House Introduces Bill to Repeal the Patriot Act
freedomworks.org
freedomworks.org
Nearly every time I fly, I hear someone in the security line (which to me resembles a cattle chute) remarking that they're in fact glad for the inconvenience, as they somehow feel safer. Nearly every family member or friend with whom I discuss Edward Snowden's revelations and the vast injustice of what the NSA is doing couldn't care less.
I really don't have much hope for this bill. But I really wish I could believe in it as much as my younger self would have.
Local government officials said they didn't "feel safe" with the new law, even though by virtue of being an unsecured building, nothing prevented a person with illegal intentions from entering with a weapon before or after the law. The law just exposed the faulty thinking that a "no guns" sticker on the front door would keep bad guys out.
We buy expensive wines over better cheaper ones for the sake of feeling better. It's a life of interpreted experience not cold logic. Life would be too complicated to think of the actuality of everything.
It's got commonality with say a concept like pervasive direct democracy. Imagine having to make a decision a d vote on every single government act., even if only local. Most people would become exhausted of the process of this indefinite mobilization mindset.
So feeling more secure is easier than actually being statistically more secure. Peace of mind is important.
Look at insurance. You could probably run numbers and find other ways to minimize loss in the event of something catastrophic, but most of us just buy into external public insurance policies.
It's hard to know. Of course the cards are stacked against any chance to the surveillance state, especially in the Senate, but then again this is happening within the context of several clauses of the Patriot Act (including section 215) sunsetting unless Congress extends it by June. And this bill has been crafted with an eye to getting transpartisan support; it's huge that there's a Republican co-sponsor, and how many other things do Freedom Works and Demand Progress work together on?
Also, portions of this bill were actually passed as an amendment to the Defense Authorization last June, with a surprisingly large majority. So, we shall see.
It's possible they don't believe the Snowden revelations represent a loss of civil liberties. I actually find this to be a pretty rational belief: There's much talk about NSA data harvesting efforts as a "machinery of totalitarianism", but precious little (any?) evidence it's actually been employed that way. Real harm, not just the potential for harm, is what will motivate American citizens and their political leaders.
After all, we have an election every four years giving one of us the potential power to kill millions and end civilization as we know it; that he or she also has the power to authorize computer systems that trawl through domestic phone records looking for connections to foreign bad guys doesn't seem that alarming in comparison.
Real harm is happening today; it's just hard to prove. The entire reason there is no evidence that the NSA machine has been used for nefarious purposes is because they've designed the programs to avoid congressional oversight. The NSA/CIA deliberately and consistently lied to congress and the judiciary about the scope and legality of its programs. When the media stepped in because other oversight had failed, they were treated as traitors and threatened with jail.
The reason for all this oversight is because totalitarianism is what creeps in when you have no oversight: in the absence of a watchdog, government will naturally work to make the task of governance more efficient. The most efficient method of government is totalitarianism, so their efforts will converge to this. This is absolutely the slippery slope argument: once oversight is removed, the government can do whatever it wants and threaten anyone who disagrees with treason.
Anyway, this is way off topic from the Patriot Act, which of course happens more or less in full public view.
What has happened is a relatively short period of time in which technically inclined Americans had access to a mass communication medium which was extremely difficult to intercept. Apart from that period of time it has always been the case that if the Government wanted to get you it could and would intercept your communications. The general public have probably just always operated on the assumption that their lives just aren't important enough to become the centre of attention.
I remember after the Boston Bombings, people were complaining, saying things like "How could the government be so incompetent as to not stop this before it happened? They monitor everything on the Internet, so they should have known!". This was before Snowden.
Years before that, I remember people were casually talking about Room 641A. This would be about 2005 or so.
Everyone assumed the government snarfs all Internet data long before Snowden, and almost nobody cared.
And I heard about Carnivore in the '90s -- though most people vastly overstated what it was capable of (people tended to ascribe Echelon's capabilities to Carnivore).
It's funny how I was a conspiracy nut when I told people this stuff was happening, and now I have people gaslighting me that everybody knew it was happening all along.
I remember people talking about it circa 2006. It was in the context of "if the government wanted to ban something and actively enforce it, they have the ability to do that because they've got a room where they grab a beam off all of AT&T's fiber optics"
Everybody knew, nobody cared.
Intercepting shipments to plant back doors
Sabotaging cryptography efforts to so everyone has weak encryption.
Lying to congress.
Are a few shocking revelations from Snowden disclosure my bad memory recalls.
They could be govt stooges (field agents) implanted to distort public opinion and create a false narrative that the general public is happy with these draconian procedures and that they're very popular (peer pressure) to advance their agenda and support the status-quo.
- http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/236641-l...
- http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/24/3638234/house-m...
The view that the NSA should do no spying at all is a minority absurdist viewpoint that is easily discarded.
Go ahead and give them a call to voice you opinion on how you want them to vote. Democracy only works if you participate in it. Remember that phone calls and actual letters are worth a lot to a Rep. Go ahead and give your senators a call too. Make sure to save all 3 numbers in your phone for easy access, that way anytime you want to participate in democracy, it is easier to do so.
Actually now that I think about it, Congress barely passes any bills anyway anymore so that would be tricky for them, but since many of them are there for decades, they have plenty of time.
Term limits really would make sense.
Term limits empower the influential actors that aren't directly accountable (lobbyists, professional staff, etc.) because the people that are directly accountable don't have the experience (unless gained through those other avenues) to be effective, and don't have a future in the institution (except as influencers in those other avenues). They don't actually address the problems you point too.
Lots of state governments have legislative term limits, and many times have much more of the same kind of problem you seem concerned about.
Three terms in the House, two in the Senate. Eighteen years is more than enough time for anyone to hold that much power.
A nice side effect would be more people working hard at the state level rather than seeing the state legislature as just a stepping stone to national office.
So I don't know where you got 18 from!
This is a positive step. It will be interesting to watch who opposes it, and how, in the various branches of government.
[1] http://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/hi...
the entirety of domestic and foreign politics of the national security state, that is the United States today, is based on the policies introduced or made possible by this very act. you, the people, and your electorate won't just undo 15 years of tyranny without spilling blood.
hard words, i know. but that's how i, as a foreigner, see it, see your country. you won't take anything back by making a check on a piece of paper or signing online petitions. that's gone, now.
Here's their motto from the Wiki link of yours:
"Lower Taxes. Less Government. More Freedom."
Ending the Patriot Act would accomplish two of those.
They're apparently in part a libertarian leaning group; libertarians are usually against the Patriot Act.
"Freedom" for billionaires means something different than for you and me.
[1] http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/10/being-a-libertarian-in... [2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1017524-rand-paul-co...