagine that as usual, federal law would trump state laws, and an otherwise self-defense case would be considered murder of a federal agent.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705569)

I think the self defense aspect does hold some credence assuming you live through the raid AND can still convince everyone (judge/jury) that you were honestly defending yourself. Probably just best to break his nose then apologize profusely.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705605)

"Related to your question, what about states like Texas where you're allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself / family if you catch an intruder in your home?"

If the law really is as you say, that you are allowed to use deadly force to *defend* yourself from an intruder, then I would guess that you would have to show that you were reasonably threatened. If there were law enforcement officials just snooping around in your house, not threatening you, then you were not defending yourself if you harm them.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705713)

As a single woman who lives alone, I consider any strangers breaking into my house to be a direct threat to my safety. I do not currently own a gun but I have seriously considered getting one, and if I were to do so, then shoot a stranger who entered into my home, I feel I had every right to do so. "But they identified themselves"? Hah. And rapists/murderers don't lie?

Anonymous posting for obvious reasons.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706219)

As a single woman who lives alone
...

Anonymous posting for obvious reasons.

No kidding. Posting such an obvious lie using your Slashdot account would ruin your karma for good.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705833)

The key here is "reasonably threatened". Its not what the intruders intent is, its what you believe.


Its dark. An armed guy has entered my house without announcing "Police. Search warrant". Damned right I'd feel threatened.


And keep those #&^%&#^&*% black helicopters off of my lawn!!!!

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706281)

Don't forget the no knock/no announce entries. Armed and armored unidentified men storming your house without any sort of warning. Sometimes they might even have the right house.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (2, Insightful)

Miseph (979059) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705851)

I believe the theory is that strangers sneaking about your home at night pose an imminent threat even without doing anything else. For all that I abhor unnecessary violence and feel that many in this country are altogether too willing to use lethal force against any presumed "threat", I have to admit that this seems pretty sensible to me. If you're sneaking around my home in the middle of the night, I'm going to take that as an implicit threat on myself and my family, because you certainly don't have any benign reasons to be there.

That said, any cop worth the stamped sheet metal badge would claim that they clearly announced their identity and presented a valid warrant, and for some reason people are always willing to believe them about it.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

GryMor (88799) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706279)

Pretty much by definition, if they break into your house they are threatening you and your family, and they have allready violated your property. Texas at least codifies this and, as of September 1st 2007, will extend that presumption to your workplace and motor vehicle. I'm unsure as to what other states have enacted similar legislation, but, many states, including Washington and Texas also have Stand Your Ground legislation, meaning there is no duty to retreat when you are legally in a place, and there was at least one case in Washington where home invasion (even though perpatraitor was unarmed), was sufficient grounds for deadly self defense.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

70Bang (805280) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705805)

OT:

Speaking of Texas, has anyone heard Texas is now the third largest state?

They cut Alaska in half.

(most of my friends from Texas seem a bit upset about that joke.)

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (2, Insightful)

no_pets (881013) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705565)

You bring up a good point. This is exactly one great reason why there should be no emergency surveillance without court oversight. Just because someone is police or government agent does not mean that they are not a "bad guy". If someone breaks in without warrant then you should be able to stop them. Period.

And that is just one point brought out in TFA.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705587)

I can assure you that it wouldn't be simple assault... I have a loaded pump shotgun sitting by my bed just for such instances.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706523)

Yep, I've been keeping my Mosin-Nagant carbine loaded and handy ever since some fuck tried to break in.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (2, Insightful)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705787)

Outcome 1: Lots of federal agents. Even if you are sufficiently armed, they also have the element of surprise. There is no reason to think you were acting in self defense, since you are now dead and cannot introduce this evidence. They will assume you were resisting being brought in by force.

Outcome 2: You manage to kill the federal agents. When they fail to report in on the outcome of the raid, more agents will be sent out to bring you down and in greater number. There is no reason to think you were acting in self defense, since the witnesses are now dead.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705881)

In that situation, I'm sure the coroner will write assaulting a police officer down as the proximate cause of your death. Welcome to Pudge's America.

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

cfvgcfvg (942576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705917)

Yes you can, VERY MUCH SO. For the longest time Cory Maye was on death row for killing a police officer breaking into his house on a wrong address drug raid. Same thing happened in Quebec, but usually it's the police who do the killing of innocent people (and dogs).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye [wikipedia.org] http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.h tml?id=6a6f7e22-1f49-443d-812e-cbde33535e6e&k=7739 4 [canada.com]

Re:What happens if you catch the guy breaking in? (1)

DarkLegacy (1027316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706065)

This has sent a very real and [b]very[/b] disturbing chill down my spine.

Losing the right to defend yourself.

I have a solution to his request! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705365)

*sends the director a little orphan annie decoder ring*

Above the law (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705375)

Not just a Steven Seagal movie, now a political philosophy too!

he's not the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705379)

I'm also seeking an expansion of my Spy Powers. Invisibility would be nice. Maybe super-hearing and super-vision too...

You know, with dumb ideas like this..... (2, Funny)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705389)

..... living in Soviet Russia is looking better and better every day.

Re:You know, with dumb ideas like this..... (3, Interesting)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705741)

I heard this guy on the radio complaining that this was characterized as them trying to get more power. He said they were just modernizing.

Reminds me of another pile of BS [wikipedia.org] , the gist of which is that "modernizing the law" means surrendering quite a few more of your rights to the powers that be.

This only happens in China. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705403)

LOL This is all bullshit. Everyone only knows this kind of stuff only happens in China.

If they ever detain you (1, Funny)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705407)

If you are ever detained by Federal Authorities you should acquiesce to any request for a search of your person or property, but you can make it conditional. For instance you could say, "you can search my property but only if your search through the front of my underpants lasts at least fifteen minutes and is done by that nice looking agent over there."
IANAL.

Re:If they ever detain you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705723)

The 'hot' agents only exist in movies. Same as the hot lesbian phenomena.

It may decrease security, but (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705419)

I for one will take a decrease in national security if it means that my privacy remains intact.

Re:It may decrease security, but (4, Insightful)

statusbar (314703) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705533)

Anonymous Coward Said:

I for one will take a decrease in national security if it means that my privacy remains intact.

You are believing the fallacy. These laws do not increase security. The government and police already have all the tools that they need. These new laws will do one thing - They will decrease my security as well as my privacy.

--jeffk++

This just in... (5, Insightful)

pfingst (99750) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705433)

Intelligence Director wants more spy powers.
IRS wants fewer tax exemptions.
Pope is Catholic.

Really, what do you expect someone in that position to want? Something to make his job harder? Not that I think he should get what he wants, I'm just not surprised he's asking for it.

Re:This just in... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705641)

Really, what do you expect someone in that position to want? Something to make his job harder? Not that I think he should get what he wants, I'm just not surprised he's asking for it.

We're not surprised they want it ... we're appalled to find out they're doing end-runs around the constitution, federal law, SCOTUS rulings, common sense, and everything else.

They're not legally allowed to have it. Yet, they keep giving it to themselves.

I spy, with my little eye.. (0, Redundant)

ReidMaynard (161608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705477)

..anything I damn please.

Don't Worry (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705513)

If we don't like the idea ge will let us know that he is already doing it to make us feel better.

The Changes to FISA that are being requested (4, Informative)

IvanTheNotSoBad (977004) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705529)

From TFA:

Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval, even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States.

"Determinations about whether a court order is required should be based on considerations about the target of the surveillance, rather than the particular means of communication or the location from which the surveillance is being conducted," NSA Director Keith Alexander told the Senate last year.

Clarify the standards the FBI and NSA must use to get court orders for basic information about calls and e-mails -- such as the number dialed, e-mail address, or time and date of the communications. Civil liberties advocates contend the change will make it too easy for the government to access this information.

Triple the life span of a FISA warrant for a non-U.S. citizen from 120 days to one year, allowing the government to monitor much longer without checking back in with a judge.

Give telecommunications companies immunity from civil liability for their cooperation with Bush's terrorist surveillance program. Pending lawsuits against companies including Verizon and AT&T allege they violated privacy laws by giving phone records to the NSA for the program.

Extend from 72 hours to one week the amount of time the government can conduct surveillance without a court order in emergencies.

Re:The Changes to FISA that are being requested (1)

quantaman (517394) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706413)

Give the NSA the power to monitor foreigners without seeking FISA court approval, even if the surveillance is conducted by tapping phones and e-mail accounts in the United States.
A lot of the Bush administrations rights abuses seem to be centering around people without US citizenship. Does anyone know if this selective application of rights to only apply to American citizens something that's alway existed in the US (albeit to a lower extent) or is this division something more or less invented by the Bush Administration?

Big Government (3, Insightful)

Shambly (1075137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705537)

There is very little left to say about these continual abuses by the US goverment. Of course the one in charge of keeping the people safe want to increase the powers they have. No matter what they do or were stopped from doing if another terrorist attack happens people will blame them for everything they do. The problem is not that they are seeking power to protect their own interests it is that their is no strong oposition to it. If Americans revolted, held country wide strikes, marched down the street then you would see a change because not having that change would be even worse. As it stands, no one cares about your witty words and your self righteous indignation as yet more of your rights are removed. - I do agree that it's easy for me to criticize because i'm not an American and i understand that i just did the same thing here that I criticize in my post but what can i say I'm a hypocrite.

Even more (3, Interesting)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705691)

The politicians do care about witty words and self righteous indignation to the point where they want to promote the creation of even more forums where even more people can use even more witty words and express even more self righteous indignation because, as long as people are talking about it, they aren't actually doing anything about it--and that's what government is all about.

I've already taken my stand and they made me homeless by treating me like a third class citizen on the job and then spreading enough garbage to prevent anyone else from wanting to employ me when I left.

They're actually *asking* this time?!? (4, Informative)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705575)

Wow, that's a first. The Bush administration usually just assumes expanded powers with less oversight, and then claim that they had those powers in the first place (followed by blaming the whistle blowers).

Anyway, I sure hope that they don't get expanded powers with less oversight. Maybe it's based on my predisposition to distrust the Bush administration, but they sort of earned that on their own over time. It seems to me that these guys are the reason why we have oversight. Actually, if you look at history, FISA was designed to protect us from the Bush administration (indirectly, of course). Some of Bush's cabinet members also served in President Nixon's cabinet. Many of FISA's provisions were written because of the Nixon administration's abuses against American citizens. The same guys that were screwing us over then are running the show now, and are claiming that we don't need to be protected anymore -- the same guys. I sure hope that they don't get what they're asking for.

Re:They're actually *asking* this time?!? (3, Interesting)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705719)

Wow, that's a first. The Bush administration usually just assumes expanded powers with less oversight, and then claim that they had those powers in the first place (followed by blaming the whistle blowers).

Kinda makes you wonder what they're already doing this time . . .

Freedom Isn't Free (4, Insightful)

SandwhichMaster (1044184) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705593)

I know the bumper sticker that says "Freedom Isn't Free" refers to wars and the cost of defending our country. But I think the saying is MUCH more appropriate for garbage like this. If having freedom means I'm slightly more vulnerable to a terrorist attack, FINE. To all the cowards out there who will sacrifice anything for the slightest illusion of safety, I say "Freedom isn't Free", move somewhere else.

flamebait (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18705667)

The linked article is nothing more than a hit piece on the Bush administration and Slashdot takes the bait. Queue a billion posts about how America sucks, Bush sucks and we're the next communist Russia. More posts = more ad views = more revenue for VA Linux or whatever they are called these days. Meanwhile America is still the greatest country on God's green earth. No, fighting terrorists doesn't make us like Hitler.

Re:flamebait (2, Informative)

Doctor-Optimal (975263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705871)

We are the greatest country precisely because of our tradition of limiting government intrusion on our privacy and our right to protest the actions of the government. I'm not even a minarchist or anything (left wing statist, actually) and I can see this.

This says it all. (4, Insightful)

RagingFuryBlack (956453) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705715)

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. - Benjamin Franklin I think that sums it all up.

US Gov goes **AA (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705743)

...breaking into homes to make copies of computer hard drives.' One of their specific goals is prosecution immunity for communications companies...

This actually looks really scary to me. Seems they can have your ISP hack your computer (using it for illegal crap) and press charges against you, while the law would prevent them from pressing charges against the ISP.

Why'd you blow the building up? (1)

Nanite (220404) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705773)

Because you made a phone call!!!!

Remember RICO? (5, Interesting)

Jerry (6400) | more than 7 years ago | (#18705913)

It was made LAW for the purpose of fighting organized crime. Opponents claimed that it could and would be used against others. They were right. Now, RICO is used about 10,000 times per year, primary to add additional funding to law enforcement budgets around the country. In one episode of "COPS", featuring the sheriff who went on to make police videos for TV, they met before hand to discuss how they were going to divide the "loot"...i.e., the property of the family they had targeted with the act. Even if it later turns out that they raided the wrong house the "police" aren't required to return the property they stole using RICO. In more than one instance the home
  owner being raided at 3:30AM thought buglers were invading his home and were shot dead when they brandished a pistol in hopes of scaring off the "buglers".

The RICO act is being abused as badly as the police at the South Denver precinct abused their power, a couple decades ago. The police would roll up to a block in force, cordon it off to prevent pedestrian or car traffic, then proceed to a building in the middle of the block. There, they'd start hauling out property and putting it into the police van. Afterward, the owner was called and notified of the "theft". The property usually appeared in pawn shops later on, but no one was ever caught until someone with a movie camera filmed the whole thing from a third floor apartment across the street from the target building.

Reducing accountability for using FISA will only INCREASE its abuse. Public prosecutors like Mike Nifong, and even politicians, would use the added spy powers to further their own goals and political ambitions.

No one is safe from RICO abuse. No one will be safe from FISA abuse.

The Constitution? What's that?

shit (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706379)

and i was thinking maybe i should move to united states in order to escape the ever increasing conservatist tendencies in turkey, mainly censorship.

Re:Remember RICO? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706569)

I'd be pretty scared too if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night and started playing Taps.

What a crock (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18706011)

The current FISA court is basically a rubber stamp anyways, and it's not like us ordinary citizens have any oversight over it. Not that the Bush Administration or NSA bothered with FISA warrants (FISA warrant requests were minimal compared to during the Clinton administration).

I await the flock of RINOs accusing me of political mudslinging and or hating America.

Bush listened (0, Troll)

e-scetic (1003976) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706423)

When the terrorists said "Death to America!"

Balance (2, Interesting)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706545)

First of all, this site is not typically representative of the general population so opinions expressed here are often skewed.

Second, what many people don't remember is that when we had the attacks on September 11, a large vocal fraction of the population screamed "Government, please do something to make us feel like this won't ever happen again."

The result of that is the government says, "Ok, that means you'll have to let us take some of your freedoms, because in order to check and see if someone might do these Bad Things, we have to be able to learn about them without them knowing that they are being examined."

Which is actually the only way you could even attempt to prevent such things from happening. The problem is that people are now starting to realize that hey, that's not really fun, but we still don't want to have some Bad People come in and mess us up.

You really have to find balance and pick your posion: you can either live with freedoms and protection from unannounced surveillance with the real risk of unwanted activity, or you can give up freedom and allow such "nasty" governmental behavior with the very small additional security that gives.

There is no practical way to have both security and freedom; they are diametrically opposed concepts by definition.

morons (2, Insightful)

deblau (68023) | more than 7 years ago | (#18706581)

Open letter to everyone who is demanding this power:

You won't be in office forever, and you reap what you sow.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?