Congress Makes Deal To Renew Patriot Act For 4 Years

airfoobar writes "A four-year extension to the highly controversial Patriot Act is set to be rushed through in the coming week." Techdirt has its usual trenchant critique. I hope it's not unpatriotic to raise doubts about "one of the critical tools the intelligence community has to keep America safe."

The more things change the more they stay the same

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're *lying*. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible."

- http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid=14107454 [slashdot.org]

P.A.T.R.I.O.T.

[Anonymous Coward]

P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

It's an initialism, not a word. "Patriot" has nothing to do with the Act.

Re:When?

[Wyatt Earp]

Better, the National Security Act of 1947.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947 [wikipedia.org] - that established the CIA and started giving legalized spying huge budgets.

Re:When?

[Anonymous Coward]

It going to get extended forever.... Like Syrian "state of emergency", which was in place for over 20 years.OR Egypt, when it was active since 1967 - 44 years!

scroll harder [wikipedia.org]

"During the Watergate scandal which erupted in the 1970s after President Richard Nixon authorized a variety of illegal acts, Congress investigated the extent of the President's powers and belatedly realized that the U.S. had been in a continuous state of emergency since 1950."

So wikileaks are terrorists and mafia? NSLs? etc?

[decora]

because thats what the PATRIOT ACT modification of the Computer Fraud and Abuse act says.

It is saying, essentially, that if you break certain parts of the Computer Fraud act, you are a terrorist. Not only are you a terrorist, but you can be prosecuted under RICO law, like a mafia member.

oh, and then there are the hundreds of thousands of national security letters sent by the FBI to libraries and ISPs. is that 'common sense'? how many terrorists have they caught that way?

Re:When?

[im_thatoneguy]

Considering domestic spying has been mostly directed at leftist dissidents (Martin Luther King Jr, War Protesters, 'Communist sympathizers' etc...) I find it odd that you would be considered a progressive cause. Doubly questionable since most of the people *fighting* the Patriot Act in the first place were leftist progressives.

Re:Obama and the senate are irrelevant...

[cavreader]

Do you know that right before the US got into WW2 FDR unilaterally instituted wire tapping across the country. At the time both political parties had just passed a law to specifically prevent wire tapping and they also passed the neutrality act at the same time. FDR was able to barely skirt around the neutrality act with the lend lease program even though it was obvious to everyone exactly what he was doing. For the wire tapping he did not even try to cover it up. He wrote a letter to the Justice Department basically directing them to use wire tapping, Congress be damned. He performed these acts because he personally believed the US was going to have to fight in the war and as President it was his responsibility to make sure the country was prepared. The political parties and ideology of that era were dead set against getting involved in the war. The anti-war protesters back then makes today's anti-war protesters look like full blown war mongers. FDR made these decisions even though he knew it was a impeachable offense. The animosity he attracted against him make today's Bush 2 detractors and critics look like hearty supporters. Chances are if the US had not gotten in the war he would have been impeached and certainly would not have been be elected to 4 terms. The bottom line is that the outcome of the war validated his actions and turned him from being called a dangerous law breaking no good President who was violating the constitution into being called one the best Presidents of all time. The amazing thing, at least to me, was that Carter, Bush1, and Clinton were asked if they would have would have made the same decisions and accepted the same risks that FDR made and all of them said they would. Even Carter!! I guess the point is that the constitution should be adhered to but it is not a suicide pact and some situations call for bold actions and today's complaints about us losing our rights is not anything new.

Re:When?

[shutdown -p now]

Because the Supreme Court says you didn't, and they, not you, determine that answer.

Back in the day, the Supreme Court said that slavery is perfectly constitutional, since slaves don't count as "persons" (and thus don't have rights).

Just because SCOTUS says black and white, war is peace, and freedom is slavery, doesn't make it so. They're just people, as corruptible as anyone else, and with their own personal agendas.