Catonic wrote:
In the wee hours of this morning, the house voted to extend and make permanent fourteen provisions of the sixteen provisions that make up the US Patriot Act.

Surely Ben Franklin is achieving in excess of 10,000 RPM as he spins in his grave.

-- Catonic

I'm for the Patriot Act - but mainly because noone has a better idea right now.

Once a better idea comes along, that has less changes for people to abuse the power, or at least more changes that people abusing power will get caught - then I'll go for that idea.

ibenez wrote:

I'm for the Patriot Act - but mainly because noone has a better idea right now.

Once a better idea comes along, that has less changes for people to abuse the power, or at least more changes that people abusing power will get caught - then I'll go for that idea.

The problem with this vote is that the House had the opportunity to do basically what you suggest - extend the Patriot Act for another four years, at which time Congress could reassess it and revise it, just as they did this time by modifying the FBI's power to request your library transactions. Instead, they made most of the Patriot Act permanent, meaning there will be little incentive to consider modifications until abuses start to be reported.

drw wrote:

ibenez wrote:

I'm for the Patriot Act - but mainly because noone has a better idea right now.

Once a better idea comes along, that has less changes for people to abuse the power, or at least more changes that people abusing power will get caught - then I'll go for that idea.

The problem with this vote is that the House had the opportunity to do basically what you suggest - extend the Patriot Act for another four years, at which time Congress could reassess it and revise it, just as they did this time by modifying the FBI's power to request your library transactions. Instead, they made most of the Patriot Act permanent, meaning there will be little incentive to consider modifications until abuses start to be reported.

I'm mean, still - I'm for it. If someone had a better idea that'd be great, but the Democrats want to fart around bitching about Bush and the Republicans want to fart around bitching about gay marriage. At least someone did something... I personally don't give a crap about your privacy, only your safety.

ibenez wrote:
I'm for the Patriot Act - but mainly because noone has a better idea right now.

Its probably worth pointing out that the ACLU has a set of recommendations for specific changes to the checks and balances that would enable the same capabilities without creating the same risks for abuse.

Whats important to point out is that "The SAFE Act would not repeal any provision of the Patriot Act, nor would it take away any government surveillance or law enforcement power conferred by the Patriot Act. Rather, it would help to add some judicial, Congressional and public oversight to Patriot Act powers."

Catonic wrote:
In the wee hours of this morning, the house voted to extend and make permanent fourteen provisions of the sixteen provisions that make up the US Patriot Act.

Surely Ben Franklin is achieving in excess of 10,000 RPM as he spins in his grave.

-- Catonic

I was thinking of another revolutionary:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791

Catonic wrote:
In the wee hours of this morning, the house voted to extend and make permanent fourteen provisions of the sixteen provisions that make up the US Patriot Act.

Surely Ben Franklin is achieving in excess of 10,000 RPM as he spins in his grave.

-- Catonic

Ben Franklin didn't have to worry about loyalists spreading small pox. In fact, WE were too busy spreading it to the Indians. Oh, is it offensive that I used the word Indians? Oops. I did it again.

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

Oh. My. God. It's worse that I ever could have imagined.

One amendment that did pass overwhelmingly requires the FBI director to personally approve any FBI requests for bookstore or library records of suspected terrorists. Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, it passed 402-26.

Yeah, because I can seriously picture the freaking director of the FBI taking stock of each and every request for his sig that hits his desk.

Director: "More papers to sign, Jerry?"
Secretary: "Yes, sir, right where I've put the sticky arrows."

-janelane, expatriate

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

Oh. My. God. It's worse that I ever could have imagined.

One amendment that did pass overwhelmingly requires the FBI director to personally approve any FBI requests for bookstore or library records of suspected terrorists. Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, it passed 402-26.

Yeah, because I can seriously picture the freaking director of the FBI taking stock of each and every request for his sig that hits his desk.

Director: "More papers to sign, Jerry?"
Secretary: "Yes, sir, right where I've put the sticky arrows."

-janelane, expatriate

I think one thing that is overlooked in this is that Sensenbrenner is considered to be the right's answer to, well, I have a hard time thinking of anyone as far to the left as Jim is to the right, not even Ted. He's the one who held up the Intelligence Act because he wanted to attach immigration riders to it. He's the same one who, when presented by Amnesty International quoting FBI documents abouts abuses at Camp X-Ray, Abu Gharib and Bagram, simply didn't want to hear it, gaveled the meeting closed and walked off.

His saying there was no evidence saying it had been abused is like Bagdahd Bob saying that the Americans are losing.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

I think one thing that is overlooked in this is that Sensenbrenner is considered to be the right's answer to, well, I have a hard time thinking of anyone as far to the left as Jim is to the right, not even Ted. He's the one who held up the Intelligence Act because he wanted to attach immigration riders to it. He's the same one who, when presented by Amnesty International quoting FBI documents abouts abuses at Camp X-Ray, Abu Gharib and Bagram, simply didn't want to hear it, gaveled the meeting closed and walked off.

This is quite a lively discussion and I want to throw my hat into the ring. The thing that pisses me off about the Patriot Act is that both sides have turned it into such a political football that its almost impossible to have substantive discussion about it.

To Sensenbrenner I would say:

The discussion about whether or not these provisions are properly crafted hangs on the question of whether the checks and balances actually make sense for the long term and not on documented cases of abuse. This law is about the future and not about the past. Furthermore, even ardent defenders of the law conceed that various gag rules make it very difficult to document abuses. And no, I don't trust lawmakers to provide oversight. You, yourself have argued that the political discussion hasn't been substantive (more on that in a minute). To turn around and argue that its going to be effective at preventing abuse seems hypocritical.

To the left I would say:

Various overbroad calls for repealing the thing have contributed nothing at all to the debate. Sensenbrenner may have been a dick in that hearing, but he was right. POW abuse has absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Hearings about the Patriot Act ought to be about the Patriot Act. Talking about unrelated issues prevents the substantive debate that is needed about the specific provisions. Its almost as if you don't want that discussion to happen, because you don't actually want to reform this law. (Hrmmmmmmm.)

The most troubling provisions of this law are not the ones which have been opened to debate by the sunset clause. It is absolutely inevitable that the National Security Letters will be abused if the Supreme Court does not ultimately declare them unconstitutional.

A law that says that an FBI agent can write a letter demanding information with absolutely no oversight at all that cannot be challenged or even discussed is absolutely asking to be abused. As a temporary emergency measure it might have been acceptable. As a permanent part of our legal system it is not.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who shepherded the bill through the House, said sunset provisions were not necessary because there was no evidence the Patriot Act was being misused and lawmakers could provide sufficient oversight.

I think one thing that is overlooked in this is that Sensenbrenner is considered to be the right's answer to, well, I have a hard time thinking of anyone as far to the left as Jim is to the right, not even Ted. He's the one who held up the Intelligence Act because he wanted to attach immigration riders to it. He's the same one who, when presented by Amnesty International quoting FBI documents abouts abuses at Camp X-Ray, Abu Gharib and Bagram, simply didn't want to hear it, gaveled the meeting closed and walked off.

This is quite a lively discussion and I want to throw my hat into the ring. The thing that pisses me off about the Patriot Act is that both sides have turned it into such a political football that its almost impossible to have substantive discussion about it.

To Sensenbrenner I would say:

The discussion about whether or not these provisions are properly crafted hangs on the question of whether the checks and balances actually make sense for the long term and not on documented cases of abuse. This law is about the future and not about the past. Furthermore, even ardent defenders of the law conceed that various gag rules make it very difficult to document abuses. And no, I don't trust lawmakers to provide oversight. You, yourself have argued that the political discussion hasn't been substantive (more on that in a minute). To turn around and argue that its going to be effective at preventing abuse seems hypocritical.

To the left I would say:

Various overbroad calls for repealing the thing have contributed nothing at all to the debate. Sensenbrenner may have been a dick in that hearing, but he was right. POW abuse has absolutely nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Hearings about the Patriot Act ought to be about the Patriot Act. Talking about unrelated issues prevents the substantive debate that is needed about the specific provisions. Its almost as if you don't want that discussion to happen, because you don't actually want to reform this law. (Hrmmmmmmm.)

The most troubling provisions of this law are not the ones which have been opened to debate by the sunset clause. It is absolutely inevitable that the National Security Letters will be abused if the Supreme Court does not ultimately declare them unconstitutional.

A law that says that an FBI agent can write a letter demanding information with absolutely no oversight at all that cannot be challenged or even ... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]