It's official...
Oct. 13th, 2001 04:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpThe U.S. Senate voted 96-1 to approve, with no changes, the "Uniting and Strengthening America" Act, which expands the government's police surveillance powers to combat terrorism. According to news reports, aides for Senators Leahy and Hatch say the USA Act is a welcome improvement over what President Bush originally suggested, but it was not enough of an improvement for Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), who attempted to introduce three amendments, which were tabled by his colleagues prior to the vote. Feingold's was the lone Senator to vote against the legislation.
According to an article at wired.com, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) described Feingold's amendments as "outdated and nonsensical." Hatch said "current law perversely gives the terrorist privacy rights.... We should not tie the hands of our law enforcement and help hackers and cyber-terrorists to get away."
In the curious logic of politicians, it would appear that wanting to restrict the expansion of police powers is the same as wanting to restrict police powers, period. (This is entirely consistent with the phenomenon where wanting to reduce an increase in spending is described as wanting to simply "reduce spending.")
Hatch's "current law perversely gives the terrorist privacy rights" is pretty scary, too. Gee, at what point in the process is a person a terrorist? If it's before trial and conviction, then the person's not a "terrorist" yet, right? So it would appear that Hatch is really saying: "it's stupid that current law is set up to secure privacy rights for individuals suspected of being terrorists." (I've taken the liberty of correcting what is an all-too-common misconception among politicians, i.e., that their laws "give" us rights.)
Now, if your mental picture of a "suspected terrorist" is of someone who just blew up a schoolbus full of kids, you might not quibble too much with my reinterpretation of Hatch's unfortunate remark. On the other hand if you end up being a "suspected terrorist" because something you said while in line at the supermarket was misinterpreted by the jackass behind you and reported to the cops, it's a whole different ball game, isn't it? (It can't happen here? I hope you're right.)
The astute reader will also note that the good Senator lumps "hackers" (which encompasses a broad range of activities) together with people who drive airliners into buildings. You gotta admire this guy.
Elevating unity over substance, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont said he went along with the proposals, despite misgivings, "because it is important to preserve national unity in this time of crisis and to move the legislative process forward."
If you ask me, if his misgivings weren't serious enough for him to vote against the bill, I'd have preferred him to keep his yap shut and vote for the animal in silence than to make a show of jumping on the bandwagon. Or maybe he could simply have left a note on his desk in the Senate chamber, saying "cast my vote for the side everyone else is voting for," and not have to fight that Beltway traffic or worry about developing misgivings about pending legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) is quoted as describing the USA Act as a "delicate but successful compromise" that provided adequate protection for civil liberties (which, compared to the original Administration proposals, it probably is). The wired.com article quotes Daschle as saying his opposition to Feingold's amendments was "not substantative [sic] but procedural" because the Senate needed to move quickly on the legislation.
Yikes. This reminds me of some bosses I've had, for whom "doing it fast" was more important than "doing it right." Now, if we're talking about digging ditches, the distinction is probably unimportant, but if we're talking about medical care, the distinction is likely critical. But when we're talking about civil liberties, where does the distinction lie?
Methinks the politicos lean toward the "digging ditches" side of the house, especially since they rejected the idea of a "sunset" provision, which would require the provisions of the bill to be reconsidered and reaffirmed at a later date, presumably when speedy action and appearances of national unity are not of the essence.
It turned out that a handful of other senators endorsed Feingold's amendments, including Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota), and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), though ultimately they all voted for the bill. Nonetheless, Wellstone said that "there's no reason why, in the rush to pass the bill, we can't make changes," while Specter seemed to echo Daschle's comments, noting that the Senate leadership was "elevating procedure over substance, which is not the way you legislate." Apparently, the Senate decided to bypass the usual process and not have more than one abbreviated hearing on the proposed legislation before bringing it to a vote.
I wonder if anyone in Congress even read all 243 pages of the bill?
Cheers...
According to an article at wired.com, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) described Feingold's amendments as "outdated and nonsensical." Hatch said "current law perversely gives the terrorist privacy rights.... We should not tie the hands of our law enforcement and help hackers and cyber-terrorists to get away."
In the curious logic of politicians, it would appear that wanting to restrict the expansion of police powers is the same as wanting to restrict police powers, period. (This is entirely consistent with the phenomenon where wanting to reduce an increase in spending is described as wanting to simply "reduce spending.")
Hatch's "current law perversely gives the terrorist privacy rights" is pretty scary, too. Gee, at what point in the process is a person a terrorist? If it's before trial and conviction, then the person's not a "terrorist" yet, right? So it would appear that Hatch is really saying: "it's stupid that current law is set up to secure privacy rights for individuals suspected of being terrorists." (I've taken the liberty of correcting what is an all-too-common misconception among politicians, i.e., that their laws "give" us rights.)
Now, if your mental picture of a "suspected terrorist" is of someone who just blew up a schoolbus full of kids, you might not quibble too much with my reinterpretation of Hatch's unfortunate remark. On the other hand if you end up being a "suspected terrorist" because something you said while in line at the supermarket was misinterpreted by the jackass behind you and reported to the cops, it's a whole different ball game, isn't it? (It can't happen here? I hope you're right.)
The astute reader will also note that the good Senator lumps "hackers" (which encompasses a broad range of activities) together with people who drive airliners into buildings. You gotta admire this guy.
Elevating unity over substance, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont said he went along with the proposals, despite misgivings, "because it is important to preserve national unity in this time of crisis and to move the legislative process forward."
If you ask me, if his misgivings weren't serious enough for him to vote against the bill, I'd have preferred him to keep his yap shut and vote for the animal in silence than to make a show of jumping on the bandwagon. Or maybe he could simply have left a note on his desk in the Senate chamber, saying "cast my vote for the side everyone else is voting for," and not have to fight that Beltway traffic or worry about developing misgivings about pending legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) is quoted as describing the USA Act as a "delicate but successful compromise" that provided adequate protection for civil liberties (which, compared to the original Administration proposals, it probably is). The wired.com article quotes Daschle as saying his opposition to Feingold's amendments was "not substantative [sic] but procedural" because the Senate needed to move quickly on the legislation.
Yikes. This reminds me of some bosses I've had, for whom "doing it fast" was more important than "doing it right." Now, if we're talking about digging ditches, the distinction is probably unimportant, but if we're talking about medical care, the distinction is likely critical. But when we're talking about civil liberties, where does the distinction lie?
Methinks the politicos lean toward the "digging ditches" side of the house, especially since they rejected the idea of a "sunset" provision, which would require the provisions of the bill to be reconsidered and reaffirmed at a later date, presumably when speedy action and appearances of national unity are not of the essence.
It turned out that a handful of other senators endorsed Feingold's amendments, including Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota), and Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania), though ultimately they all voted for the bill. Nonetheless, Wellstone said that "there's no reason why, in the rush to pass the bill, we can't make changes," while Specter seemed to echo Daschle's comments, noting that the Senate leadership was "elevating procedure over substance, which is not the way you legislate." Apparently, the Senate decided to bypass the usual process and not have more than one abbreviated hearing on the proposed legislation before bringing it to a vote.
I wonder if anyone in Congress even read all 243 pages of the bill?
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2001-10-13 04:43 am (UTC)After all the 4th amendment provides only that one be secure in ones person, house, papers, and effects. You'll note that the word telephone isn't mentioned.
The right to be secure in your house justifies the requirement for a warrant to tap a phone that is in your house. But neither a public phone nor an instrument that propagates ones speech thru the ether (which belongs to no one) or on the internet (which belongs to no one in particular) need have the same constraint.
If you wish to send information thru the ether or over the internet and keep it private we both know that you can do it in a such a way that no one can decipher it. If you're too stupid or too lazy to do so then too bad.
no subject
Date: 2001-10-13 08:57 am (UTC)from top to bottom.
as to
the constitution "provides" no rights whatsoever.
it dilineates that we are "endowed by our creator" (say what you will about that) a whole, big, fat lump of rights that it doesn't go into the bother of detailing.
what the constitution does is say that those rights shall not be infringed upon.
i think it behooves everyone to "worry too much" when freedoms are being limited.
if law enforcement officials have power to detain a person indefinitely, without charging him/her with a crime, once they have been declared "deportable," that WORRIES me.
no subject
Date: 2001-10-13 09:09 am (UTC)The Amendments place limitations on the power of government that's true. But the next time you feel you have a right that has been violated despite having been provided by your Creator then ask him to remedy the situation. Its probably more effective to ask your government.
If your "right" not to be wiretapped or to otherwise have some specific protection against government listening to what you say was all that obvious then I wouldn't be sitting here looking at a two volume 1400 page book on Search and Seizure and wouldn't need the floor to ceiling bookshelves to house my Supreme Court Reporters.
no subject
Date: 2001-10-13 11:00 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2001-10-13 12:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-10-13 12:54 pm (UTC)"we are all created equal but some more equal than others"
no subject
Date: 2001-10-13 01:23 pm (UTC)No doubt you are thinking about the right to vote. But the constitution, in its original form made no provision for determining the qualifications set by the sovereign states for each states electors except to require that it be the same as for the lower house of the state legislature. In fact there is no requirement that states hold elections in the sense that we have elections today nor that they have a democratic form of government. The sole requirement is that States be republics (which is to say that they not become an hereditary monarchy).
no subject
Date: 2001-10-13 01:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2001-10-13 02:22 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2001-10-13 03:11 pm (UTC)