Quote:
The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.
In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.
President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.
Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.
If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.
Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.
"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.
If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come."
But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds perhaps thousands of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.
"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.
"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."
Thoughts?
Thought: It's not expiring because they love having the power to do as they please--and it's much cooler when it's legal. ;p
Of course, when people tell me that they won't sign/vote for an extension of the act as it stands now (considering we HAD the intelligence to "prevent" September 11, 2001 without this act anyway which is why the one part of intelligence that does seemingly work relatively well is acquiring info; it's the ability to put dots together aspect that's lacking, which this stuff isn't addressing but that's a different story), I do wonder why they seem to hate debate and addressing real concerns people have.
Then again, I'm not someone who's afraid of terrorism in the first place.
It's not about being a tool against terrorism. It's about infringing on the 'certain, inalienable rights' our forefathers founded this nation on.
The Patriot Act is a bastard child to begin with. If the government wants to keep tabs on terrorism, go ahead, but don't mess with the basic rights of its citizens.
Define "terrorist". Now, define "freedom fighter".
Spot the difference.
Call me naive if you want, but the stereotypical modern terrorist is like a spoilt child: ignore its whining for long enough and it'll shut up and find something else to do. Terrorism only has as much power as you choose to give it and ironically the Patriot Act, with its purpose being to actively find and imprison terrorists, actually gives them more power by making them important enough in the public eye for their threats to actually be listened to. You've already lost the "War on Terror" (humourous name) if you keep that Act alive.
I point to the events of July 7th - the vast majority of people in Britain cared for about a day and then stopped giving a rat's ass about the "Terrorist Threat" again. You'll find only the paranoid and the government still give a damn over here. There's only so much they can do, after all, and there are many other ways to die if the "eeeeeeeeeevil terrorists" don't get you.
A government is always quick to make scapegoats, and the media is all too happy to keep them alive.
And someone who blows themself up with the intent of killing as many people as they can does not merit the name 'freedom fighter'. 'Terrorist' fits quite well.
And FYI, simply ignoring terrorism hasn't really worked. The Iran hostage crisis? Bombing of the Cole? The first World Trade Center attack? IIRC, the US didn't do anything to the scale of what happened post-9/11.
To be fair Ultra, why do you think those people do that? :X Because they're meanies? They're fighting for themselves.
Quote:
And someone who blows themself up with the intent of killing as many people as they can does not merit the name 'freedom fighter'. 'Terrorist' fits quite well.
I doubt that the motives of terrorists are that short-sighted, otherwise they would never get any support to begin with. Terrorism only works if it has weight to throw around and to get that weight, the terrorists must acquire supplies. To get those supplies, they must either steal them or have support.
"Terrorism" and "freedom fighting" are the same thing from two different points of view - a terrorist simply goes against the typical way of thinking. A freedom fighter did the same thing but because they actually succeeded, they are remembered as heroes instead by the generations that follow their victory. This distinction is often forgotten as freedom fighters haven't been prevalent in the West for quite some time - although it could be argued quite well that the Civil Rights Movement was a fight for freedom, they never considered themselves "freedom fighters" - but then people never do think that of themselves.
Quote:
And FYI, simply ignoring terrorism hasn't really worked. The Iran hostage crisis? Bombing of the Cole? The first World Trade Center attack? IIRC, the US didn't do anything to the scale of what happened post-9/11.
A hostage situation has no power if no-one listens to the threat nor cares about the hostage - the situation diffuses if it is given no attention. This is an absolute, and can be scaled up or down as necessary: i.e. the same applies to the World Trade Centre attack - yes, it's pretty difficult to not acknowledge that an impromptu demolition occured and that many lives were lost, but it's entirely feasible to honour the dead, repair the damage and simply get on with things as though nothing happened.
You cannot deny that had that been the reaction to the attack, the situation would be very different to what it is now. But would it be any better? We won't know now. It seems likely to me, however, that the situation would be much less serious and the incident would be a distant memory by now.
Your thoughts, o Conservative one (and anyone else who wishes to pat my back/tear out my lungs)? 
Well acrio, take a look at Iraq. The terrorists continue to try and do damage to the new Iraqi government via continued bombings and attacks, DESPITE growing dissent to their actions. Even the Sunni Arabs, who flat-out boycotted the January elections, are voting. Take the Palestinians. Israel recently gave them the Gaza strip under the impression that appeasing them would make the constant attacks stop. They didn't. I personally think that hatred against the Israelites is more of a factor.
And Velotix, it really interests me how since Israel's inception in 1948, they've been a constant target of war from its neighbors. They've won repeatedly, and as such they gain land as a result. Now fast forward; Israel is under constant attack and derision by its Middle Eastern neighbors, as well as many international countries. Despite a number of attempts at peace (Camp David Accords, Oslo, Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace), there are still attacks. In the mindset of the Israelis, you have to wonder how much more than can give before enough's enough. After all, Israel is NOT that big of a country.
Your comments on a hostage situation have merit, but it did little for Jimmy Carter to do nothing. ;-P
For the first WTC attacks, that'd understandable. Even so, some people expect justice for what's been done. And when the perpetrators of the attack escape most of the blame, it's hard not to twitch out of concealed anger.
Your thoughts, oh owner of the Non-Mod Stars? ;P
Take the Palestinians. Israel recently gave them the Gaza strip under the impression that appeasing them would make the constant attacks stop. They didn't.
Actually, attacks have virtually stopped in Palestine since the Gaza Strip was returned.
So basicaly you're guessing?
Indeed. It seems like that guy from Iran wants to mess with Israel now.
At any rate, I'm happy the Patriot Act dies at the end of this year. I was furious when it was first proposed back in 2001. I'm also happy that the Senate had the sense to realize where the line had to be drawn between security and tyranny.
Gunmen storm Gaza election office, spark gunbattle.
Palestinians launching rockets from abandoned communities on northern Gaza border
One Israeli killed, two wounded in West Bank shooting attack
Tunnel from Gaza to Israel discovered
Hamas to end truce with Israel
One dead, 15 wounded in Gaza clan crash
Qassams for Breakfast (Rockets fired at Ariel Sharon's ranch from Gaza)
Kassam Rockets Launched From Gush Katif
BACKGROUND INFO: Terrorist Attack at Karni Goods Crossing Thwarted by IDF Forces (Attempted car bombing)
Hizbullah establishes HQ in Gaza
All within the last month. You were saying?
Should I name all the domestic crisis cases we've had this year? Does that mean we should wiretap the country to prevent every from beating on each other?
I remember back in the hayday of Galaxies, on our server at least, The Empire were the good guys. The Rebellion were the terrorists. Why? Because I was Imperial.
Think about that for a second. If you still don't get it I'll put it in laymans terms. "Yay my team."
If your side is the rebeling force you call yourselves "freedom fighters" and your enemy the "evil trannical dictator". If your side is the large civilized society then you call yourselves "benevolent leaders" and the enemy are "terrorists".
~Rico
Explain what Palestine has to do with allowing government agencies to monitor people's communications and access their medical records without a court order.
Quote:
Should I name all the domestic crisis cases we've had this year? Does that mean we should wiretap the country to prevent every from beating on each other?
Cookirini spoke about no attacks since the Gaza Strip was given to the Palestinians. I proved her wrong. And funny how you mention wiretaps...
Throughout the 'illegal wiretaps' debacle of the last several days we have not heard a single citation of the actual law that is alleged to have been violated. And that's from both the accusers (liberal Democrats, the NYTimes, WashPost, etc.) as well as Republicans, up to and including the White House staff (e.g., Condi Rice on talking head circuit, Sunday morning, where she did not cite the law in defense of the practice).
Well, the fact of the matter is that the alleged 'illegal surveillance' is not illegal at all. In fact it is specifically permitted under 50 USC 1802, and the White House and DoJ have complied with at least that part of the law requiring notification of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (even Nancy Pelosi has admitted that she was notified, and as a 10-year member of the House Committee we can presume she knows the law on this matter).
Below is the pertinent text of 50 USC 1802, or you can click the link above to go to the page and do more digging if you so choose. I may not be a lawyer, but the language seems quite clear.
----
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > 1802
1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney Generals certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or (B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.
----
The question would seemingly be about the 'United States persons' mentioned in 1802 is shown to be in 50 USC 1802(i): United States person means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 
, an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
So in essence, US persons comes down to citizens, permanent residents, associations of citizens/permanent residents or corporations based in the US. So illegal aliens and foreigners here on temporary visas are free game as far as wire-tapping goes (this includes the 4th Amendment as well, as Constitutional law applies only to US citizens...as a matter of fact, anyone without citizenship is not protected by the 4th Amendment, or any law of the Constitution for that matter). The only question is whether or not US citizens were being wiretapped (we don't know exactly HAS been wiretapped as of yet), in which case a warrant would be needed (it would be easy to get a warrant AND to use secret wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, so the Administration's choice of using a questionably legal Executive Order is curious).
Quote:
If your side is the rebeling force you call yourselves "freedom fighters" and your enemy the "evil trannical dictator"
Even if in real life the situation at the moment is the opposite (US-led coalition forces = freedom fighters and terrorists and their supporters = tyrannical dictators).
Quote:
Explain what Palestine has to do with allowing government agencies to monitor people's communications and access their medical records without a court order.
I'm replying to someone else about Palestine.
Whats yer point?
~Rico
And also from Yahoo! News:
Here's the article about Bush himself justifying spying on the citizens.
It's also quoted in the Iraqi Elections thread here.
I guess this sort of ties together, as it seems to me this whole thing is turning into a rather large political issue...
And this "snooping around" bit is one issue I don't agree with.
Although it has not been proven as of yet that U.S. citizens were illegally spied upon, the Patriot Act (although deemed necessary {and correctly so, IMHO} for the War on Terror after 9/11) was a bit flawed in execution; it shouldn't remain permanent. Rather, it should be ratified once every few years...and they could've just made it easier to obtain a warrant.
Oh well. We shall see how things turn once the Patriot Act expires. Maybe a revised version can be put up to vote; one that won't conflict with the Constitution.
All that within the past month?
I remember when that amount of stuff happened within a span of a week.
So, yes, it has virtually stopped.
Coulda just said that. You know I hate wading through five pages of political bullcookie to read something.
I have a sinking feeling that things will only get worse. Because we all know WB is really a secret governmental spy ninja-wizard.
~Rico
By 'within the last month', I meant the month of December...and did you bother to check the date range of those articles?
Earliest: December 7th, 2005.
Latest: December 16th, 2005.
So no, it hasn't 'virtually' stopped.
Quote:
I have a sinking feeling that things will only get worse. Because we all know WB is really a secret governmental spy ninja-wizard.
Sorry Rico, but 'Solid Dubs' doesn't have the same ring as 'Solid Snake' or 'Sam Fisher'. Does beat 'Raiden' though. 
Gunmen storm Gaza election office, spark gunbattle.
Palestinians launching rockets from abandoned communities on northern Gaza border
One Israeli killed, two wounded in West Bank shooting attack
Tunnel from Gaza to Israel discovered
Hamas to end truce with Israel
One dead, 15 wounded in Gaza clan crash
Qassams for Breakfast (Rockets fired at Ariel Sharon's ranch from Gaza)
Kassam Rockets Launched From Gush Katif
BACKGROUND INFO: Terrorist Attack at Karni Goods Crossing Thwarted by IDF Forces (Attempted car bombing)
Hizbullah establishes HQ in Gaza
All within the last month. You were saying?
Let's break this down. When we look at it from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:
News item number one is about people disgruntled with the party elections - not Israel.
News iterm number four is in regards to event that is the first of it's kind after the handover.
News item number six is about two Palestinian familes who have been fighting for many ages - which has nothing to do with Israel.
News item number seven comes from a blatantly biased source, so I'm wont to trust it since I somehow can't seem to find anything on this anywhere else, as is news item ten.
That takes care of about half of those....
Oh well. We shall see how things turn once the Patriot Act expires. Maybe a revised version can be put up to vote; one that won't conflict with the Constitution.
I believe there is one being voted on, and not everybody is for it as it stands. I could be wrong though.
