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!

Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent

michael posted about 11 years ago | from the permanent-war dept.

United States 1601

955301 writes "As if it was unexpected, the New York Times (free reg...) has an article on attempts by our Congressional Republicans to eliminate the expiration of the Patriot Act. Everyone may thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah for getting this 9/11 snowball rolling, and the general population for our current leadership." There's another story in the SF Chronicle.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


My God. (4, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | about 11 years ago | (#5694911)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm glad I'm Canadian.

Re:My God. (4, Funny)

Randy Rathbun (18851) | about 11 years ago | (#5694930)

You guys got any more room?

Re:My God. (0, Troll)

B3ryllium (571199) | about 11 years ago | (#5694936)

Tons. In fact, just one province single is twice as large as Texas.

Re:My God. (-1, Offtopic)

B3ryllium (571199) | about 11 years ago | (#5694968)

Uhm, pretend I meant "alone" by single.

Specifically, I mean British Columbia. Based on the assumption that BC is 934K square miles, and Texas is around 450K square miles. But that might be wrong, last time I went looking I couldn't find the surface area of Texas.

BC is twice as big as Iraq, though.

Re:My God. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695008)

Years ago I ran into an ignorant Texan who tried to say that Texas was larger than Alberta. *rolls eyes*

Re:My God. (1, Troll)

Windcatcher (566458) | about 11 years ago | (#5694934)

My vote is about to go from the Republicans to the Libertarians. I've always been a loyal Republican, until now...

Doesn't matter (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694938)

We know you have french people up there, how soon till we bomb you too!?

Re:Doesn't matter (1)

aflat362 (601039) | about 11 years ago | (#5695007)

We know you have french people up there, how soon till we bomb you too!?

This is exactly the kind of thing that gives Americans a bad name. If you're going to insult the Canadians or the French at least be creative!

We have made ourselves an easy target by being self-indulgent pigs. The last thing we need to do is look like self-indulgent pigs who can't even muster up a good come-back.

Re:Doesn't matter (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695082)

It's not exactly a total joke. If we want to bomb them, we will, we'll just find some evidence to support our cause. If we can't find it, we'll make it.

BTW, nobody gives a fuck that we are self indulgent. They hate us cause we are assholes, both in attitude towards them, and policy towards their country. Thanks for your attempt at comedic policing though.

You mean that wasn't a joke? (1)

NeoChichiri (562667) | about 11 years ago | (#5695096)

Funny...I thought that was actually meant as a joke. I figured that since the comment was so blatantly ignorant that it could not have been meant to be serious.

Re:My God. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694967)

I'm glad you're Canadian too, you jackass.

Re:My God. (1)

Circuit_Burnout (660480) | about 11 years ago | (#5695002)

Ah.. Another brilliant reply by an Anonymous Coward.

Re:My God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695046)

Yes..Oh My God.....

America's slide into Facism continues..........God help us all.

Re:My God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695106)

Is slashdot godawful goddamn fucking slow in Cananada too?

Canada may be next (1)

Dukeofshadows (607689) | about 11 years ago | (#5694982)

Think about it. When Rome wanted extra "security" it began annexing neighbors that were previously friendly. A logical extension of the need for "security" would be to annex Canada and Mexico to ensure "secure borders". While there may be some benefits to that, the current admin is doing a poor job managing its own territory, much less nearby areas.

Re:My God. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694988)

Is that an open source businessmodel?

1: Write free software.
2: ?
3: Be Canadian instead of American.
4: Profit!

Re:My God. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695029)

Oh fuck you, asshole. Here you are, a LOGGED IN user, getting a first post. And us anonymous people, who respect our privacy, are getting the shaft in the right to post.


If I can't have a first post, nobody will!

Re:My God. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695076)

Yeah, in Canada civil liberties aren't curtailed to do triffling stuff like help catch terrorists. They're curtailed to do useful stuff like stop the importation of pornography and make politically incorrect speech illegal.

I am confident (4, Insightful)

Apreche (239272) | about 11 years ago | (#5694918)

that one day, when the patriot act is finally challenged in the supreme court it will be destroyed.

That's if you'll retain the right to challenge it (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694950)


Re:That's if you'll retain the right to challenge (5, Insightful)

joe52 (74496) | about 11 years ago | (#5694970)

How are they going to stop you? Throw you in jail and not let you see a lawyer?

Oh wait...

Re:I am confident (1)

goosman (145634) | about 11 years ago | (#5694953)

Although it could be a long time until it gets there and a lot of folks are going to be...er...inconvenienced by the provisions therein.

We need to stop this madness before it grows stronger roots.

Re:I am confident (1, Insightful)

Phosphor3k (542747) | about 11 years ago | (#5694973)

I'm sure they will attach an amendment making it illegal to challenge the patriot act in court. They will also amend the amendment to make challengeing the legality of the amendment, illegal. In Facist USA, the amendments declare YOU illegal.

Re:I am confident (4, Funny)

VistaBoy (570995) | about 11 years ago | (#5695006)

Oh, but trust me...we'll get them when we challenge the amendment that makes challenging the amendment illegal...

Re:I am confident (0)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 11 years ago | (#5695091)

You mean we still have a constitution... damn. The way some people talk around here I thought Shrub and Ashcroft had snuck in a few changes to the original or maybe destroyed it.

Nothing to see here, move along.

#ifndef hearty_jibe
#define hearty_jibe
Neo-Cons: Proving physics wrong and that the speed of light can be broken, but only by dead old men spinning in their graves.

I doubt... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694921)

...that I will get a first post in this thread that is about the PATRIOT act. I am typing to avoid that fucking 20 second lame filter.

I'd like to apply the lame filter to Rob Malda. Fucking cocksmoker.

God willing. (0, Funny)

Pres. Ronald Reagan (659566) | about 11 years ago | (#5694931)

The Partiot Act has already helped to catch many terrorists. If it is made permanent, who knows how much good it will do in the future.

This is the well being of America here, people.

Re:God willing. (4, Insightful)

slimsam1 (591962) | about 11 years ago | (#5694958)

Yeah, a few possible terrorists are caught at the tiny expense of the freedom and rights of 250+ million innocent people.

Re:God willing. (0, Troll)

Pres. Ronald Reagan (659566) | about 11 years ago | (#5694994)

How many of your right have been violated by the federal government since the passing of the PATRIOT Act? None? Imagine that.

The PATRIOT Act has only been used to catch terrorists, and it does that well. It MUST be kept in effect, lest terrorists overrun our great land.

Re:God willing. (1)

slimsam1 (591962) | about 11 years ago | (#5695027)

What could you do if the FBI put a wiretap on your phone? They didn't even need permission from the courts. Well?

Re:God willing. (2, Insightful)

realfake (302363) | about 11 years ago | (#5694987)

Can you back this up? Can you document how many terrorists have now been caught that wouldn't have been caught without it? Kindly provide links.

Re:God willing. (2, Insightful)

renehollan (138013) | about 11 years ago | (#5695032)

Ya know, if we just killed all of the people on earth, there would be no more terrorists...

Oh, wait. I said WAI......

Patriot Act seems to have worked. (-1, Troll)

glrotate (300695) | about 11 years ago | (#5694937)

A year and a half without a terrorist act. Either the Patriot Act works or the terrorists have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (5, Insightful)

Keeper (56691) | about 11 years ago | (#5695003)

And how many years before 9/11 did we go without a terrorist act? And how many years before that were we hit by a terrorist act enacted by people who are not American citizens?

So how do you come to the conclusion that the Patriot Act works?

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (4, Interesting)

ChuckDivine (221595) | about 11 years ago | (#5695135)

I'll second Keeper.

And make a few observations of my own.

We (meaning the U.S., Britain and allies) are in the process of defeating a country that tightly controlled its people. We did the same to the late Soviet Union -- another nation that practiced tight control of its citizens.

Many historians argue that the Roman empire fell because it moved from a laissez faire model -- we don't care what you do as long as you don't try to sack Rome -- to trying to run peoples' lives.

Tyranny works -- briefly. Then it destroys.

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (5, Insightful)

reelbk (213809) | about 11 years ago | (#5695009)

Sweet tap dancing Christ!
I have a rock that keeps tigers away. I haven't seen any tigers lately, so it must be working fairly well.

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (1)

antaeogo (608846) | about 11 years ago | (#5695037)

"A year and a half without a terrorist act. Either the Patriot Act works or the terrorists have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former."

Remind me, how many terrorist acts on American soil were there in the few years before 9/11?

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695063)

Doh, too late.

- Ant

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (4, Funny)

Steve B (42864) | about 11 years ago | (#5695052)

A year and a half without a terrorist act. Either the Patriot Act works or the terrorists have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.

There are no giant squids within a thousand miles of here. Either my anti-squid paperweight works or the squids have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.

Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. (4, Insightful)

mugnyte (203225) | about 11 years ago | (#5695130)

So by this argument, and the discussion that will follow, upon the next act of terrorism on US soil that succeeds without prior detection will prove this Act misguided?

I doubt it. This thing is here to stay. Until some progressive leadership realizes our immigrant population is dwindling because of harassment. "Thank God" the nationalists cry. But lets not forget, these are the people are outrank us in any tests of the maths and sciences, and they include some of the best entrepreneurs we have.

Why not outsource then? If I can pay for the same skills overseas, I'll take it. Not all skills are outsourcable, I've commented on this already. What a great help to the EU and Asia! We're going to pump more corporate dollars overseas, meanwhile we try to shut down the surreptitious church funds and money transfer shops. Ironic.

We're closing ours doors through fear. The effects are going to be subtle and long-felt. There's a marketing aspect here. Each time, regardless of usage, the Ashcrofts of the administration argue for "war time infrigements", we're fueling a isolationist platform. History has proven these moves to be limiting to only growth, and not much good otherwise.


Not A Joke (4, Interesting)

Ken@WearableTech (107340) | about 11 years ago | (#5694945)

This is not a joke, just a question. What is wrong with the patriot act. Not crazy leftwing ideas but real examples of how this is so bad that any reward in stopping criminal acts is NOT worth the costs.
I have no opinion on it yet but look forward to reading yours.

Not a joke either (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694995)

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase
a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Patriot Act bans Franklin? (2, Insightful)

glrotate (300695) | about 11 years ago | (#5695098)

The parent asks for a specific example, and you respond with a quote. The question remains, what liberties are you referring to? Or can you name none?

Re:Not A Joke (5, Informative)

bricriu (184334) | about 11 years ago | (#5695030)

You can be detained, without being charged, indefinitely, having been investigated under a sealed warrant, an unsigned warrant, or no warrant at all, and then be denied access to a lawyer.

And that is un-American. Period.

Re:Not A Joke (4, Informative)

wherley (42799) | about 11 years ago | (#5695062)

see the Electronic Frontier Foundations' Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act here [eff.org] . After reading, feel free to contribute to the EFF here [eff.org] .

Re:Not A Joke (4, Insightful)

lavalyn (649886) | about 11 years ago | (#5695126)

One thing about "rights" is that for normal people to get them usually involves war, death, revolution, and lots of beheadings.

Rights like the access to a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time. To be represented in court with a competent lawyer in the field. To be proven of guilt by a jury of peers.

Rights like anonymous freedom of speech. Anonymous freedom of association. And anonymous dissemination and learning of information.

What rights we lose now we will eventually regain in the mass deaths of some group. But that's just a "terrorist" act in and of itself.

HAHAHAHA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694947)

Ehehehehe. Stupid Americans -- you get the government you deserve.

Don't thank the general population.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694952)

...they actually voted for Gore.

Reg-free link to article and full text: (5, Informative)

Polyphemis (450226) | about 11 years ago | (#5694954)

Working link to article, no reg required [nytimes.com]

Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent


ASHINGTON, April 8 -- Working with the Bush administration, Congressional Republicans are maneuvering to make permanent the sweeping antiterrorism powers granted to federal law enforcement agents after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, officials said today.

The move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress who believe that the Patriot Act, as the legislation that grew out of the attacks is known, has already given the government too much power to spy on Americans.

The landmark legislation expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects.

When it passed in October 2001, moderates and civil libertarians in Congress agreed to support it only by making many critical provisions temporary. Those provisions will expire, or "sunset," at the end of 2005 unless Congress re-authorizes them.

But Republicans in the Senate in recent days have discussed a proposal, written by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, that would repeal the sunset provisions and make the law's new powers permanent, officials said. Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.

Many Democrats have grown increasingly frustrated by what they see as a lack of information from the Justice Department on how its agents are using their newfound powers, and they say they need more time to determine whether agents are abusing those powers.

The Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, said today that without extensive review, he "would be very strongly opposed to any repeal" of the 2005 time limit. He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.
Indeed, Congressional officials and political observers said the debate might force lawmakers to take stock of how far they were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

Beryl Howell, a former Democratic aide in the Senate who worked extensively on the 2001 legislation, said that by forcing the issue, Mr. Hatch "is throwing down the gauntlet to people who think the U.S.A. Patriot Act went too far and who want to cut back its powers."

Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.

"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

Another senior official who also demanded anonymity said the department had held discussions with Congressional Republicans about how that might best be accomplished. "Our involvement has really been just keeping an open ear to the issue as it's proceeding, not to really guide the debate," the official said.

With the act's provisions not set to expire for more than two and a half years, officials expected that the debate over its future would be many months away. But political jockeying over separate bipartisan legislation sponsored by Senators Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, appears to have given Senator Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected.

The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group.
Advocates say the measure would make it easier for agents to go after "lone wolf" terrorists who are not connected to a foreign group and might have allowed the F.B.I. to get a warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui, known as the 20th hijacker, before the Sept. 11 attacks.

The proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But Republicans are upset because several Democrats say that when the measure reaches the Senate floor for a full vote, perhaps this week or later in the month, they plan to offer amendments that would impose tougher restrictions on the use of secret warrants.

Among other proposals, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, wants to add amendments that would require the Justice Department to give detailed information about how the secret warrants are being used and that could give defense lawyers access to some information generated by the warrants in criminal cases.
Republicans are countering with amendments of their own, including the idea of making the Patriot Act permanent.

Aides to Senator Hatch would not discuss his views on repealing the time limits in the law.
But an aide who demanded anonymity said of the "lone wolf" bill: "We support this bill as it is and that's how we want to see it passed. If the Democrats want to amend the bill, then we will offer an equal number of amendments to improve the bill as well. We hope the Democrats will stop holding this bill up."

Members of the Judiciary Committee, which Mr. Hatch leads, have been working in recent days to reach an agreement over the amendments that will be considered, officials said. But so far neither side appears willing to back down.

Re:Reg-free link to article and full text: (3, Insightful)

FrostedWheat (172733) | about 11 years ago | (#5695122)

Republicans Want Terror Law Made Permanent

It's a good name for it.

Remember when I posted that the USA (-1, Troll)

TerryAtWork (598364) | about 11 years ago | (#5694955)

wants, in it's belly, to be a xenophobic police state??

And I got flamed and moderated down as a troll??


Go ahead, mod me down and kiss my ass.

Re:Remember when I posted that the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695015)

Maybe it is because you don't know what Xenophobic means? I am not sure how a country that is 95% immigrants can be xenophobic. Hell if we were more xenophobic and restricted entry to the country we wouldn't have to worry about terrorists now would we.

Re:Remember when I posted that the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695025)

You're still a troll but now you get the benefit of being an ass since people have been saying what you said for longer than you've been alive.

GODDAMN IT! (-1, Offtopic)

Ummagumma (137757) | about 11 years ago | (#5694965)

Either stop using the goddamned NYT site, or change the 'www' to 'archives' at the beginning of the URL, so we dont have to friggin register. Is this hard? NO! Am I lazy? YES! Did you catch me on a bad day? YES!


easy there trigger (1)

tomzyk (158497) | about 11 years ago | (#5695088)

Calm down.
Why don't you just go ahead and register? Is it REALLY that difficult to do? They don't spam you. And if don't believe me, just create a bogus email account somewhere and register under that account. It'll take you just a couple minutes and it'll save you the aneuysm you seem to be on the verge of.

Be carefull now (4, Funny)

SubtleNuance (184325) | about 11 years ago | (#5694971)

It is quite obvious that ANYONE against this legislation is an Un-American Terrorist... YOU THERE! Where were you during this morning's Department of Homeland Security Briefing? LET ME SEE YOUR PAPERS!

Please, PLEASE listen to my .sig:

MOD THIS TROLL DOWN!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695012)

You obviously have nothing with a grain of insight or intelligence to add to this discussion.


Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695070)

you disagree that legislation, WITH CONTENT LIKE THIS, titled "The PATRIOT Act" doesnt make you just a LITTLE afraid? Do you understand how Fascism takes hold...? Do you know what Germany was like before the war....?


Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695099)

do you know what how the Fascists in Germany took the country to war? do you not see things like the creation of The Department of Homeland Security and legislation (with REAL questionable content such as this) to be titled The PATRIOT Act?

...i gotta tell you, the rest of the world is watching in horror and awe as you Americans DO and SAY some pretty telling things...

Now, now... (1)

aerojad (594561) | about 11 years ago | (#5694977)

and the general population for our current leadership.

The general population? Or the justices of the Supreme Court?

That said, to get back more on topic, I hope some lawyer somewhere will have the balls to run with a case against the PATRIOT Act, and run far with it, taking it to the Supreme Court. By that time, hopefully, there will be some new court members in and maybe, just maybe, the general population will see how badly the act is fucking them over, and with popular support, something could be done.

It is, after all, a nice dream.

jesus fucking christ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5694990)

freedom fries? patriot act? cant the (stupid) americans come up with NORMAL names for their stuff? i see 3rd Reich #2 not too far ahead...

Re:jesus fucking christ... (1)

sik0fewl (561285) | about 11 years ago | (#5695134)

freedom fries? patriot act? cant the (stupid) americans come up with NORMAL names for their stuff? i see 3rd Reich #2 not too far ahead...

Uhh.. wouldn't that make it the er.. 4th Reich?

What does this say about the "war on terrorism"? (1)

Jerk City Troll (661616) | about 11 years ago | (#5694992)

Seems to me that an act like this indicates one of two things:

1. The government knows damn well the "war on terrorism" is a total flop and will never achieve its goals.


2. The "war on terrorism" is a ploy to promote and sustain the government's move to seize more power.

All things being equal, I'd say the first is more likely, especially since I can offer no theory of motive for the second. In either case, if ever the government did something that clearly demonstrates foul intent, this is it. Imagine the impossibility of the PATRIOT Act's effects ever getting nullified by ammendments.

And don't forget what's on the horizon [larouchepub.com] for the United States. It just keeps going downhill, doesn't it?

Slashdot's Liberal Bias (-1, Insightful)

stalkdawg (533020) | about 11 years ago | (#5695005)

Is it just me or is anyone else getting tired of reading slashdot's overly liberal bias not all geeks are war protesting, government conspiracy believing or fans of the left. How bout some fair and balanced reporting ? Or am I all alone on this one ?

You Assume Too Much... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695067)

Your post does this site too much credit by suggesting 'journalism' is practiced by the editors.

Simply linking to someone else's work and putting a spin on it is NOT journalism!

Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias (1)

rleibman (622895) | about 11 years ago | (#5695137)

If any bias, I see more Libertarian bias than anything else. Don't confuse being against the war or against the current administration with being pro-Saddam or pro-Dem.

Orrin Hatch looking for Supreme Court Seat (4, Interesting)

Kefaa (76147) | about 11 years ago | (#5695016)

His support for this is neither a surprise or unexpected. Look for him to sponsor if not introduce Partiot II in the next year.

He has been named several times as a possible replacement for any of the retiring Justices. He now has to prove himself conservative enough to ensure his legacy and a possible shot at the Chief Justice's seat.

So I guess... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695017)

Its big news when a Republican Senator wants to expand the intelligence powers of the government( Something which i oppose) but it isnt news when Clinton pushed the 'Know your customer' plan back in the 90s?

Just curious.

Best Quote (5, Insightful)

talleyrand (318969) | about 11 years ago | (#5695020)

"The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

Riiight. So you will only speak on the condition of anonymity but all ordinary citizens are expected to forfeit that right? I'm sure the irony of that situation will go unchecked.

Saddam Hussein statue, dead at 12 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695031)

I just watched a report on CNN. A statue of Saddam Hussein (D-Baghdad) in central Baghdad has been torn down by Iraqi civilians and American soldiers. Saddam's head was last seen being dragged through the streets of Baghdad, ridden by jubilant Iraqis. Even if you are a whiny eurotash America hater, there was no denying his murderous exploits. Truly an (honorary) French icon.

Re:Saddam Hussein statue, dead at 12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695109)

The only question remains- which embassy is Hussein hiding in? Some people say the Russian, but I'll bet it's either the French or the Candadian.

Re:Saddam Hussein statue, dead at 12 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695114)

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! OMG man...you just mdae coffee shoot out of my nose. Finally a good spin on the old crusty Stephen King troll. Excellent work!

Now might be a good time to.... (5, Interesting)

bfields (66644) | about 11 years ago | (#5695038)

...join in the ACLU [aclu.org] .

--Bruce F.

Re:Now might be a good time to.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695058)

The ACLU is too busy making sure no schoolchildren do anything to celebrate Christmas, and persecuting anyone who believes in a Christian god. They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

For those that haven't done so already... (5, Insightful)

tomzyk (158497) | about 11 years ago | (#5695048)

NOW is a good time to start writing to your state representatives. I'm serious. I've heard plenty of complaining about the Patriot Act (myself included) but I wonder how many people actually DO anything about it. (other than rant on message boards)

If you have problems with it, you have to let your representative know how you feel. They can't read your minds. And I doubt many of them read Slashdot.

Yet another /. write up by a troll! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695051)

[you can thank]... the general population for our current leadership."

How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars (4, Insightful)

rzbx (236929) | about 11 years ago | (#5695065)

Anyone remember the last Star Wars movie? The part where the Chancelor (I think) was given supreme power to build a clone army and he said afterwards he would step down. Isn't it sad when power is meant to be instituted upon an individual or group for a limited time, but when that individual or group gains that power they suddenly realize "hey I like this, I wanna keep it." The power of corruption with those in power is amazingly strong. Even worse fact is that those in power don't really think that what they are doing is wrong. We can't allow them to just extend an Act because they feel it is right. The people I'm sure don't feel like it is right.

Success??? (2, Insightful)

Pompatus (642396) | about 11 years ago | (#5695080)

So we've had the patriot act for about a year and a half now. The best justification I read in the article was that it MIGHT have "allowed the F.B.I. to get a warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui." There's a big difference between MIGHT have and definately would have.

Somehow I don't feel any safer.

survey says... (2, Insightful)

corvi42 (235814) | about 11 years ago | (#5695087)

and the general population for our current leadership.

But didn't the general population vote for Gore?

Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bush? (1, Interesting)

dh003i (203189) | about 11 years ago | (#5695097)

A: Hitler was elected fair and square.


You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#5695131)

Your government bodies across the board, and particularly your current administration, are shocking and disturbing to many outside observers (Canadian, here). Also shocking is the voluntary role of information control undertaken by your mainstream media. But you do have (for now) a very good independent radio program that provides a daily reminder of just how profound your country's constitutional crisis is: streaming at www.democracynow.org .
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account