×

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!

Senate Passes Patriot Act Renewal

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the not-dead-yet dept.

705

IAmTheDave writes "The Senate has passed a renewal of the Patriot act, 89-10, after two extensions caused by months of negotiations. The only thing standing in the way of a full renewal is a House vote, expected to pass next week. The renewal comes with some privacy protections attached, however, some worry they are only cosmetic. Some lawmakers who voted for the package acknowledged deep reservations about the power it would grant to any president. "Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for the president," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who voted to pass the bill package. Certain lawmakers supported passing the bill even though they were still wary about it - Arlen Specter urged his colleagues to pass it even as he promised to introduce a new measure and hold hearings on how to fix it. Terrorism aside, the bill also includes new legislation that has almost nothing to do with terrorism, like one measure, which would make it harder for illicit labs to obtain ingredients for methamphetamine by requiring pharmacies to sell nonprescription cold medicines only from behind the counter. I know that people like Arlen Specter promise further hearings - but why pass what you know is flawed?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

705 comments

Easy (4, Funny)

dereference (875531) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840713)

I know that people like Arlen Specter promise further hearings - but why pass what you know is flawed?

Think of it as the beta release.

Re:Easy (4, Funny)

RickPartin (892479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840772)

Wait a second. I have a sneaking suspicion that Google is some how involved in all this. How long has this Patriot Act been out in what is essentially beta?

They are coming after YOU! (4, Funny)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840720)

Ha! Gotcha. I meant you, over there burning that DVD torrent you've been downloading for 6 hours. And YOU, you SOB. Stop moving those CD's to your Ipod, thief. Oh, and not to mention YOU, who told you that it was fine to tamper with that TiVo? You say you learned to do it at the Library? NO, NOT THE LIBRARY!!!

Re:They are coming after YOU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840742)

Bring on the Gestapo

Re:They are coming after YOU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840873)

The Revolution Will Not Be Outsourced.

I want to pee on you. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840724)

Yeah. 40 oz. of malt liquor mmake me want to tell you somethin'.

8====D

Rollin round, sittin on dubs. Countin the urs, was high on shrubs.

Coolin in my Escalade. Man I'm paid, I got it made!

Take me to your special place. Close your eyes, show me your face.

I'm gonna piss on it!

(chorus)

Haters wanna hate, lovers wanna love. I don't even want none of the above.

I want to piss on you! Yes I do. I'll piss on you; I'll pee on you.

8====D~~

Now your body, your body is a Porta-Potty.

And my pee I'd kick; like it know's karate. (knows karate)

And you'll never fell quite the same once u take a whiff of my Hershey stains.

I want to poop on u too. I want to pee in your food.

Only thing that make my life complete is when I turn your face into a toilet seat.

I'm gonna piss on you!

8====D ~~

Before we star, I'm gonna fart. I'm gonna fart on you.

meth (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840725)

All of the crap when purchasing certain cold meds makes me want to start a methlab just out of spite.

Re:meth (1, Funny)

spamster (766232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840864)

You're a friggin idiot. Try living across the street from a meth lab for a while. Enjoy the sight of tweekers coming in and out of your neighborhood, eyeballing your house and vehicles. Yeah, you should start a lab, go right ahead. The fume exposure should do you some good (or kill you).

Re:meth (2, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840940)

You're a friggin idiot. Have you tried to buy cold medicine lately? Do you think the extra hassle for customers has stopped meth labs? It's stupid and if you need to get it after the pharmacy closes it's impossible and you're fucked. And I have lived near a meth lab (and near a meth lab that exploded because methheads are stupid; burned their house down. I have a feeling insurance didn't cover it.), and it IS uncomfortable, but I know for a fact restricting access to cold medicine hasn't stopped meth at all.

Re:meth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840943)

don't knock it - my meth lab helped pay for my phd.

Re:meth (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840964)

You're a friggin idiot. Try living across the street from a meth lab for a while. Enjoy the sight of tweekers coming in and out of your neighborhood, eyeballing your house and vehicles. Yeah, you should start a lab, go right ahead. The fume exposure should do you some good (or kill you).

I think you are blaming the wrong people. You obviously know where the meth lab is, as do your neighbors. Therefore there is no reason why the police can't "figure it out". Are the police doing anything about your problem? No? If not, why not?

How is treating ordinary people like criminals going to solve your particular problem, just because they have a cold or flu and want over the counter medicine? Why is it that the solution to crime always involves further measures to criminalize and penalize the law abiding? Is it that Big Brother is just too lazy to bother going after criminals who don't roll over and go along with the law, when it is so much easier to penalize us sheeple because we are stupid enough to obey the law and do as we are told?

Just who is running this madhouse, anyhow?

Re:meth (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840991)

So call the fucking cops, asswad. If you had enough balls to tell them that people are coming and going, that they look all tweaked out and stay up to 6am, that you smell solvent that might be related to meth making, that they've waved guns around and and acted crazy, keeping the neighborhood up (who cares if it's a lie? It dosen't hurt to hyperbolize), the cops would watch the place, and then they'd come down hard on them.

NO... AGAIN, NO!!! Police department will look over it, because a drug bust always looks damn good on the news. Unless you're in a tiny ass villiage where the cops partake and benefit from the existance of meth, they will go after them. I did the same thing. I live in Denver, and there was a really creepy thing happening on my block. I turned them in. They got busted for meth production and conspiracy to commit felony. The problem stopped. End of story.

You have NO place to whine unless all of your well fought attempts to get them shut down have utterly failed, and that's almost an impossibility. So get on the goddamned phone, stop being a puss, and stop advocating the use of a law against dopers that's really supposed to be used in the protection of our nation from ***TERRORISTS***....No matter how fucking stupid the law may be.

Can it be that hard?! Say it ain't so! And if all else fails, maybe it's time to become the terrorist; toss a goddamned molitov cocktail through their window. If they're tweakers, they'll have more enemies than they can shake a stick at--plenty of other tweaker scapegoats to attract the attention from yourself.

Funny (5, Insightful)

CountZero117 (921222) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840727)

I like how the patriot act gets renewed virtually without any coverage, cause Dick Cheney accidently shooting some guy is a much better story than covering an act that restricts our civil liberties. This isn't a troll, i'm just pissed off.

Re:Funny (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840747)

That's not an accident. They want the controversy over the Patriot Act to be seen as "yesterday's news", something that's settled and that no one needs to worry about anymore.

Re:Funny (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840755)

I think there really ought to be much more attention paid in the news media to our civil libHOLY SHIT GOOGLE JUST WROTE A WEB PAGE EDITOR IN JAVASCRIPT

Re:Funny (0, Offtopic)

EtherAlchemist (789180) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840763)


They do this on purpose, you know. Think about it- which would you prefer? Go hunting with Dick Cheney or have your civil liberties restricted?

Re:Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840947)

That depends... who's holding the rifle?

Re:Funny (2, Insightful)

Khaed (544779) | more than 8 years ago | (#14841003)

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney. The guy lived, and he still has his civil liberties. Some pain and a hospital stay for one person is worth it for everone else. the Cheney story was another example of stupid media sensationalism (not related to partisanism but sometimes it can be) -- remember how much Chandra Levy was covered?

Hell, in 2000, there was constant election 2000 coverage, even when they were pretty much saying, every hour, "We're still waiting for news."

"They're still counting ballots in Miami-Dade at this moment. Only 4,000 boxes* left!" It was like a demented New Years Eve countdown that lasted two months.

* And 800 dangling, swinging, jiggling, clusterfucking chads in a pair tree.

Re:Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840837)

It's not done. It has to pass the other house. If Dick would speak up about the Patriot Act, it could probably be prevented. In fact, if any high ranking member of the Bush misadministration would speak up about the Patriot Act it would attract the media attention you desire. But, no, that will not happen. As the people who want this fuck-you to the American people to become law are the Bush misadministration.

Anyways, Disk shot that guy last week (or actually earlier, but then failed to report it at the time). Plus he was, according to his own admission, under the influence of alcohol. And it was a lobbying trip. So it had all the elements for a good media story. The corporate media is looking for drama to sell people's attention to the advertisers. Informing people is not part of c-media's charter. Even moreso after the FCC ownership rules (and other) changes of the past 5 years.

And, finally, Bush could also veto it. But then again that would require judgment and leadership, both lacking completely from this White House. Bush hasn't vetoed a single piece of legislation in 5 years. So much for doing his job (he has another fine distinction: Bush has taken more vacation than any other president in U.S. history, including the entire month before 9/11).

Re:Funny (1)

Aqua OS X (458522) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840992)

And oddly enough, the Cheney story was heralded as an example of information not freely flowing to the general public in a timely fashion.

Emigrate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840730)

Move to a free country. Perhaps ...hmmm...Antarctica?...

Re:Emigrate (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840761)

Haven't other nations laid claim to most of it?

Seriously, though, if you want a free country at this point, you'd be better ready to carve it out of a non-free one. There is no place to run to, and even if there were, running to it would only delay the fight. Take a stand NOW.

Re:Emigrate (1)

tom's a-cold (253195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840786)

Seriously, though, if you want a free country at this point, you'd be better ready to carve it out of a non-free one.
That's what we're trying to do in the United States at the moment.

Re:Emigrate (1)

scotch (102596) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840901)

Your sig: your use of the plural "definitions" implies the validity of "moral relativism".

Re:Emigrate (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840935)

The sig is about the agenda of (most) moral relativists: to allow themselves the freedom to do what they want without having to defend it or feel guilty about it. They can't do that when everyone else believes in a solid set of morals, so they want to make morals irrelevant.

Re:Emigrate (1)

OmgTEHMATRICKS (836103) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840989)

Unfortunately, food supplies and entertainment resources aren't being threatened. So the people will continue to boil like the slowly boiling frog.

Why Pass It? (4, Insightful)

oostevo (736441) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840735)

"... - but why pass what you know is flawed?"

I'm no political science student, but I can assume that it's because of the political consequences that would come with not voting for passing the act - could you imagine how easy it would make life for the campaign manager for a candidate running for office against one of the people who voted against it?

"[Insert Senator Name] hurt American security by not voting for the absolutely vital PATRIOT Act"

Or some nonsense like that.

Not that it makes it right.

Re:Why Pass It? (4, Interesting)

yellowbkpk (890493) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840760)

Yea, but if enough people didn't vote for it, it would quickly move away from being something that was bad to something that was good. The argument "Senator X voted to open this country to terrorists!" would move to "Senator X voted to protect his constituent's rights!"

Reminds me of those High School popularity contests...

Re:Why Pass It? (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840822)

Why pass it? BECAUSE if you pay off your credit card bill in FULL, you can be referred to DHS as a potential suspect. http://www.shns.com/shns/printthis.cfm [shns.com] That is why.

I guess it is a ploy to get more money in interest and make sure you stay indebted forever.

First they take away your right to file for bankruptcy. Then they take away your right to pay your credit card in full.

Next what? If you maintain a good driving record (and thereby claim driving bonus) would you be considered a suspect?

RIAA suing soccer moms who don;t even have a computer (she has a Mac).

MPAA saying even Gigli can't be pirated...

Sometimes i seriously wonder what's happening.

Re:Why Pass It? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840934)

Did you mean this [shns.com]?

Re:Why Pass It? (5, Insightful)

cascino (454769) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840833)

That's exactly what the Republicans are aiming for. In recent years, the ruling party has enacted the Clean Skies act, Healthy Forests Initiative, No Child Left Behind, and the PATRIOT act - all of which are (a) ironically named - the skies are not cleaner, forests are less healthy, children are left behind, and eradicating civil liberties is hardly "patriotic" - yet (b) difficult if not impossible to vote against. Even though it's only a front for the deregulation of the logging industry, what politician is going to vote against the "Healthy Forests Initiative"?

Re:Why Pass It? (1)

bigredape (830551) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840981)

Oh yeah and Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" was the benchmark for truth in advertising.
Both parties do this. Cut the holier than thou crap.

Re:Why Pass It? (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840986)

This is why our government is fundamentally flawed. Votes are cast based on the voter's ability to get re-elected, not whether it will fuck over the country. I'm assuming that my mom isn't the only one who utterly and completely fails to understand this concept, and therfore likes the representative "democracy" that we have. Of course, anyone with a bit of sense knows that the USAPATRIOT (yes, USA is part of the correct title) act has almost nothing to do with actually protecting the safety of the country and it's citizens.

I think I'm about ready to move my ass to Canada. If the CD tax goes through up there, I'll just keep a relative close to the border and buy ten spindles at a time.

In America... (2, Funny)

digital-madman (860873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840738)

The USA: Just another corrupt government controlled police state.

To bad that sentence is not moddable as "FUNNY".

-Digital-Madman

Pain in the ass (5, Interesting)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840741)

like one measure, which would make it harder for illicit labs to obtain ingredients for methamphetamine by requiring pharmacies to sell nonprescription cold medicines only from behind the counter.

This is already the case in Australia, although its a good idea a lot of pharmacists love to treat you like a criminal when you go in with a head cold to buy a pack of cold and flue tablets. Last year one of them refused to hand my drivers license back and I had to go to collect it from the police station after a few questions, turns out another guy with a name similar to mine had bought a few packets recently from that same chemist. All I wanted was bloody cold and flue tabs!!!!

Re:Pain in the ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840771)

For the colds and flue try a few hot toddy's.
At least you won't care as much.

I don't have a good suggestion for the pain in the ass.
But you could try crystal meth as a suppository.

Re:Pain in the ass (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840784)

"Last year one of them refused to hand my drivers license back and I had to go to collect it from the police station after a few questions, turns out another guy with a name similar to mine had bought a few packets recently from that same chemist." ...How can a pharmacist decide to hold onto your drivers license "just in case the cops need it"? Are pharmacists considered law enforcement in Australia?

Re:Pain in the ass (1)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840806)

It turned out the name had already been reported, but there was no drivers licence number, it was only local in the area and they were trying to catch the guy who was stocking up on it. I wasn't given much information after that. Both the police and the pharmacist were very apologetic to me, I think I was a worst case scenario.

Re:Pain in the ass (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840904)

Any shop assistant can do anything they like. What are you gunna do, climb the counter to get back your license? Your only recourse is to call the police and get them to come and collect your license from the shop assistant.. and when you consider that is what the shop assistant wanted in the first place, you clearly have no rights. Personally, I'd be saying "you look with your eyes, not with your hands" when they asked for my drivers license.

Re:Pain in the ass (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840979)

Why not? It's not like there's some sort of sacred barrier there. If the store tries to claim trespass or some crap, you respond with harassment or theft charges. If you put up with shit without fighting back, you make things harder for everyone who ISN'T being a prick.

Re:Pain in the ass (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840995)

Heard of assault? The assistant has only to claim that he feared for his life and you're fucked.

Re:Pain in the ass (1)

Suichi (958616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840798)

We already have this as a requirement in Oregon as well. While I don't support the Patriot Act, I wouldn't mind seeing this particular legislation passed, if only because it seems to be helping in controlling the amount of meth labs around here. It's been a good while since I heard of any being shut down/exploding, so that means two things: a) There are fewer labs thanks to the restrictions or b) The police just aren't finding them I suppose it depends on whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, though. Heh.

Re:Pain in the ass (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840948)

Alternatively, the government could stop interfering in private transactions between its citizens and allow legitimate factories to be constructed for these goods. 99% of the negative social effect of controlled substances are caused by the restrictions. Personally I prefer the way cigarettes and alcohol are handled by the government. Sure, I have to put up with some bullshit health warnings and minor restrictions on public use, but no-one breaks into my house and steals my DVD player so they can buy cigarettes or alcohol. When you buy these products you have some guarentee they are what they claim to be. You know what is in them and what the affects of them are. The negative social effects of smoking and drinking are addressed by taxes on those items, so there's some form of justice to the system. In contrast, every one of us has to pay for enforcement on controlled substances. Most everyone will be a victim of drug related crime sometime in their life.

Re:Pain in the ass (2, Interesting)

xero314 (722674) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840857)

They have this same law in certain cities in the state of Arizona, and it hasn't changed a thing. There was even an interesting study done around here that showed that it's not cost effective to make meth out of over the counter drugs. Turns out the to turn a profit it's better to import the drugs or pure chemicals from other countries. Oh know that's illegal and we all know how hard it is to get illegal contraband across the border into the United States.

Re:Pain in the ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840980)

There is an absolute and complete solution to this problem, at least as I understand it in the U.S. Outlaw pseudoephedrine (i.e., make it a schedule I drug). (Now you might be saying, hey wait, sched. I drugs are by definition supposed to have no medicinal benefit. Well, if that were the case, then marijuana/cannibis would not be sched. I, since the active ingredient, THC, in marijuana/cannibis is sched. III, which means THC does have medicinal benefit. Consequently, sched. I doesn't really mean what they say it does. And, so, pseudoephedrine can be placed there.) By outlawing pseudoephedrine, there would be none of that drug, purportedly* a prescursor to methamphetamine,* available at the drug store. So, no need to keep non-prescription drugs behind the counter or track their purchaser.

* Not a drug I study much since it is rather clear from historical evidence one should avoid it. My studies have made it clear to me that one should take the official line on any item related to the "war" on drugs with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Sigh...from California (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840745)

Now I have to send more hate mail to my Senators.

You know what this means? (5, Insightful)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840750)

You know what this means? This is muuch worse than I originally thought. At first I thought the lawmakers were just incompetent last time for not reading the bill, but now I know that the majority of them are downright fucking evil for renewing it.

Re:You know what this means? (0, Redundant)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840790)

Oh yeah, my above post is entirely offtopic. Here, I'll just post it without the superfluous f-word.

You know what this means? This is much worse than I originally thought. At first I thought the lawmakers were just incompetent last time for not reading the bill, but now I know that the majority of them are downright f****** evil for renewing it.

Re:You know what this means? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840962)

I have one question in all this. Why does the US have around 800 prisons being run and funded under FEMA but are all empty?

"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (2, Insightful)

Nova Express (100383) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840754)

Um, because we live an imperfect world where 99.9% of all legislation is flawed and the result of numerous comrpomises between different factions because we don't live in a one party state?

It must be nice to live in a Utopia where all the laws passed are fair and just, and that everyone in the nation agrees with them 100%. Let me know when you find such a place. Our flawed Republic is not it--only better than all the other alternatives.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (1, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840789)

Um, because we live an imperfect world where 99.9% of all legislation is flawed and the result of numerous comrpomises between different factions because we don't live in a one party state?

Not only that but also giving a little is better than giving nothing at all. Sometimes battles are won by taking "baby steps"... I know this is a hard concept for some slashdotters who think that it's either all or nothing. If specter can make more headway later it's great, otherwise it's better than where we were just a few days ago.

It must be nice to live in a Utopia where all the laws passed are fair and just, and that everyone in the nation agrees with them 100%.

Indeed. Too bad most people don't accept that they do not corner the market on common sense. For as many people out there who are for something you're for there are just as many people who are likely to be against it. Look at legislation that has been a series of gains and losses for decades with no clear outcome; stuff like drug legalization, gun control and abortion rights. The bottom line is that most people are fairly moderate in all these cases, it's the hardliners that make it tough to make real progress.

I, for one, am pro-drug, pro-gun and pro-choice. But note that I am actually for drug legalization and private gun ownership. I'm actually pro-life in my own mind but I know that making abortion illegal also leads to some pretty ugly situations so I can't support the abolishment of abortion without considering the kinds of alleyway clinics that it would lead to... and worse.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840801)

Actually I'd argue the exact opposite for why. we only have 2 factions and the majority faction gets to make all the rules(while the minority faction gets to make the rest). so rather than each issue being split independently on what seems most rational from a number of perspectives, it gets a lazy looking over from no more than 2 perspectives with only the absolute requirement of 1. I'm a democrat in my beleifs but i see just as much bad from the democratic party being in power absolutely. the checks and balances the constitution lays out just don't help when one party controls everything. A two party system just isn't right for the US.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (2, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840818)

I'm sorry, "ALL" the alternatives? You've been brainwashed quite well by your government I see.

Tell me, what's the best part about being in a two party system?

Elections just passed here a month ago, I had 5 major parties to vote for, now we have a minority government, I can tell you there's a lot more power in the hands of the citizens here than if we only had two parties to pick from.

Horray for Canada.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (1, Insightful)

Ctrl+Alt+De1337 (837964) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840832)

Agreed. The Patriot Act isn't a simple cut-and-dry It's Good(TM) or It's Bad(TM) type of thing.

One thing the Patriot Act does is enable federal agents to pursue suspected terrorists using a lot of the same tools the government already uses to hunt down drug lords. This is a good part. It also allows for the searching of people's searches at libraries if the happen to search for the right ternms. Many would argue that this is one of the bad parts.

Looking at it from a cold and pragmatic standpoint, it's better to pass it flaws and all because while you can always restore liberties that might be temporarily infringed upon, terrorists cause permanent damage. If you look at it from an idealistic viewpoint, it should not be passed until we are sure that no rights are violated. For better or worse, practicality usually wins over idealism.

The Patriot Act will continue to be renewed as long as there is an Al Qaeda, but hopefully there will be some inquiries to pare it down to the essentials. It was probably an overreaction to 9/11, but at the time cooler heads were never going to prevail (even if they existed at that point). The perspective of time and hindsight should help lawmakers straighten everything out, but there's no guarantees in Washington.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840942)

The Patriot Act will continue to be renewed as long as there is an Al Qaeda.

You're are have obviously not well versed in history, nor have you looked too far under the covers of our own current affairs.

When liberties are taken away, especailly in the name of security, they are rarely returned without civil strife --at worse, it takes an all out civil war. And those can be lost!

Furthmore, Al Qaeda is a half-truth. A convenient stretching of reality to serve the purposes of the powerful. Think that's fools talk? What, don't you remember Rambo player sheep head polo with the Afgans? We were allies once. So what changed?

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840866)

Go back to Fark you arrogant tool.

To Do Nothing Would Have Been Better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840911)

We didn't need the Patriot Act and still don't. Prior to the passage of the initial Patriot Act the states' attorneys-general passed a resolution stating that no additional laws were required to prosecute/investigate terrorism. But Congress ignored those wise men.

Today our congressmen are sheep and the populace are fearful idiots who see a terrorist behind every tree.

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (1)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840937)

It must be nice to live in a Utopia where all the laws passed are fair and just, and that everyone in the nation agrees with them 100%. Let me know when you find such a place. Our flawed Republic is not it--only better than all the other alternatives.

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time."
--Winston Churchill

Re:"Why pass what you know is flawed?" (1)

Baloo Ursidae (29355) | more than 8 years ago | (#14841001)

Our flawed Republic is not it--only better than all the other alternatives.

Except Canada, England, Japan, most of the European Union...

In America... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840773)

...the Senate rules you!

Re:In America... (3, Funny)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840975)

President Bush's Signing Statement: All Your Base Are Belong To Us

(His advisors advised him to leave out "You are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive, make your time")

Ignorant Population (5, Insightful)

3arwax (808691) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840775)

I doubt 10% of Americans understand the Constitution in any depth. This is why our elected officials can take away our freedoms and usurp power.

According to a recent study (5, Informative)

dereference (875531) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840813)

I doubt 10% of Americans understand the Constitution in any depth. This is why our elected officials can take away our freedoms and usurp power.

Sadly, it's more like 0.1% [usatoday.com] (although most citizens seem to be pretty familiar with the Simpsons).

Re:Ignorant Population (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840876)

Yep, Say goodbye to our fourth amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What Harry Reid REALLY Said (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840777)

"Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for our most illustrious and divine George Caesar (may he live forever!)," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who voted to pass the bill package.

Time to move out, (1)

Glacian (674566) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840785)

Anyone wana help me take over an island nation and turn it into a technocracy.

I need another play ground of freedom to play in, mines been slowly turned into a landfill while I was busy.

We could probly make good money like sealand with a co-location factility with out "entanglements".

Good luck with that. (1)

RossumsChild (941873) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840983)

If you succeeded, you'd be bombed out of existence within the week.

More likely though, you'd wind up like Sealand. Have you heard any news about HavenCo in the last few years? I haven't. The website [havenco.com] claims they're fully operational, but the update mark is from 2003.

Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you. (0, Redundant)

Robotbeat (461248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840787)

"...but why pass what you know is flawed?" Well, for one thing, we live in a world that is flawed. Every software release is flawed to some extent. Every person is flawed. Every bill ever passed is flawed, incomplete, and perhaps inaccurate. That's life.

The Patriot Act provides the same tools for counter-terrorism officials that anti-narcotics officials have been using for years. Perhaps some of you don't remember 9/11. But don't you remember the March 11th train bombing in Madrid or the attacks just this last summer in London? This is not a crime-enforcing bill, it is a counter-terrorism bill. We are fighting a war. Sure, I may be inconvenienced by the Patriot Act, but nothing is more inconvenient than getting blown up on your way to work, like what tragically happened just this last summer. I mean, one of the government's few purposes is to keep the people safe. The US government failed to do that on 9/11. You can hardly blame us for wanting at least slightly better measures to keep such things from happening all the time!

(This is what I honestly think, don't just down-mod me because you don't agree.)

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840872)

This is what I honestly think, don't just down-mod me because you don't agree

You is new to these here parts, ain't ya?

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840919)

"The Patriot Act provides the same tools for counter-terrorism officials that anti-narcotics officials have been using for years."

yea, and we've all seen how incredibly effective theyve been in the war on drugs. BTW, if thats all there is to it, why are patriot act directives being used for narcotics investigation & prevention?

"Perhaps some of you don't remember 9/11."

Perhaps you dont remember NORAD. It was set up DECADES ago to prevent exactly the sort of attack that was carried out on 9/11. Strange that its never been investigated why NORAD was ordered to stand down on the day we needed them most.

"This is not a crime-enforcing bill, it is a counter-terrorism bill."

crime-enforcing? do you mean crime-fighting? If its not a crime-fighting bill, then explain to me why its being used as one.

"We are fighting a war."

Wrong. Only congress can declare war, they have yet to do so.

"Sure, I may be inconvenienced by the Patriot Act, but nothing is more inconvenient than getting blown up on your way to work, like what tragically happened just this last summer."

What the hell are you talking about? You were blown up last summer? I know i wasnt. Way to swallow the fear pill. Go hide in the basement, i hear the commies are coming & they want to eat your children. Dislike of the patriot act isnt about inconvenience it is about losing rights and civil liberties that our fathers & forefathers FOUGHT and DIED to protect. PATRIOT act is a slap in the face of true patriots who know that freedom is more important than safety and always will be.

"The US government failed to [keep the people safe] on 9/11."

Hey you finally got something right. Too bad theres never been a proper investigation into how that failure actually happened & what can be done to prevent such failures in future.

"(This is what I honestly think"

I dont hate you for your painfully wrongminded opinion... I do wish you would get educated about what this country used to stand for before you piss it all away over some boogeyman paranoia. Personally i would rather die in a democracy than live in a police state.

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you (4, Informative)

VP (32928) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840931)

The US government failed to do that on 9/11.
BS. The US government showed incompetence, from the top on down. How easy everyone forgets the information that was available to the government before 9/11:
There were clear signs that Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack in the US, including a presidential briefing [cnn.com].
The above briefing discusses the failed "millenium plot" which was successfully prevented, which was linked to Bin Laden, and which showed the terrorist's interest in airplanes.
The FBI office in Phoenix, AZ received a memo regarding Bin Laden supporters [cbsnews.com] taking flying lessons [cnn.com].
A month later, the FBI actually arrested Moussaoui in Minnesota, but didn't find it necessary to search his computer [cnn.com].


All of this was accomplished without the PATRIOT Act, and nothing in the PATRIOT Act would have made a difference if the same mistakes were made.


Also, the attacks in Madrid and London happened while the Patriot Act was in full force (and the illegal wiretapping was already going on). How come they were not prevented?


This is not a crime-enforcing bill, it is a counter-terrorism bill.
Keep lying to yourself, hopefully one day you will wake up...

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you (2, Insightful)

GuyMannDude (574364) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840961)

The Patriot Act provides the same tools for counter-terrorism officials that anti-narcotics officials have been using for years.

Anti-narcotics officials have been able to conduct secret reconnaissance of what books I've been reading?

Perhaps some of you don't remember 9/11.

No, considering how many times the TV news has delighted in replaying those horrific images, I doubt anyone could possibly forget.

This is not a crime-enforcing bill, it is a counter-terrorism bill.

Look, Stargate SG-1 isn't a good show by any stretch of the imagination (except for that hottie Capt. Carter), but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it terrorism. [slashdot.org]

Sure, I may be inconvenienced by the Patriot Act, but nothing is more inconvenient than getting blown up on your way to work, like what tragically happened just this last summer.

You were blown up on your way to work this summer?

I mean, one of the government's few purposes is to keep the people safe. The US government failed to do that on 9/11.

Boy, you got that right. The one piece of advice that the Clinton adminstration gave the incoming Bush adminstration was to watch out for bin Laden. The government doesn't need new tools; they just need to learn how to use the tools they already have.

(This is what I honestly think, don't just down-mod me because you don't agree.)

I'm glad that you assured us that you honestly believe this otherwise I would have thought you were trolling. As for modding you down because someone disagrees with you, that's not necessary. Your arguements are so weak, they deserve to be modded down on their own merits, independent of the political opinions of the moderators.

GMD

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you (4, Insightful)

chgros (690878) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840984)

Perhaps some of you don't remember 9/11
Oh, yeah, that was so long ago...
But not as long ago as the famous Ben Franklin quote [google.com]

Re:Why pass what you know is flawed? I'll tell you (1)

jjh37997 (456473) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840999)

The Patriot Act provides the same tools for counter-terrorism officials that anti-narcotics officials have been using for years.

And we all know how successful the War on Drugs has been...

Guess who the real patriots are. (4, Insightful)

bidule (173941) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840791)

There are 10 true patriots out there.

Sen. Russ Feingold: True Patriot (2, Interesting)

jagapen (11417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840920)

Feingold reads constitution on Senate floor

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Feingold_reads_const itution_on_Senate_floor_0301.html [rawstory.com]

Mod parent UP. (1)

interactive_civilian (205158) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840994)

Wow, that is AWESOME! It is nice to know someone in the Capitol still pays attention to that tiny little document upon which the US is based.

Of course, it appears that reading the Consitution did not even phase 89 members of the senate. Why are these people not being impeached for breaking their oath to protect the Constitution of the United States?

Come on, America! Wake UP!

I posted this in full, before, but this time I'll just give you all the link. It is worth reading:
Europe [The 72d and 73d Years of These States] by Walt Whitman [daypoems.net]

I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway (1)

00squirrel (772984) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840802)

Didn't Ben Franklin say something like "He who wouldn't trade a few silly liberties for the security of thier nation isn't a good Christian." Or something like that?

Not trolling, just pissed!

Re:I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway (1)

RickPartin (892479) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840914)

Good. I was wondering when someone was going to post that quote in some form. Hell, I can't even remember how it goes exactly anymore.

Re:I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14840921)

It was Ben Franklin who said:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary
security, deserve neither liberty or security."

It was I who said "A good Christian knows that the beasts are riding, and acts accordingly."

Harry Reid is just a politician.... Big Shocker! (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840823)

Harry Reid says one thing to the public while he does the opposite.

Harry Reid wanted to pass the Patriot Act. Everything that he says should be considered pandering bullshit.

He's clearly not capable of representing people, if he speaks one way publically and votes the other way.

Harry supporst the Patriot Act. Dont forget it.

It deoesn't matter (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840827)

Under the concept of the 'Unitary Executive' which supreme court member ailito believes in, the point is moot. Let us all march in lock step with our leaders!

Couldn't restrain myself (1)

scwizard (941758) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840863)

I've realized that I already have bad karma, so I'm going to go ahead and say this:

FUCK!

Patriotism (2, Interesting)

buckyboy314 (928081) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840898)

Right now, the problem is not that the government is unable to intervene in the case of terrorists, but that the executive branch does not recognize that the legislature tells IT what it can and cannot do. The judicial system then refines it until it is a nicely polished, consistent set of laws. With the government's recent NSA wiretapping controversies, is it really a good idea to modify the executive branch's rights before establishing firmly what they are right now?

Let's all go to antarctica (1)

thewise1 (955170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840918)

If we get in there now, we can make it a free country, and when China and the US cause enough global warming, it'll be prime oceanfront tropical property :D

I haven't read it all, but (1)

nessalc (958621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840933)

I don't see the new provision about cold medicines. By the way, you can read the bill here [loc.gov]--check version 5, as it is what the senate passed March 2.

It seems like notinfo wasn't the problem with 9/11 (1)

mrpeebles (853978) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840968)

They had intelligence on some of the people on those planes, right? What went wrong was something else. Bad luck, bad administration, I don't know what it was, but it seems like the Patriot act is more of a distraction than anything else, and an almost hypocritical one at that- we tell our young adults to go die for our ideals, and then are willing to throw them away at home to marginally improve our own safety. In any case, Katrina shows how woefully ill prepared our government is for a disaster they know about days in advance. Not to mention the fact that from what I can tell from his response to criticism about these warrentless wiretaps, my President seems to claim he can do what ever he wants to since we are in a state of war, so I don't see why we he thinks we need the Patriot Act. As a bonus, I would guess I'm made safer by wearing my seatbelt than by the patriot act anyway- ~ 40,000 people die in auto accidents every year. But then, that's different, because I have a much better illusion of control when I drive than when a couple dozen nut jobs decide to crash planes into a building.

Why not the GOOD AMERICAN Act? (2, Interesting)

solus1232 (958622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14840974)

How would the votes be different if they changed the name to something less suggestive than the PATRIOT act? Are the people who use this tactic, or the ones too afraid to stand up to it more pathetic?
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

Loading...