
Patriot Act extended four more years, USA in fourteen year state of emergency - ck2
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55341.html
======
ck2
How can we look down on governments that have kept their country in a bogus
"state of emergency" for decades to restrict rights, when the US is kept in a
state of emergency to restrict rights via the "Patriot" Act for over a decade?

~~~
michael_dorfman
The standard method is by drawing a distinction with regards to the degree of
the restrictions. In other words, the argument is that the extra powers
granted by the Patriot Act are far less severe in their reach, and far more
restricted in their actual use than the powers wielded by the other regimes in
question.

The extent of emergency powers, in law and in actual practice, vary wildly.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency> provides an overview.

And, 14 years is by no means a record; Israel has been in a State of Emergency
since 1948, Syria from 1963 until last month, Egypt since 1967, etc.

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
You're trying to set a record with maintaining a state of emergency in the
free world?

The other standard method is by not comparing the free world with
dictatorships. We can criticise both the Patriotic Act and the state of
emergency in dictatorships and hold them to different standards or criticise
them in different tones based on the degree of digression as compared to the
values they claim they uphold and our own values.

------
jdp23
Just a reminder: the votes haven't happened yet. So call your Representative
and Senators, send them email, write on their Facebook walls, etc. etc. And
tell your friends to as well.

And then in 2012, remember how they voted on this -- and cast your own vote
accordingly.

~~~
RobertKohr
When election season comes around, go to <http://www.votesmart.org> (I just
found them on google)

It allows you to look up politicians and see what their voting record is. I
find this more useful than anything a person says or what their political
party is.

------
noonespecial
"If an emergency didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent one."

------
Luyt
It's hard for anyone, governments included, to give up power. Or any
advantages indeed. A small example: I remember that the Dutch government (led
by a socialist PM back then) imposed a 'temporary' extra tax on gasoline:
fl.0.25 extra per liter [1]. This was sold to the people as a temporary
measure. Guess what? The tax was never abolished. Don't expect governments to
ever give back that they take from you. This goes for freedom and civilian
rights, too.

[1] <http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwartje_van_Kok> (Dutch)

~~~
cma
How about women's suffrage? Governments can change to give more or to give
less freedom; pretending they are a one way ratchet is counter-productive.

~~~
arecibodrake
One step forward, fifty thousand steps back?

~~~
cma
Free-speech was largely won in the 60s.

------
staunch
I'd be happy if the name was at least changed to something less Orwellian.

~~~
ck2
The real, full title of the act is even more scary:

 _Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct_

~~~
raquo
Is it only US public sector that is so obsessed with pretty acronyms that seem
to have more meaning than their unwrapped form, or is it common in Europe too?

note: I'm not from US, honest question

~~~
ck2
Politics loves acronyms to rally behind some vague concept.

You should see some of the PAC names and referendum law names, they are often
the exact opposite of what they actually aim to accomplish, very much on
purpose.

~~~
mcdoh
Digital Rights Management

------
gregholmberg
The timing of the renewal is awfully convenient -- two weeks after the death
of the number one most wanted terrorist, and immediately preceding a
presidential (re)election cycle.

I would hope that an intelligent, accomplished US leader would not feel the
need to flex military muscle and pass tough-guy legislation just to gain
credibility with right wing voters.

~~~
jdp23
The timing's due to the three-month extension in February. With strong
libertarian, progressive, and tea party opposition to the PATRIOT Act,
Democratic and Republican leadership both want to remove it as a campaign
issue for 2012: the House Judiciary Committee was proposing a six-year
extension, and in the Senate Feinstein was proposing 2013.

------
dhechols
Fuck, fuck fuck, fuck.

------
oldcigarette
it hasn't been extended yet, write your bloody representatives instead of
bitching about it

------
paganel
And when you think that WW2 only lasted for 6 years...

------
shareme
Lets call it what it is..

'the FBI, TSA, CIA Job act'..

For ten years prior FBI, CIA, and TSA's predecessor were complaining that
their job was too hard when forced to follow laws and court rulings. After
9-11 we got a job act pretending to be a Law enabling finding of terrorists.

I submit spying on Americans is not finding terrorists.

~~~
CWuestefeld
This isn't so far-fetched as it seems, there is precedent.

For example, following the 21st Amendment and the repeal of prohibition, we
had a herd of enforcement agents who had nothing to do. This is part of what
led to the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- ostensibly a tax measure (anybody
could have a machine gun, as long as you were willing to pay the $200 tax).
How else to explain the odd linking of unrelated products under the BATF --
the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms"?

~~~
Zak
Also interesting is that the law was upheld by the courts not because the
government had the authority to regulate firearms, but because the tax was a
revenue-generating measure, not a restriction or prohibition. The court
conveniently ignored that the tax was sometimes more than 10 times the price
of the item being taxed and therefore effectively a prohibition.

------
jackowayed
Rather editorialized title ...

~~~
ck2
It's 100% fact?

1\. The Patriot Act specifically removes rights due to a declared emergency.

2\. It's now extended to 14 years total.

Which part is opinion?

~~~
Zev
You can mislead people with facts by presenting them in different ways.

The current title all but forces people to make up their minds before they
read the article. The original title is much less biased and serves to let
people draw their own conclusion after reading the article and having all of
the facts.

How would you feel if someone else submitted this instead, titled _Support for
the Patriot Act Weakening Among Republicans_? If you read the article, you
would know that this is also true.

~~~
Vivtek
Yeah, Mike Pence actually stood against permanent extension of part of the act
- he's my "representative" and this is the first time to my knowledge he's
ever done anything at all I approve of.

~~~
Vivtek
In fact, I've just emailed him telling him that. Gotta throw these people the
occasional bone.

