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!

House Fails To Extend Patriot Act Spy Powers

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the patriotism-versus-freedom-chapter-85,672 dept.

Government 284

schwit1 writes "The House failed to extend three key expiring provisions of the Patriot Act on Tuesday, elements granting the government broad and nearly unchecked surveillance power on its own public. The failure of the bill, sponsored by Rep. James F. Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis), for the time being is likely to give airtime to competing measures in the Senate that would place limited checks on the act's broad surveillance powers. The White House, meanwhile, said it wanted the expiring measures extended through 2013."

cancel ×

284 comments

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

Read it and weep: (-1, Redundant)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146746)

First post.

Re:Read it and weep: (5, Funny)

lul_wat (1623489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146768)

Also seeing as I'm about to get modded down .. I just watched Canadian Bacon for the first time, a film from 1995. In one scene the US President is receiving ideas about what should replace the Cold War. Someone suggests Terrorism and he laughs it off saying that no one would fall for it.

Re:Read it and weep: (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147588)

Ah, the prescience of Michael Moore. Never thought I'd hear myself say that, but there it is.

Ha!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146754)

No Assange is no patriot! (What? I don't even know what that means.)

Hmm. (2, Funny)

arun84h (1454607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146756)

I, for one, welco...oh wait.

Re:Hmm. (4, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147396)

I, for one, welcome Congress's inability to come together as one bipartisan group in an effort to eliminate my rights as a non-incorporated citizen.

Good. (5, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146764)

If the Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.

Re:Good. (1)

_0rm_ (1638559) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146800)

I remember reading about that experiment in my High School AP Psych class (also read The Lucifer Effect by Zimbardo, very good book). I think reading about that experiment is why I'm the cynical bastard I am today.

Re:Good. (5, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146870)

If the Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.

No, it didn't teach that. It taught that it might -- it's just one instance.

HISTORY, on the other hand, has taught us that power without oversight usually leads to abuse and corruption. (And even then it's not always.)

Re:Good. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147380)

So the solution to health care is to give the government greater control over health care?

Re:Good. (2, Insightful)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147646)

And the solution to posts like yours is another non-sequitur. Feldspar!

Re:Good. (4, Funny)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147470)

If the Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.

No, it didn't teach that. It taught that it might -- it's just one instance.

What are you saying, that a sample size of one isn't enough to go on when drawing universal generalizations? Preposterous!

Re:Good. (1)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146890)

If the Stanford Prison Experiment has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption.

You make it sound like that experiment revealed some great truth that wasn't already known, but anyone who spent any time studying history in the last couple thousand years was already fully aware of that particular insight...

Re:Good. (3, Insightful)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146900)

"If the Stanford Prison Experiment [prisonexp.org] has taught one and only one thing is that given power without oversight always leads to abuse and corruption."

Guess who went to Stanford?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner [wikipedia.org]

Not to say that everyone that goes to Stanford is corrupt. I don't believe that for a moment. But, what I do believe is that this man has single-handedly done more damage to the liberty of US citizens then any other person. Don't take my word for it though, read up on the guy and come to your own conclusions.

*cough* (0, Troll)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146798)

So I guess you could call this an...

<Sunglasses>

...Epic Fail.

Re:*cough* (1, Funny)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146950)

So I guess you could call this an...

<Sunglasses>

...Epic Fail.

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!

FTFY.

Re:*cough* (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147348)

I wont get fooled again!

Who is Roblimo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146812)

Who is Roblimo and why has he posted 10 stories in the span of 5 hours? Not even samzempus posts this often.

Re:Who is Roblimo (3, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146856)

Roblimo was the editor in chief of Open Source Technology Group, the company that owns Slashdot, SourceForge.net, freshmeat, Linux.com, NewsForge, and ThinkGeek from 2000 to 2008.

He used to post alot of the stories here from about, oh 2000 to '04. And he was/is the interview editor.

Re:Who is Roblimo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146882)

Guess he must be hurting for work too if he's got so much time to post on slashdot :D

Re:Who is Roblimo (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147496)

Guess he must be hurting for work too if he's got so much time to post on slashdot :D

Nah. Like most of us, he just posts from work while pretending to get stuff done.

Re:Who is Roblimo (4, Interesting)

Roblimo (357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147834)

Actually, I'm retired and just helping out a little when others are taking breaks/vacations or are out sick.

- Robin

I got an email from EFF the other day (4, Interesting)

rodgster (671476) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146830)

I was going to send a comment to my congressman demanding that he vote against this unconstitutional atrocity. Thankfully this didn't pass and hopefully has finally begun to sunset. I can only hope we can someday resurrect the Constitution.

Re:I got an email from EFF the other day... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147256)

...I opened it, read it, said they were suckers.

Minority government (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146832)

Ah, the joys of a federal government on the verge of losing power. There is nothing quite like having politicians actually listen to your views.

Re:Minority government (2)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147116)

They weren't listening. They just realized that there was no need to have the Patriot Act in order to engage in the activities they justified under the Patriot Act.

good job Republicans! (-1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146838)

Good job Republicans! Wow, never thought I'd say that.. Well, after being in power for 17 of the last 20 years, it's about time you did something right.

Re:good job Republicans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146860)

Yeah, their chronic obstructionism and mindless stubbornness finally paid off!

How much longer till it is effective again?

Re:good job Republicans! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146862)

A bill sponsored by 3 Republicans fail, and they get the credit? Does anyone have a link to the full roll call?

Re:good job Republicans! (2)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147138)

There was no vote. It hasn't even made it out of committee.

Re:good job Republicans! (2)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147186)

Nevermind, some sites are just not updated yet. Even Thomas still shows it in committee still, but apparently there was a vote a few hours ago.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml [house.gov]

Re:good job Republicans! (5, Informative)

besalope (1186101) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147142)

Here's the vote list:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml [house.gov]

Key Stats:

Republicans:
Yea: 210
Nay: 26

Democrats:
Yea: 67
Nay: 122

Republicans killed the bill my ass.

Re:good job Republicans! (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147402)

Hey, if those 26 had voted the other way, it would have scraped through. The Republicans were only 90% evil! Yay Republicans!

Re:good job Republicans! (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147682)

I guess that means a couple dozen republicans were just scratching in their sleep and accidentally got counted as voting...

Re:good job Republicans! (3, Insightful)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147506)

A bill sponsored by 3 Republicans fail, and they get the credit? Does anyone have a link to the full roll call?

Yeah, 'cuz Democrats are always the party of Big Government. I am now going to insert my fingers into my ears and shout repeatedly so that I can't hear you tell me about any evidence to the contrary. Good day.

Re:good job Republicans! (2)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146866)

But they didn't, they tried to pass it...

Re:good job Republicans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146990)

unless trying to push it through wihtou debate was a snarky attempt to make it fail, while allowing republicans to "vote for security" and claim victory for killing it at the same time. I wish our government was competent enough to pull that off.

Re:good job Republicans! (1, Flamebait)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147076)

Which is strange. All this time we've been hearing about how Obama is an islamofascist communist sleeper agent, and then they line up to extend his nearly unchecked powers until the end of the term.

Either they are very confident about Palin/Beck 2012, or they just can't get enough of the taste of jackboots, no matter who is wearing them...

Re:good job Republicans! (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147522)

Which is strange. All this time we've been hearing about how Obama is an islamofascist communist sleeper agent, and then they line up to extend his nearly unchecked powers until the end of the term.

And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers. Remind me again, which party stands on the side of liberty?

His "own party" was neutral on the thing (2, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147560)

And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers.

So did Republicans - it would have passed without NO votes from both sides.

This was not a Democratic block at all, it was a bi-partisan block with many people on both sides questioning the extent of the Act.

Re:His "own party" was neutral on the thing (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147702)

And meanwhile his own party blocks the effort to extend his powers.

So did Republicans - it would have passed without NO votes from both sides.

This was not a Democratic block at all, it was a bi-partisan block with many people on both sides questioning the extent of the Act.

Bi-partisan? Barely. 89% of Republicans voted for it. 35% of Democrats did. Yes, it would have passed if some hadn't dissented, but saying that "Republicans" blocked it is highly disingenuous. A relative handful of Republicans voted against it, against the wishes of the party.

Re:good job Republicans! (2)

Goboxer (1821502) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146868)

It was my understanding that it was a combination of the Tea Party republicans with the democrats that helped to stop this from passing.

But who cares who it was as long as it dies.

Re:good job Republicans! (5, Informative)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146886)

Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.

Re:good job Republicans! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146910)

Moreover, it failed because Republicans tried to pass the extension _without debate_, thereby upping the required threshold to 66%.

If they had allowed debate, it would have sailed through as it had much more than 50%. I suspect that this will be the next step (allowing debate).

Re:good job Republicans! (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147660)

There will be no "debate". Only some dramatic pontificating for C-span, and then it will pass with little fanfare. And the people will sheepishly accept it as necessary..

Re:good job Republicans! (1)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147150)

What vote? Everything I'm seeing about HR 514 says it never got past committee.

Re:good job Republicans! (3, Interesting)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147232)

Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.

Democrats did better in this case, but don't give them too much credit. "Almost every" in my mind means 90-99%. Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, but so did 35% of democrats [govtrack.us] . I just want to point out that if each party had half the house and 1/3 of democrats supports a bill: 1/2 + 1/3*1/2 = 2/3 (enough to pass). The bill only lost by rounding error.

Re:good job Republicans! (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147538)

The bill only lost by rounding error.

You're right, if we could only (legally) divide human being into arbitrary fractions, those disembodied limbs and organs totally would have voted for the bill.

Re:good job Republicans! (1)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147574)

I suppose dividing humans into arbitrary factions is better than providing a two party system where each party represents such a wide conglomeration of beliefs that nobody is satisfied. Of all the combinations of political opinions, there are two that are consistently voted for, never mind the fact that many party principles are completely separable.

Re:good job Republicans! (1)

Zancarius (414244) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147738)

Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.

Which is ironic considering how much most Slashdotters disdain the Tea Party.

In fairness (and admittedly anecdotally), most of the people from my area who self-identify with the Tea Party may tend toward the religious/Christian voting bloc, there's a great many of them who are more socially liberal. Perhaps not with issues like gay marriage, sex ed, and so forth, but certainly they generally dislike granting the government any extension of its powers.

The upshot is that while most of the Left and those who identify with the Tea Party may not always see eye to eye, at least there are a few among the latter who understand when it is important to block measures that would otherwise grant the federal government extension over stripping away our liberties.

Of course, I'd wager that most of the Tea Partiers who voted against it probably did so because they couldn't stomach the Obama administration having these powers. ;)

(Disclaimer: I tend to self-identify with the Tea Party for most of their sensible policies. Hence, I also believe that my last statement is probably a significant reason why any of them would have voted against this measure.)

Re:good job Republicans! (3, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146896)

In the last 20 years, a Republican has been President for 10 years (2 years H.W. Bush 1, 8 years G.W. Bush), Republicans controlled the Senate for 10 years and controlled the House for 12 years.

Re:good job Republicans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146912)

You must be new to watching politics and human behavior if this.... elates you.

Re:good job Republicans! (3, Funny)

Doug Neal (195160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146966)

Something about stopped clocks...

Re:good job Republicans! (5, Informative)

odd42 (1370641) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146976)

Good job Republicans! Wow, never thought I'd say that.. Well, after being in power for 17 of the last 20 years, it's about time you did something right.

Um... 90% of Repubs voted FOR extending it...! http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml [house.gov]

Re:good job Republicans! (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147426)

10% of Republicans not being total asshats for once is refreshing news, and probably merits a "good job".

Why are you thanking them? Here are the numbers (2, Informative)

dlenmn (145080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147204)

GOP: 210/67 (y/n) -> 75.812% yes
DEM: 26/122 (y/n) -> 17.568% yes

http://www.gop.gov/votes/112/1/26 [gop.gov]

Re:Why are you thanking them? Here are the numbers (3, Informative)

konohitowa (220547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147320)

Correction:

GOP: 210/26 (y/n) -> 89%
DEM: 67/122 (y-n) -> 32%

Re:Why are you thanking them? Here are the numbers (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147548)

GOP: 210/67 (y/n) -> 75.812% yes DEM: 26/122 (y/n) -> 17.568% yes

http://www.gop.gov/votes/112/1/26 [gop.gov]

I'm pretty sure you're getting your rows and columns confused in reading that chart.

Re:good job Republicans! (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147366)

Good job Republicans!

They wanted the act extended. They introduced it in the first place.

Doing something right, in this case, means failing at doing something evil. Their redeeming feature is incompetence.

Re:good job Republicans! (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147430)

Their redeeming feature is incompetence

Making them just like the other lot. Ah, democracy.

Re:good job Republicans! (0)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147492)

They will still manage to pass it, or some even worse law, under a pretense of it being a huge emergency. They will even use today's failure to help make the case for the emergency.

So it worked exactly like it was supposed to work? (0)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146848)

Isn't this what was supposed to happen in the first place ... and everyone got all uppity because they would never give up those powers ... and here they are ... letting them expire ...

Queue the 200 comments now ranting about how evil the government is and how this is just them taking another set of rights away from us ... even though its them losing that ability.

Re:So it worked exactly like it was supposed to wo (4, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147034)

People were uppity because they should never have had the powers in the beginning.

Re:So it worked exactly like it was supposed to wo (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147710)

They're going to bring the bill back for a vote that only requires a simple majority. It will pass then. This is more of a way for them to sort out the renegades to determine where party dollars go for reelection campaigns.

The House failed..? (3, Insightful)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146852)

I see it as the House succeeding..

Re:The House failed..? (2)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146958)

The house failed to fail (?)

But the voting was almost entirely on party lines, which I consider another fail for our society. Dichotomization (yes I made that word up) like this can't be good...

Re:The House failed..? (2)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147442)

But the voting was almost entirely on party lines,

Not really, depending on your threshold for that. The numbers (stolen from a comment above):

GOP: 210/26 (y/n) -> 89%
DEM: 67/122 (y-n) -> 32%

... so 11% of GOPs and 32% of Dems didn't vote "entirely on party lines". Compared to the Westminster system, for instance, where voting along party lines is the customary thing to do and "crossing the floor" is liable to get you kicked out of your party, this is a huge degree of freedom.

Bold prediction: (4, Interesting)

straponego (521991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146864)

The bill will be reintroduced and will pass easily, probably with an end to sunset provisions. It's amazing how many erstwhile defenders of the Constitution, like Patrick Leahy, have become rubber stamps-- fig leaves, at best-- for the surveillance state ever since the Patriot Act made wiretapping of important people ubiquitous. Well, it wasn't just since the Patriot Act. It was right around the time US Government anthrax went out to the most liberal members of Congress and Paul Wellstone's plane crashed. Good times.

Re:Bold prediction: (2)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146952)

...ever since the Patriot Act made wiretapping of un important people ubiquitous.

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Bold prediction: (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147436)

Yeah really. There's a reason Hoover considered president's just passerby's in his kingdom.

Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (5, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146928)

Hate to put a damper on things, but the only reason this failed was that the Republicans assumed that passage was a fait accompli, so they pushed it in under an expediting procedure that requires a two-thirds vote, and the bill only failed that by 7 votes. All they have to do is reintroduce it under the usual majority vote rule and it will be a done deal.

Though I will admit, for the first time since I became aware of their existence I feel something other than blinding hatred for the Tea Party, who are basically responsible for the Republicans not having enough votes. Looks like some of them really do care about civil liberties, and for that at least they should be congratulated.

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (4, Insightful)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146948)

At least this time it will be debated and amendments will be considered.

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (3, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147280)

Like the removal of those annoying sunset provisions?

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (1)

LeperPuppet (1591409) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147622)

Like the removal of those annoying sunset provisions?

And the addition of some more pork

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (1)

Manfre (631065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35146980)

The only chance of stopping it will be if they can manage to get enough amendments on it that stops republicans from voting for it.

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147562)

Attach stimulus funds paid to the bottom 50% as a rider. They'd rather pull their own entrails out through their asses than vote for that!

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (2)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147566)

The only chance of stopping it will be if they can manage to get enough amendments on it that stops republicans from voting for it.

Just add an amendment that says every time the government uses a roving wiretap, they have to provide a free abortion to an inner-city teenager. That ought to do the trick.

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (1)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147262)

That makes me wonder why your blinding hatred is focused on only the Tea Party and not the Two Party(R+D) in general.

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (1)

konohitowa (220547) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147332)

It's probably the "blind" part...

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (1)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147568)

That makes me wonder why your blinding hatred is focused on only the Tea Party and not the Two Party(R+D) in general.

He never said he didn't have blinding hatred for them too. He only said that the hatred for the Tea Party was reduced by their actions in this case.

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (1)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147686)

You might be right if we were being pedantic.

Re:Stop celebrating - it's going to pass (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147758)

Though I will admit, for the first time since I became aware of their existence I feel something other than blinding hatred for the Tea Party, who are basically responsible for the Republicans not having enough votes. Looks like some of them really do care about civil liberties, and for that at least they should be congratulated.

They're the Libertarian wing of the Republican party... kinda. Except with more God and less drugs.

Obama, naturally, is for the intrusive spying powers that he claimed he was against when he was running for office.

It may end up passing.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146946)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020806345.html?hpid=topnews

Re:It may end up passing.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147524)

I told you in 2008 that if the Republicans got a chance to deprive President Obama of any of the power they gave to President Bush, they would.

Amazing with all we are facing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35146968)

Massive debt, an economy on the brink of collapse and all the House Republicans are interested in is repealing health care for the people that couldn't get it, tax breaks for the rich and extending domestic spying/the Patriot Act. How about trying to fix something that's actually broken? When I saw the Republican proposed budget cuts they were all things like education, EPA, NASA and the FBI of all things. Not a single cut was actual fat and none of it affected the rich or corporate America. Remember where their priorities lie next time around.

Re:Amazing with all we are facing (1)

SLot (82781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147030)

Oh, same place every politician of either ilk had "priorities".

Re:Amazing with all we are facing (3, Insightful)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147172)

Yeah, those goddamn Republicans...

"The White House, meanwhile, said it wanted the expiring measures extended through 2013."

Re:Amazing with all we are facing (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147720)

The last one I saw, by Rand Paul [wsj.com] (a deliciously titled article for those with a sense of irony), included the Department of Defense, the Homeland Security department, and the Agriculture department. I don't know the details of the plan, but it doesn't seem completely hare-brained, and certainly there is fat in all those departments.

Erudite comment (2, Funny)

nickovs (115935) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147124)

Normally I try to only post astute, informative and insightful (and karma-whoring comments), but in this case all I have to say is:
"Woo-whoo! Excellent!".

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147156)

For those who thought Obama was going to change the status quo, you should read the provisions the White House wants to keep:

The three expiring Patriot Act provisions are:

â The âoeroving wiretapâ provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court, without identifying what method of communication is to be tapped.

â The âoelone wolfâ measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for whatever reason â" even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so.

â The âoebusiness recordsâ provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation.

In the best traditions of bipartisanship, both parties want to take away your civil liberties and sell out the middle class to big business. The only difference between the two is which big business group they are puppets for.

And this is coming from a Constituional law professor, by the way. A guy who taught at one of the top Universities in the country - the University of Chicago - and was educated at the top law school in the country. If this is what he thinks the Constitution stands for, we're fucked.

Obama is as much of a disgrace to this country as Bush ever was.

Don't tell me it's just politics. Where would be if everyone - Lincoln, Jefferson, etc. - acted as if it were just politics? Sometimes you got to take a stand. But alas, the sad truth is that Mr. Obama simply does not have the balls.

I will now go back to listening to the Who.

Posting anonymously because that's just what this country has come to.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147356)

in before someone replies and says Obama's just trying his best and that his true intentions are being undermined by faceless and nameless entities from the powers that be. Goddamn those people need to stop dropping entire sheets of acid.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (1, Troll)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147638)

à The Ãoeroving wiretapà provision allows the FBI to obtain wiretaps from a secret intelligence court, known as the FISA court, without identifying what method of communication is to be tapped.

à The Ãoelone wolfà measure allows FISA court warrants for the electronic monitoring of a person for whatever reason Ã" even without showing that the suspect is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. The government has said it has never invoked that provision, but the Obama administration said it wanted to retain the authority to do so.

à The Ãoebusiness recordsà provision allows FISA court warrants for any type of record, from banking to library to medical, without the government having to declare that the information sought is connected to a terrorism or espionage investigation.

In the best traditions of bipartisanship, both parties want to take away your civil liberties and sell out the middle class to big business. The only difference between the two is which big business group they are puppets for.

And this is coming from a Constituional law professor, by the way. A guy who taught at one of the top Universities in the country - the University of Chicago - and was educated at the top law school in the country. If this is what he thinks the Constitution stands for, we're fucked.

Your argument appeals to the public more when you leave it at "Patriot Act is Evil" and not giving too many facts that when read aloud don't actually sound all that terrible.

Which part of the Constitution of the United States do you think these are stepping on? Enough of this revisionist BULLSHIT please. Can we debate privacy as fundamental human right or whatever without dragging the God damned Constitution or any other "sacred" text into this? This is the same Holy Constitution that started out only letting wealthy white men vote after all. The reason civil rights get violated and privacy has "issues" is because the book is still being written on this one.

Hey look, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
See, that's the part that makes the federal govt telling the states how to standardize on a national ID unconstitutional! Oh WAIT!
There's just no limit to the amount of fun we can have interpreting the Constitution, I'm telling you.

P.S. I am posting this with as much anonymity as you have, but get virtual kudos to beat off with.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147650)

It is because it is all about one thing. MONEY.

HLS has no oversight in it's spending and taking away some of it's powers is seen as a attack on the unchecked funding it receives.

Frontline had a interesting story titled Are We Safer? [pbs.org] where it seems pretty clear the things in the Patriot Act do not make us safer and that HLS is just as dysfunctional as what we had before 9/11.

My question is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147168)

why is a tv show doctor trying to extend the patriot act?

Re:My question is (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147324)

Special guest star: Matt Damon as Jason Bourne.

hilaaariouuus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147264)

CHANGE!

Sad Fact (3, Insightful)

binaryseraph (955557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147298)

It is a win, at least on paper. But the fact is that it doesn't stop the spying from happening anyway. As we have been finding out over the last few years about a very common missuse of power by our (US) gov't. That is prohibited by law, even the Patriot Act. It's hard for the police to police the police when they don't even know the police are policing.

"Freedom and Liberty" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35147740)

I love how the party that likes to brand itself as the small-government, free, and libertarian-like group is supporting this, whilst the "socialist" party is much more opposed.

A lesson for Republicans: freedom means more than tax cuts for the ultra-rich.

Tea Party Influence? (1)

surfcow (169572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35147754)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Unless it's digital. Or something.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>