Stunningly interesting exceptions and, if I'm reading this right, not necessarily an improvement:
"Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act ... except with respect to ... the acquisition of intelligence information concerning an entity not substantially composed of U.S. persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
"Requires orders ... to direct ... any person or entity must
furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish such surveillance
- in a manner to protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services
- that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing the target of such surveillance
- (thereby retaining the ability to conduct surveillance on such targets regardless of the type of communications methods or devices being used by the subject of the surveillance)."
Okay, so there's effectively zero chance that this bill will ever pass.
The PATRIOT act was a power grab, and governments don't willingly give up power. The only way this would pass is if the members of congress were in danger of not getting reelected if it didn't.
> were in danger of not getting reelected if it didn't
I'd rather say this would only occur if they were in danger of being lynched if it didn't. Losing a reelection has never been a huge incentive to put government power in question. On the contrary they'd rather lose once and come back in 5 years with the same powers in place (or more).
All the negative waves [1] :-) This is primarily a bill where some folks can vote for it, feeling confident it won't pass, and get re-elected by "trying to shut down those rogue intelligence agencies." But it can also get people elected, just like the tea partiers got elected on the fear of government over spending, liberals can get elected on the fear of government oversight. Mixing up the opinions in congress is always a good thing in my opinion.
I remember such a vote on the Iraq war back in Tony Blair's time in office. My MP's re-election literature said he voted against the war on Iraq, so I looked it up and sure enough there were 3 votes in total. He voted twice for the war and once against. Technically he's correct he voted against the war.
This is the kind of thing that gives me no faith in the system. I still write letters and vote, but we need greater democracy.
Even if the law was changed to explicitly disallow these unconstitutional surveillance programs, these agencies would simply break the law and cover it up in a shroud of secrecy. The whistle-blowing provisions might help encourage upstanding individuals to pierce that shroud of secrecy, though.
Unfortunately, so long as government officials and the political elite have de facto immunity from prosecution of any and all criminal behavior (up to and including torture and premeditated murder of US citizens), all the laws and exposure in the world won't change their pattern of criminality.
1 - it has to be agreed by a couple of committees,
2 - exact copies have to be passed by the two chambers of the congress, each of which are controlled by opposed factions, which disagree about almost anything and rarely compromised
3 - it has to be not vetoed by the president.
So probably it won't pass. In fact, I wonder how can they get anything passed these days.
12 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 34.4 ms ] thread"Repeals the USA PATRIOT Act ... except with respect to ... the acquisition of intelligence information concerning an entity not substantially composed of U.S. persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."
"Requires orders ... to direct ... any person or entity must furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish such surveillance
- in a manner to protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services
- that such carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is providing the target of such surveillance
- (thereby retaining the ability to conduct surveillance on such targets regardless of the type of communications methods or devices being used by the subject of the surveillance)."
Okay, so there's effectively zero chance that this bill will ever pass.
The PATRIOT act was a power grab, and governments don't willingly give up power. The only way this would pass is if the members of congress were in danger of not getting reelected if it didn't.
I'd rather say this would only occur if they were in danger of being lynched if it didn't. Losing a reelection has never been a huge incentive to put government power in question. On the contrary they'd rather lose once and come back in 5 years with the same powers in place (or more).
http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...
[1] Yes a Kelly's Heroes reference.
This is the kind of thing that gives me no faith in the system. I still write letters and vote, but we need greater democracy.
It's out of control, anything short of "desperate" measures will not correct the issue.
Even if the law was changed to explicitly disallow these unconstitutional surveillance programs, these agencies would simply break the law and cover it up in a shroud of secrecy. The whistle-blowing provisions might help encourage upstanding individuals to pierce that shroud of secrecy, though.
Unfortunately, so long as government officials and the political elite have de facto immunity from prosecution of any and all criminal behavior (up to and including torture and premeditated murder of US citizens), all the laws and exposure in the world won't change their pattern of criminality.
1 - it has to be agreed by a couple of committees, 2 - exact copies have to be passed by the two chambers of the congress, each of which are controlled by opposed factions, which disagree about almost anything and rarely compromised 3 - it has to be not vetoed by the president.
So probably it won't pass. In fact, I wonder how can they get anything passed these days.