We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Scale back the Patriot Act It is good to see opposition to the absurdly named ‘Patriot Act’ but as expected, there are many who want to see this monstrous legislation extended.
Looks like the best chance here is for moves to extend the provisions of the act falling to a filibuster and therefore allowing many of the more egregious aspects to expire.
Much was made much of ‘sunsetting’ aspects of the Patriot Act when it was initially passed so one would have hoped Congress would be happy to see those parts of this draconian and intrusive law wither away. However the eternal trouble with giving the state more power is that ’emergency’ provisions inevitably become the norm from that point onwards as those in power are loath to ever accept a reduction in their ability to exert control over people.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
What is particularly disgusting is that some legislators are looking to expand the scope of the Patriot Act. Namely the use of sneak and peek warrants in drug related investigations.
I’d be pleased to see opposition to it on grounds of naming alone, regardless of content. There’s something very disturbing about naming legislation to give it an emotional charge (which is plainly designed to discourage legitimate criticism), the next step is naming to mislead the public and incautious legislators about the content.
Wasn’t income tax originally introduced as an emergency measure?
Of course! Nothing is sacred to drug warriors (except, of course, “the children, think of the children!!”). It never ceases to amaze me how much the government has managed to get away with on that front.
The Patriot act gives law enforcement the same tools to use against terrorists that they already have in chasing down drug dealers. It is the main reason we have had no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.
From the US Department of Justice website:
Five terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland (Oregon), and Northern Virginia have been broken up;
375 individuals have been criminally charged in the United States in terrorism investigations;
Already, 195 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; and
Over 515 individuals linked to the September 11th investigation have been removed from the United States.
For myth vs reality on the Patriot Act go to: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/add_myths.htm
“US Patriot” in this context is some sort of cheesy acronym which I can’t be bothered to remember.
Unsurprisingly el Phonio Maximo is getting in on this: thus we have the “Violent Crime Reduction Act”. Who can be against reducing violent crime? This is the bill which seeks to ban toy guns, a typically Bliarite piece of legislative bullshit.
I’d be pleased to see opposition to it on grounds of naming alone… Talk about emotionalism! The name appended to a bill provides no reason to oppose it. The state had more than enough tools to fight terrorism before the Patriot bill was passed. To say it adds anything real is sheer hype. So getting the Patriot act repealed wouldn’t accomplish a thing. The real problem is all those other bills, like RICO and anti-money-laundering measures.
“The Patriot act gives law enforcement the same tools to use against terrorists that they already have in chasing down drug dealers. It is the main reason we have had no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.”
And why the War on Drugs has been so resoundingly successful!
Big government– we’re here to help (ourselves).
Jake: “It is the main reason we have had no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.”
How do you demonstrate that? Or are you merely affirming the consequent?
“The name appended to a bill provides no reason to oppose it.”
Oh yes it does–the reason I adduced: If a bill’s name is claptrap, its sponsors don’t want you support it without reading it and its provisions are likely dangerous.
Further, if we oppose preposterously named bills automatically, we’ll have more time to read the others and find out if their titles are lies and what nasty rubbish is being smuggled in towards the end of even the most benign ones.
correction: in the above, its sponsors do want you to support it without reading it. Too many negatives; too few previews.
Chris Harper asks if income tax was originally introduced as an emergency measure. As far as I know, William Pitt the Younger introduced it in the late 18th century as part of tariff reform and to pay for the war against the French. It was repealed, only to be brought back in the early 1840s by Robert Peel, again with the idea of it being temporary. William Gladstone reduced the tax to a very low level and dreamed of scrapping it, to no avail.
In the US income tax was first introduced by the Feds during the War Between the States. It was ruled un-Constitutional some years later, leading to the Feds passing the Sixteenth Amendment, giving themselves the power to reintroduce it.
its sponsors do want you to support it without reading it. Too many negatives; too few previews.
I should think that the opposition wants you to oppose it without reading it as well, at least the whole thing. There are far too many extremely reasonable provisions (e.g., it is possible to get a warrant in the name of a suspect in order to tap the phones that a person owns, rather than having to go to a judge and get a new warrant each time he changes phones) that it becomes difficult to point out the truly unreasonable ones. (And the opposition does a fantastically poor job of pointing out what the bad ones are, or mischaracterizes them; the library records provision is hardly the threat it has been made out to be, but hardly the worst provision either.)
Patriot is an acronym” “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.”
Samizdatists should love this act. After all, they trust the state to figure out who foreign terrorists are without going throught the justice system at all. Don’t you trust them to use the Patriot Act only against certified terrorists?
My only problem with the current Patriot Act renewal plan is the inclusion of anti-methamphetamine powers given to the federal government that the states already have.
As long as there is judicial and legislative oversight to the terrorist-related provisions, I have little problem with them as they currently read.
After all, they trust the state to figure out who foreign terrorists are without going throught the justice system at all.
While that may be true of some vocal commentators, it is I’d suggest, a minority view among contributors, and certainly not the view of this one. ‘Figuring out who terrorists are,’ is as empty a goal as witchfinding. Terrorism is a method, not a status, and is at least as much used by states as private gangs.
Mr Herbert, I agree with all your postings on this topic.
Much like the newe powers in the UK, the anti terrorism act had everything needed already included, why the need for more? Oh, silly me I wasn’t being megalomaniacal for a second there.
I did mean “new” of course.
“Already, 195 individuals have been convicted or have pled guilty in the United States, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid and “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; ”
John Walker Lindh was caught trying to light a bomb off on a plane… I’m not clear how the Patriot ACT helped there.
Richard Reid was caught trying to light a bomb off on a plane; John Walker Lindh was apprehended in Afghanistan. The PATRIOT act appiles to neither.
Well, it looks like the Senate has shot it down(Link):
Five terrorist cells in Buffalo, Detroit, Seattle, Portland (Oregon), and Northern Virginia have been broken up;
…as far as the Seattle ‘cell’ is concerned, those were Earth Liberation Front arsonist nutters, who were already very prosecutable under existing law.
It is not at all clear what role various provsions of the PATRIOT Act had to do with catching them, and IMO they’re a rather lower priority than the jihadi types.