Parts of the Patriot Act Expired

[unixknight]

As of midnight last night several controversial sections of the Patriot Act are all done.  

 

For now.

 

I'd like to buy Rand Paul a steak dinner.

 

[Average Joe]

I'd like to buy Rand Paul a steak dinner.

 

I'll spring for the dessert and the non-alcoholic beverage of his choice.

[NeuroTypical]

Americans are always changing our minds on how much privacy we're willing to give up in order to increase govt's ability to catch bad guys before they kill us.  There will never be a right answer, just a current one.  And the current answer depends on two main factors:

* Severity of last attack.

* Time since last attack.

 

Can't really tell for sure, but I'd guess if the Geller attack had been successful, and five or ten cartoonists/1st amendment activists had been murdered, Patriot Act events may have swung the other way.

[unixknight]

Probably so.  

 

What bothers me is how quickly the "ends justify the means" argument is used to breach the Constitution and how many people go along with it because they just can't imagine how it could go badly.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

 

What bothers me is how quickly the "ends justify the means" argument is used to breach the Constitution and how many people go along with it because they just can't imagine how it could go badly.

 This bothers me too. 

[Traveler]

The real problem will be what politicians think up after the next major terrorist attack.    What would we do if such an attack ended with the loss of 20,000,000 lives?

 

We seem to be really good at looking backwards and not so smart about figuring out what to do in advance.   What good is cell phone data if there is no border control?

 

I am also convinced that communities that do not or cannot trust their local law enforcement are in the worse shape.  If local authority cannot solve local law enforcement - such communities are at great risk.  This reminds me of a conversation of a corporate manager that said regular layoffs are necessary - pending on how difficult it is to fire individuals.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Traveler

[Capitalist_Oinker]

What's really unsettling to me is that so many "constitutional conservatives" are ready and willing to ignore the document in order to "insure" our safety and security. 

I'm more afraid of do-gooders in my own government than I am of evil-doers outside of it.

[Traveler]

What's really unsettling to me is that so many "constitutional conservatives" are ready and willing to ignore the document in order to "insure" our safety and security. 

I'm more afraid of do-gooders in my own government than I am of evil-doers outside of it.

 

War is not a game - despite the gaming industry trying to make it so.  When real war happens things have to change.  Some by voluntary actions of citizens and some by command decision by elected and appointed individuals.  Military law is quite different than constitutional law.  I have long worried that "declaring war" on poverty and drugs when there really is not meant to be war would screw up the perceptions of war.  Now days I cannot tell the difference between armed conflicts and war - except in armed conflicts there are rules to prevent the military from finishing the conflict. 

 

I believe if there is a foreign threat against this country - we need to declare war against the threat and any country that aligned (including financially) with the threat.  That is congresses job.  It is the job of the military and the president to end the threat by all means available - including nuclear.  I think we are mired in a debate with assumptions that cannot be resolved.   Maybe we ought to just put 20,000,000 of our citizens to death and see if that will stop our enemies from trying to do it to us?  Maybe that is a way we could avoid war as a last resort as something to try before we consider declaring and actually going to war?  War is too important to leave up to politicians.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Traveler

[unixknight]

War is too important to leave up to politicians.

 

This statement strikes me as odd... Who declares war if not politicians?

[Vort]

This statement strikes me as odd... Who declares war if not politicians?

 

Yes, politicians declare war. But not the President. That is a subversion of the Constitution. Congress declares war, something they have not done since 1941.

[unixknight]

Yes, politicians declare war. But not the President. That is a subversion of the Constitution. Congress declares war, something they have not done since 1941.

 

Yeah I know it was just weird the way he said it.  Of course recently, what passes for a declaration of war is simply the Congress voting to keep funding whatever military action the President has ordered.  We haven't officially declared war since 1941.  

[mordorbund]

Yeah I know it was just weird the way he said it.  Of course recently, what passes for a declaration of war is simply the Congress voting to keep funding whatever military action the President has ordered.  We haven't officially declared war since 1941.  

 

It's a Doctor Strangelove quote.

 

[Traveler]

This statement strikes me as odd... Who declares war if not politicians?

 

If war is not declared in the heart of the citizens and yet that country goes still goes to war anyway - unless something changes that country is doomed - even if the military wins the war.  But there is something else - Churchill said, "There are many things worse than war and they all come from loosing one."

[yjacket]

If war is not declared in the heart of the citizens and yet that country goes still goes to war anyway - unless something changes that country is doomed - even if the military wins the war.  But there is something else - Churchill said, "There are many things worse than war and they all come from loosing one."

 

I generally agree, up until 50+ years ago when a war was fought the entire country sacrificed . . . war bonds in WWII. Unfortunately, through the power of the printing press (thanks Fed!) we can fight wars and no one has to sacrifice . . .it's someone else's son/brother/father involved in the war, but not us.  Without the connection to true sacrifice, people can't understand that wars are extremely costly, in both blood and treasure.  It's always something far away, rather than tangible (i.e. I'm paying an extra 100/month in taxes to fight this war).

 

Consequently, with little true sacrifice by the majority of people, it is very easy for the politicians and the "merchants of death" so to speak to whip up a war cause and encourage people to support a war.

[hagoth]

If war is not declared in the heart of the citizens and yet that country goes still goes to war anyway - unless something changes that country is doomed - even if the military wins the war.  But there is something else - Churchill said, "There are many things worse than war and they all come from loosing one."

 

Well, the unconstitutional problem of undeclared war goes back long before WW2 and even predates Joseph Smith.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War

 

And, speaking of breaches of the Constitution, Congress and the President Adams even passed a law back then making it illegal to say anything critical of the government during the duration of that undeclared war.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[WakkoWarner]

The government will never give up revenue or bad laws.  They are too addicted to power.  The people just need to start making it harder for them to eaves drop.  For instance, if everyone started using Protonmail, the government would be up in arms.  It takes two passwords to get into your account and if you forget the second password, the account can never be unlocked.  The blatant disregard that our government shows for the Constitution sickens me.

[unixknight]

I use ProtonMail as well.  Another safeguard is that the servers are outside the U.S., so while the data does come in and out and is thus subject to NSA snooping, it's encrypted.