Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Patriot Act Up For Renewal, Nobody Notices

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the wonder-how-long-we'll-put-up-with-it dept.

United States 463

Ponca City, We Love You writes "When the Patriot Act was first signed in 2001, it was billed as a temporary measure required because of the extreme circumstances created by the terrorist threat. The fear from its opponents was that executive power, once given, is seldom relinquished. Now the Examiner reports that on January 5th, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced a bill to add yet another year to the soon-to-be-expiring Patriot Act, extending it until February, 2012, with passage likely to happen after little debate or contention. If passed, this would be the second time the Obama administration has punted on campaign promises to roll back excessive surveillance measures allowed under the act. Last year's extension passed under the heading of the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act. 'Given the very limited number of days Congress has in session before the current deadline, and the fact that the bill's Republican sponsor is only seeking another year, I think it's safe to read this as signaling an agreement across the aisle to put the issue off yet again,' writes Julian Sanchez."

cancel ×

463 comments

He could always... (4, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881476)

Veto it.

But he... (5, Informative)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881526)

Wont.

Hope and... (0)

soupforare (542403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881574)

cool story, bro.

Re:Hope and... (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881750)

True story, bro. President Obama will not veto the Patriot Act. One thing both parties agree on, the Patriot act is a great tool for maintaining the status quo of the current power elites.

Re:Hope and... (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881996)

I think moreso than anything else, the Patriot Act can be held up as a shining example of both parties caring about nothing more than maintaining power. The Patriot Act goes against almost everything the Democratic party supposedly stands for; quietly continuing its usage and doing nothing to try to kill it should be proof to all but the most hardcore lefties that their beloved politicos are no better than the right-wingers they despise.

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here: I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. Wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" -Bill Hicks

Re:But he... (5, Interesting)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881678)

I wonder what would happen if every single Slashdot user, U.S. citizen or not, wrote a letter to President Obama that basically said something along the lines of,

"President Obama,

I understand a bill extending the Patriot Act is currently being voted on in Congress. The Patriot Act was supposed to be a temporary measure introduced to increase the security of America. If this bill passes, please veto it on behalf of the American citizenry. It is time to end this nonsense. Don't make excuses.

Thank You,
[name signed here]"

Would anyone even notice? Would he comment on it? Here's the mailing address:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Re:But he... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881730)

Do you *want* to be put on the No Flying list? Ok then, STFU!

Re:But he... (4, Insightful)

anarkhos (209172) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881732)

Obama voted to renew the USA PATRIOT Act while he was still a Senator. It was one of the few things he even took a side on.

All this means is people who voted for Obama were ignorant rubes who couldn't do something as simple as checking a voting record — even one as short as Obama's!

Re:voted (4, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881822)

No, we decided that if we were going to be oppressed, we could at least bask in the small luxury of complete sentences.

Re:voted (0)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881990)

Yup, er, ah, uh [google.com]

Re:voted (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#34882016)

Why oh why did I just spend my last modpoint on a funny post about salty bacteria ?

Oblig. Wesley Snipes (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881794)

Would anyone even notice? Would he comment on it? Here's the mailing address:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

A mailing address that changes all the rules.

Re:He could always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881544)

That would require him to grow a pair of testicles.

No, the Democrats would never disobey the will of the Republican minority like that.

Re:He could always... (5, Insightful)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881572)

Is there something that makes you think the will of the Democratic party is much different from that of the Republican party?

Re:He could always... (3, Insightful)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881734)

it is very different, but just as corrupt.

Re:He could always... (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881998)

You know what they say: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

- or -

tl;dr: Status Quo is God. Or something like that. I have trouble remembering prophetic messages from the Eternal one, and the prescription doesn't seem to be helping.

Re:He could always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881644)

No, the Democrats would never disobey the will of the Republican minority like that.

President Obama is a Republican in drag. For a constitutional lawyer he seems not to understand the basic tenents of the Constitution of the United States of America. China and the USA are exposed as being more alike with each passing congressional session.

Re:He could always... (1)

anarkhos (209172) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881766)

And Bush was a Democrat in drag.

What Presidents, prey tell, were for preserving and not evicerating the Constitution?

Here's one for you: partisans are rubes in drag

Re:He could always... (0, Flamebait)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881838)

As a republican, I can honestly tell you that we don't want him. You can keep him.

It also shows how little chance there is for a common ground with people like you that you see him as a conservative.

I find Obama very far left for US politics and am amazed that this would even need to be debated

Re:He could always... (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881960)

Far left?
The fucker leans so far to the right he practically falls over.

He passed the health care bill the republicans proposed under gingrinch, he kept gitmo, what more do you want him to blow Rush?

Here is a hint, left would include consumer protection, public option at least if not single payer, downsizing of the military, closing gitmo, etc.

Re:He could always... (2)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881970)

I find Obama very far left for US politics and am amazed that this would even need to be debated

Then you aren't very familiar with US politics.

Obama is right-of-center. His policies align very, very closely with those of Reagan.

Re:He could always... (3, Interesting)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881876)

Also, voting for this is not a Republican/Democrat debate. It is a debate about power.

Neither side want to give it up because both side see the day where they are in power.

I was against the Patriot Act from the start for the same reason I am against giving the government control over my health care. Sure the current guy might have the best intentions, but can you say the same about the next guy?

Re:He could always... (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881728)

You do realize the Republicans are in the majority in the House now, right?

Re:He could always... (1)

nharmon (97591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881772)

That is only one house among three.

Re:He could always... (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881846)

But not the Senate or White House.

Re:He could always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881892)

You do realize the new House was just sworn in last week right?

Re:He could always... (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881780)

You assume that Obama actually WANTS to get rid of the Patriot Act, a big assumption. He is part of the current power elite and the patriot act is a wonderful tool for maintaining their control over this country.

Re:He could always... (5, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881848)

You know, for most of the last two years I thought the Democrats kept bowing to Republican pressure because they were spineless, but now I'm not so sure. I think now the entire Democratic Party is shifting further to the right and filling the vacuum left by the Republicans, who have been shifting even further to the right. A 1970s (or even 1980s) Republican would be almost indistinguishable from a modern Democrat. The so-called Blue Dog Democrats have taken over the party. Meanwhile, true progressives have no voice in government anymore.

Re:He could always... (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881982)

Meanwhile, true progressives have no voice in government anymore.

Yeah, that's a shame. All they have right now is they guy who controls the legislative agenda in the Senate. And they had the person who controlled the legistlative agenda in the House, as well, but her absurd antics in the name of progressivism are exactly why that's no longer true. If progressives don't have "a voice" (really? there are some very vocal, very left people in congress) because one of the most left of them just lost her speakership, it's because progressives showed their nature in ramming through the monstrosity that is that health care fiasco, and got roundly and appropriately spanked for it by voters.

Re:He could always... (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881558)

Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.

Re:He could always... (2, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881806)

Back when Bush enacted this monstrosity, I remember warning conservatives that it wouldn't just go away, that someday, an evil DEMONCRAT would have that power. They just scoffed. Vindication sucks sometimes.

Re:He could always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881564)

Yeah, and a beautiful woman riding a unicorn could come up to me carrying an iPad 3 and an XBox 720. I don't anticipate that happening either.

Re:He could always... (5, Insightful)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881566)

Obama would never do such a thing. If any even mild terrorist action occurred, it would be shouted from the rafters. It would sound something like this: "Hussein did not keep us safe. Or show us his birth certificate. In fact, the reason why he vetoed PATRIOT Act is because he is a secret Muslim terrorist who will bring down the United States and all Christians with his terrorist fist bump." Or something like that.

Obama clearly doesn't have the political courage to repeal PATRIOT, but neither would McCain, Palin, Biden, or really anyone aside from the Pauls. Which is unfortunate because PATRIOT is an awful piece of legislation that does nothing to keep us safe, but rather does the opposite by eroding our liberties.

Re:He could always... (2)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881592)

Sooner to be free with a small 1 in billion odds of death-by-terrorist vs. a 1-1 certainty of being spied upon.

Re:He could always... (1, Insightful)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881612)

Sooner to be free with a small 1 in billion odds of death-by-terrorist vs. a 1-1 certainty of being spied upon.

1 in a billion, methinks you don't understand statistics.

Re:He could always... (1)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881938)

You have a good argument that, say, for a typical US resident P(killed by a terrorist) << 1e-9?

Re:He could always... (5, Insightful)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881706)

No disagreement from me. But the political reality is that Obama, Bush, Palin, McCain, and pretty much everyone else in Washington doesn't give a fig newton for your civil liberties if compromising them gets the politician elected.

Re:He could always... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881744)

Sooner to be free with a small 1 in billion odds of death-by-terrorist

So 7 people died from terrorism this year?

Re:He could always... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881894)

No. Many more than that. On the other hand though not all people are statistically as likely to be killed in a terrorist act.

If you live in Montana, on a ranch and do not fly internationally and fly very little domestically then I think that your odds of dying in an act of terrorism may be lower than 1 in a billion.

Maybe you do not understand statistics much?

Re:He could always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881924)

Well, how many persons have been killed by abusive police-officers that love to hurt people?

Re:He could always... (2, Interesting)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881698)

I've always thought the birth certificate thing was a stroke of genius from Obama's political advisors. They could have easily provided a real birth certificate years ago and disproven the whole thing, but they didn't. They know that the far right are going to bitch about something, so why not have it be about something that isn't going to resonate with anyone else? If Obama pulled out a birth certificate, they'd just move on to something else that might actually hold water with people outside of their own group. No one in the center is going to be swayed over a birth certificate conspiracy, because it seems petty and completely stupid. It also makes people who keep parroting it look like raving idiots and therefor makes any intelligent points that they may have seem as though they are more suspect or less reasonable.

Re:He could always... (5, Informative)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881776)

Interesting theory... except for the fact that Obama's birth certificat has been produced, a copy is available on-line, and its validity has been repeatedly verified by the state of Hawaii.

It's more accurate to say that those right-wing nutters (and racists) will not be persuaded from their tin-hat conspiracy theories by anything as pesky as facts. They cling to it tenatiously, regardless.

Re:He could always... (-1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881928)

Interesting theory... except for the fact that Obama's birth certificat has been produced, a copy is available on-line, and its validity has been repeatedly verified by the state of Hawaii.

And yours is an interesting theory, aside from the whole not being true part. Good one, though, especially taking the opportunity to do a little race baiting. Excellent! Keep up the good work on behalf of the state, citiizen.

The debate, incidentally, isn't over his nationality, but over the timing of the requirement that he be a "natural born citizen," which is a reference to his parents, not to him. At least be oily and misleading about the right stuff, OK?

Re:He could always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34882002)

You're the one who's oily and misleading in addition to being misinformed. Nice try though.

Re:He could always... (1)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881802)

Fascinating. That makes a lot of sense.

Sometimes, you people.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881868)

I've always thought the birth certificate thing was a stroke of genius from Obama's political advisors. They could have easily provided a real birth certificate years ago and disproven the whole thing, but they didn't. They know that the far right are going to bitch about something, so why not have it be about something that isn't going to resonate with anyone else? If Obama pulled out a birth certificate, they'd just move on to something else that might actually hold water with people outside of their own group. No one in the center is going to be swayed over a birth certificate conspiracy, because it seems petty and completely stupid. It also makes people who keep parroting it look like raving idiots and therefor makes any intelligent points that they may have seem as though they are more suspect or less reasonable.

Sometimes, you people on Slashdot are scary. You don't sound dangerous in a crazy-guy-shoot'in-up-the-place, but scary.

Re:He could always... (5, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881826)

All of those things and more will be shouted from the rafters no matter what he does. He could single handedly create a lasting utopia for all on earth and there will still be some wingnut screaming that he's not really an American and it's all a trick.

Re:He could always... (3, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881844)

I can think of other politicians who would have that kind of courage: Russ Feingold (who had the courage to vote against it to begin with), Bernie Sanders (listen to him talk, you'll see exactly why), Dennis Kucinich (who's also been against it all along, and has taken tougher stands before), and Ralph Nader.

The thing is, those guys are all seen as dangerous by the Democratic and Republican Party leadership, so their chance of getting elected president is basically nil.

Re:He could always... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881598)

Not if 2/3 of the congress votes for it. But that's not the issue as he clearly does not want to veto it anyway.

Bullshit. (1)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881510)

I noticed yesterday when it was published in another news source.

All of Slashdot noticed today obviously.

Quit acting like nobody noticed or the politicians might start to think they can get away with nobody noticing.

obligatory Who quote (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881520)

That deaf-dumb-blind kid, sure could play a mean pinball.

Ha, bet you thought I was gonna say "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss", didn't you?

Re:obligatory Who quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881700)

ain't seen nothing like him in any amusement hall ...

unconstitutional (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881530)

More unconstitutional drivel from our elected body. I guess reading the constitution isn't doing them a bit of good.

Re:unconstitutional (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881600)

They could make it all constitutional by adding a constitutional amendment. I propose they call it the "1984 Amendment."

Re:unconstitutional (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881694)

That would be the legal way to do it. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't done it yet. I guess no PAC has decided to push the issue.

Surprised? (4, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881538)

Why is anyone surprised that Patriot act has bipartisan support? At the time it was passed all Democrat senators voted for it except for one (Feingold) and he is not in senate anymore. Democrats always supported the act, just like the Republicans did. Obama has renewed it regularly since so its a safe bet that he would have voted for it had he been in senate at the time.

Re:Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881754)

Let's not forget that although Bush, or his "administration", is often blamed for the bill, it was Sen., now VP Joe Biden who originally authored it back in 1995. I don't say this to point the finger at one side or another, just to show that a lot of the contention we see is no realer than the wrestlers in the WWE: they pretend to be bitter enemies, but they are both chums behind the curtains and are just consolidating power for the federal government.

About Obama's campaign promises. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881546)

Let's not forget his promise to shut down Guantanamo and to end the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

Re:About Obama's campaign promises. (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881614)

And I thought he said something about getting out of Afghanistan.

Re:About Obama's campaign promises. (3, Informative)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881656)

And something about transparency.

Re:About Obama's campaign promises. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881680)

I find it funny for some reason that I had to click through 3 layers of comments to even see this one about transparency.

Re:About Obama's campaign promises. (2)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881836)

Actually, he campagined on expanding the war in Afghanistan.

He said something about getting out of Iraq though. And he does seem to be working towards drawing down the huge expense and committment there, but in spite of "combat operations having ended", there are still lots and lots of troops there.

Re:About Obama's campaign promises. (1)

Elros (735454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881748)

You mean re-instating the Clinton Tax Increases?

What Does It mean (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881556)

When Obama and the Democrats didn't repeal it when they had all the power, and now, when they seemingly won't object to its renewal, does that mean they are hypocrites? Does it also mean that they actually tacitly approve of it?

For all the noise and whining that's been made about it by their constituents , the Dems sure have been quiet about it.

When the people you hate (republicans) and the people you love (Democrats) seem to be of like mind on something like this, is it time to consider that you are on the fringes and just a bit nuts?

Re:What Does It mean (1)

imric (6240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881908)

Only if you think that politicians use the same definition of sanity that you do.

Only if you think that a politician losing face is FAR worse than their constituents losing freedom.

Only if you think that politicians are not cynical, hypocritical, power-hungry animals willing to do anything to aquire money and power.

Only if you think that demagoguery and jingoism are the highest form of political discourse.

Only if you think that sound bites are the new truth.

Only if you think that a party is something separate from it's constituents ("For all the noise and whining that's been made about it by their constituents , the Dems sure have been quiet about it.)

I don't think so.

Re:What Does It mean (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34882010)

No, it is time to face the fact that D and R are on the same fucking team and you are not.

And you go berserk and mod us down when (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881576)

we talk about how unworkable, public-enemy the system in america has become. and say that wikileaks exposes stuff like these, and it is necessary. whoops -> mod down to oblivion. uncomfortable truth better not heard.

and when we call on americans, some of you come up saying that not all americans are the same, some of you actually see what's going on, and aware of how things really are. ok. well. nice.

however, you have to do that, BEFORE being called out. if, you dont speak, and instead let the most loud voice that speaks be of irrationality and make-believe, it means that you are basically leaving the arena to such minded people.

when the wise dont speak, fools have the day.

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881646)

Do you not see news of protests? What in the world makes you think some people aren't mindful already? The problem is our system was accidentally designed to support the will of those with the most money to fund campaigns and fill pockets rather than the people.

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881696)

It doesn't seem at all to be an accident that a system designed by the rich would benefit the rich!

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881812)

I don't think the intention of the founding fathers was to build a system where political action committees funded by corporations (mostly) had all of the say in politics. So to answer your question, it does seem to be.

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881866)

US system was designed by the rich?
- What rich? Most of the men who signed the declaration of independence wound-up dead or bankrupt or poor. The only millionaire in the whole group (adjusting to 2010 dollars) was the Printer Benjamin Franklin. Every one else was middle class (Washington, Adams, Madison) or deep, deep in debt (Jefferson).

NOW if you're talking about the Federal Reserve Bank Monopoly, then yes, you have a valid point. But the system was not designed that way - it has only existed in that state since 1913 and can be just as easily dismantled. ("Kill the bank!" to quote Andrew Jackson.)

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (4, Interesting)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881860)

Most of the protests weren't covered, or were downplayed.

I've seen protests with 20,000 or more be completely ignored by the media, while a few hundred Tea Party morons gathering in one spot with their misspelled signs gets wall to wall coverage for an entire weekend.

Yeah, no media bias here (and I'm not just talking about FOX News, by any stretch of the imagination).

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881910)

In defense of that, the Tea Party protests were 1) huge, 2) sensationalist, 3) current topics.

FOX covered them to promote the cause, all the others covered them to poke fun and defang them.

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881988)

The mainstream media outlets thought they were making fun of the Tea Party rallies when in fact they were unintentionally making them all the more mainstream and respectable.

It clearly backfired on the leftist mainstream media last November.

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881994)

>>>Yeah, no media bias here (and I'm not just talking about FOX News)

The TV Media is very clearly Democrat-biased (except fox). ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS - all pro-big government. MSNBC even admits it is progressive biased. If you turn on the television you have a 1 in 6 chance of landing on a pro-D news show.

The AM Radio Media is very clearly Republican-biased. FM Radio doesn't appear to have a bias (they just play music), and the newspaper media nobody reads. ;-)

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34882004)

problem is our system was accidentally designed

Yes, that damn first amendment. It's a real pain, isn't it?

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881684)

and when we call on americans, some of you come up saying that not all americans are the same, some of you actually see what's going on, and aware of how things really are. ok. well. nice.

however, you have to do that, BEFORE being called out.

We do. Constantly. And people like you ignore us, because you WANT all Americans to conform to the ignorant stereotype you imagine, so that you can justify your bigotry to yourself.

Re:And you go berserk and mod us down when (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881808)

>>>and when we call on americans, some of you come up saying that not all americans are the same, some of you actually see what's going on, and aware of how things really are. ok. well. nice.
>>>

I could say the same about Europeans (not seeing the "public-enemy the system has become"). Kettle - meet pot. Or better yet: Watch Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage's videos on youtube:
"Small wonder former Soviet apparatchiks feel at home in European Union" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl-amBxz-to [youtube.com]
"Look at the Faces - look like they've seen a Ghost; EU will Collapse" http://beta.video.me/ViewVideo.aspx?catid=4&vid=160675 [video.me]
"EU To Ban Construction of Ordinary Family Houses by 2020"

Slashdotters in the Spotlight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881608)

Can we go back into the Slashdot archives, find all the people who said "it'll just be for a little while," and then bug the fuck out of them..???

See where they are today..?

Because: I remember telling them, and I want to say: I TOLD YOU SO.

Get Your Pitchforks! Let's get started... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881916)

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/01/10/10/190226/Anti-Civil-Liberties-Legislation-Progresses [slashdot.org]

In order to justify it's positions, the ACLU uses an argunent that is vary simple to articulate but vary difficult to defend - that being, the Slippery Slope Argument.

-hillct (230132)

http://slashdot.org/story/01/11/29/0512208/DOJ-Already-Monitoring-Cable-Internet-Traffic [slashdot.org]

I'm not usually prone to paranoia, but I've begun thinking the massive crackdown on civil liberties is being done intentionally in order to goad Democrats into responding. At which point the Republican party will start screeching about how the Democrats are soft on terrorism and don't care about the security of your children etc.

-nomadic (141991)

Of course Hillary--it's another VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!!! You are being paranoid.

-wakebrdr (13565)

Despite the opinion often voiced on this board that there is aboslutely *no* relationship between the restrictions of civil liberties and increased security there is in some situations exactly such a relationship and our contitution and laws reflect that reality. To be fair I will note that if such measures are taken to lengths not justified by the degree of threat or are taken to extremes even if there is a high level of threat they become subject to a law of diminishing returns and can even become counterproductive. Unfortunately since our enemy in this war is secretive and shadowy it is very hard even for our government to assess the real level of continuing threat. But the attacks on Septemeber 11th suggest that it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the threat... As I said before there are some ambiguities but overall the legal and constitutional validity of these military tribunals seems pretty sound..

-overunderunderdone (521462)

And this bundle of awesome [slashdot.org]

How Long until (4, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881622)

How long until they set it up so it's "extended for another year" renewal bill becomes automatically passed if it isn't voted down?
They've done it on other things. It's a scam where they can refuse to vote, it automatically passes, and they can claim they didn't vote for it.

It's going to take a lot of people to metaphorically kick them in the balls repeatedly until they get the idea that maybe that nazi act needs to be retired before they'll do it.

Re:How Long until (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881704)

RIAA can help with this.
Subscribe to the Patriot club! We will keep sending you yearly issues until you cancel!

Are you UNPATRIOTIC, citizen? (5, Interesting)

fantomas (94850) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881624)

I love the way US laws are given these cheesy, sometimes forced, acronyms.

I think you guys are doing yourself a disservice as they seem to dumb down the often complex debates and arguments covered by these acts, and force folk into simplistic positions based on the naming of the acts. It must be hard to argue against a PATRIOT act: most people don't want to appear 'unpatriotic'.

I am guessing there are civil servants paid to make up some of these acronyms, some of them must have taken some thinking! ("Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" - impressive!).

 

Re:Are you UNPATRIOTIC, citizen? (1)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881708)

Yep, it's all in the name. It's the PATRIOT Act. You want to be a PATRIOT don't you??

Same thing with the ridiculous "Job-Killing Healthcare Law Repeal Act" or whatever they're calling it. You don't want to KILL JOBS do you???

It's in the name, so it must be true, right?

Re:Are you UNPATRIOTIC, citizen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881762)

From Wikipedia:

The USA PATRIOT Act (commonly known as the "Patriot Act") is an Act of the U.S. Congress that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The title of the Act is a contrived three letter initialism (USA) preceding a seven letter acronym (PATRIOT), which in combination stand for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act ( of 2001. The acronym was created by a 23 year old Congressional staffer, Chris Cylke, who was recognized for his contribution in William Safire's book The Right Word in the Right Place at the Right Time.

Re:Are you UNPATRIOTIC, citizen? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881852)

Well the US federal government sponsors these things, and the people are separate from it. The notion that the US people elect the civil servants is propaganda that many foreigners eat right up. Not as many US citizens believe it anymore.

We're doing ourselves a disservice living in this country. The problem is that many of us are financially incapable of moving to another country. The reason is that the entire machine over here is designed to keep most people bound here in a sea of debt and to keep the income levels in that zone that will pay the bills only and not facilitate any accumulation of wealth.

There are a few individuals that can accumulate wealth. They control the country through their corporate fronts. If you are smart, lucky, and have an unnaturally high personal drive that you can maintain under immense financial and social stress, you can find yourself in a position to live comfortably and accumulate wealth, but it's not enough to control the country or embark on a full blown move to another country.

Re:Are you UNPATRIOTIC, citizen? (5, Interesting)

Xelios (822510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881930)

Almost as good as the fact that the PATRIOT act was extended under the "Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act", a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the PATRIOT act in the first place.

Fucking hilarious really.

Re:Are you UNPATRIOTIC, citizen? (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881952)

I'm asking my fellow Senators to all sign my "Bridging All Legislative Lawmakers So America Continues Killing" bill.

BlackWhite (1)

Carnivorous Vulgaris (1964964) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881986)

This is textbook propaganda. All governments do it.

Doublespeak, newspeak, thought-terminating cliches, loaded language and weasel words.
Bonus points if you can shoehorn all that it into a backronym.

What Congress really needs .... (3, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881674)

is a mandatory sunset date on every bill that they sign into law. A year wouldn't be bad. A year would give legal scholars and the public (and maybe even congress itself ,... nah wait for it...... hahahahaha) a chance to review it to see if it actually works.

Re:What Congress really needs .... (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881820)

That would require them showing up for work and working, all year long. Are you nuts?

Re:What Congress really needs .... (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881900)

is a mandatory sunset date on every bill that they sign into law. A year wouldn't be bad. A year would give legal scholars and the public (and maybe even congress itself ,... nah wait for it...... hahahahaha) a chance to review it to see if it actually works.

Even two years would be tolerable. That way, you could vote out the congress if you didn't like the laws, and the new gang coming in would have to decide if their political careers were worth it.

Re:What Congress really needs .... (1)

adwarf (1002867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881940)

It would also have a nice benefit that if they passed too many laws they would spend all their time renewing existing laws and be unable to create more. Of course, they would just bundle all the laws together and pass them at once and then nothing would ever be reviewed and it would just be some quick automatic thing they did at the beginning of the next year.

Why would the Feds give up the power? (5, Interesting)

realmolo (574068) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881788)

The PATRIOT Act is here to stay. There is NO WAY the Federal Government is going to willingly give up all the powers it granted them.

Of all the stupid things that happened during the Bush years, that is by far the most damaging. And it's going to take a Congress and a President with a hell of a lot more spine to repeal it. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Re:Why would the Feds give up the power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881944)

Can't our judicial system say "This is unconstitutional," and have it removed? You know, checks and balances?

step by step (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881810)

"What no one seemed to notice... was the ever widening gap... between the government and the people. The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway... and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that... one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. But the one great shocking occasion... never comes. That's the difficulty." - Milton Mayer (1908-1986) journalist and educator, writing about the Nazi takeover of Germany from the point of view of the average citizen, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1938-45

Americans seem to fall into these categories:

The rich - they don't care about justice or injustice, just money
The poor - they may care but they have no power
The oblivious - they're busy watching American Idol and eating pizza
The middle class - they're just trying to maintain or looking for work

"What keeps most Americans from being shocked by the shredding of the Bill of Rights is that they have yet to feel the consequences, either personally or through someone close to them. It would appear, however, that they only have to wait." - William Blum

I am selling tinfoil hats... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34881862)

...and going to make a killing on /.

Email me at omg dot wtf dot conspiracy at fringelunatic dot com

It is not so bad (2, Interesting)

GeneralSecretary (1959616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881890)

There has not been much serious abuse of the law since it was created. While the potential for that abuse is still there I have not seen convincing evidence that the innocent have been terribly harassed because of this act. The war is still on. Numerous attacks have been foiled in the last several years primarily due to good intelligence. I hope someday that we will again live in a world where these laws are not needed, but I don't think that day has come.

Patriot act has Lieberman's name all over it (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34881980)

And to think that man almost become vice president... Man! dodged a bullet on that one..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...