Hacker News Reader

Comment by thebooktocome | Hacker News Reader

I think it's safe to say that there is no plausible electoral outcome that ends with the new President working to repeal the PATRIOT act.

View on HN

The only plausible outcome for this election would be if Obama won, and he decided in his second term -- with nothing to lose, politically -- that he would repeal the PATRIOT act. (Not because Obama is any better on this issue than Romney, but because by nature, a second-term president has less to fear in making politically risky calls).

I would call this scenario highly unlikely, if only because he'd face strong pressure from his party not to repeal it, jeopardizing everyone else's political futures in doing so.

This is one of those obnoxious political footballs that is entrenched precisely because everyone's too chickenshit to do anything about it. Republicans won't do it, because they have a rah-rah jingoistic voting base to appeal to. Democrats won't do it, because they don't want to look "soft on terrorism." And nobody wants to be the guy who repeals it right before another attack happens. So both parties are strongly disincentivized to repeal it.

In the long run, I think we'd need a grassroots movement to pressure politicians to make it a core issue.

It's equally plausible that with nothing to lose he would make PATRIOT worse.

That's assuming he's actively malicious. Given his record, I would doubt that (note, not malicious does not equal the opposite of malicious). It is certainly a possibility, but I wouldn't say it's an equal possibility. In all likelihood, the chances we're discussing here on both sides are far less than one.

>That's assuming he's actively malicious.

No, it's not. It's not assuming that he is against the PATRIOT Act. I've seen no reason to believe that he is, other than the projections of his constituency. President Obama has advanced and legalized most of the encroachments on civil liberties from the Bush years, and in no way that I am aware of has he made any argument to curtail them since he was Candidate Obama.

Assigning malice to that is assuming that he believes that the PATRIOT Act is a bad thing, and that supporting it would be knowingly perpetuating a bad thing. In other words, assuming that he secretly thinks of PATRIOT as you think of PATRIOT.

Obama never claimed to be against the PATRIOT Act. He claimed he would work to reform it. However, Presidents don't write legislation and reform has never made it into any bills reauthorizing the Act. That said, the president has directed the Justice Department to enact certain oversight above and beyond what is required by law.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr...

"Reform" is one of those lovely words that means precisely whatever the audience thinks it ought to mean.

It happens the same with "change" and many others.

It's not about malicious or benevolent. Obama has actively reduced civil liberties in this country and abroad. I fully expect Obama to reduce civil liberties even further in his second term

(sources: Obama's stance on the NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, extrajudicial assassination, Omar Khadr, prosecutions of whistleblowers, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project)

His intent barely matters. If it gets worse, it is worse.

Then those of us that consider living somewhere with basic human rights important have exactly two (2) options:

- Take up arms in violent revolution to restore due process,

- or, -

- Flee the country and take one's productive energies and output to a place that has the rule of law.

I abhor violence in all nonconsensual forms. This summer will be five years since I left job, family, friends, native language, and significant other behind in what was easily the most difficult and taxing decision I have ever made in my life.

There are no other reasonable options now but to flee. To remain and to contribute in light of these facts is to support and enable this course of events. Don't be evil.

You don't start a post by earnestly attempting to foment violent revolution, and end it by saying "don't be evil."

If you had ever looked into what tends to happen in a violent revolution, you would have found that due process is not a significant part of it, and the end result is often a dictatorship, theocracy, etc.

There is no reason to suppose that the lawless violence you advocate will ultimately result in any improvement, for anyone except 'the party' which wins the revolution.

Perhaps I was unclear or ambiguous.

I only mentioned it first to underscore how unreasonable and detestable it is - that is, not an option at all.

The ONLY reasonable option, given the facts, is to leave.

Where, may I ask, did you flee to?

Germany, according to his profile.

Fleeing the US to Europe to escape restrictions on civil liberties... Head = asplode.

The US is a lot more free on paper, but has very little liberty in practice.

Germany is, in theory, a lot less free - however I have never been anywhere else that allows many of the sorts of things that are commonplace here.

I could go into many details but suffice it to say there is an interesting inverse symmetry to be found.

One handy example: asking a bank for €5000 in cash doesn't even raise an eyebrow here.

My only experience of interacting with law enforcement in Germany is having my bags searched in a drug enforcement sweep on a train.

After 20 minutes of reading, I'm even more convinced of what my intuition said earlier this morning: the civil rights situation throughout large portions of Europe is much worse than it is in the US. Compare the first N articles of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic to the Bill of Rights. Then read about the "sect filters" the German government(!) drafted to enable employers to deny jobs to people in a disfavored religion.

* The US is a lot more free on paper, but has very little liberty in practice.

Germany is, in theory, a lot less free - however I have never been anywhere else that allows many of the sorts of things that are commonplace here.*

I have a similar understanding of China, based on several limited visits and conversations with extended family and friends there. They've got a lot of restriction in theory, but in practice, as long as you leave the oligarchy alone, they keep to themselves and ignore you.

That comparison is fanciful! Germany has the rule of law and its liberty (or lack thereof) is nothing like China's.

Given your comments about starting a violent revolution I guess it's not too surprising you moved to the one country that tried twice in the last 100 years to take over the world.

I was under the impression that Germany already fucked up once, so who would know better than they why it's wrong to be a police state?

I think is that the current government is less than 100 years old and hasn't had time to become evil and comtrolling yet.

If being a police state was enough to educate people why being a police state is bad, America wouldn't have this problem. :)

- or -

- Educate the voting public and bring them to your side

With what uncontrolled mass media? The window for this has closed.

The internet?

At least vote 3rd party for people who would like to do that. If enough people do that, they might at least want to consider some of those policies for the next elections. Real change has to start somewhere.

October 2011 marked the tenth anniversary of the USA PATRIOT Act going into law.

If change from within worked, it would have accomplished measurable effect within the first decade. Voting in the USA, on the federal level, is now demonstrably meaningless.

How many decades will you live there, having liberty only at the mercy and willingness of your government and its large corporations, entertaining this poisonous delusion?

The ratchet only works in one direction.

And fomenting violent change from outside works?

Candidates differ on concrete policy issues which have concrete consequences after elections. If you don't care about those differences, that is your affair - it does not mean that voting is 'demonstrably meaningless.'

Uprooting a life is complex, expensive, difficult, and unpleasant. Nobody's going to do it until it's more attractive than staying. Look at where people immigrate here from, and you'll have a good benchmark for the difference in quality of life that will have to exist in order for it to start looking attractive to emigrate--and remember that even then, the vast majority of people stay because it was easier or they find it tolerable.

You are explaining the consequences of such a choice to someone who has done it.

It's not a matter of quality of life. That is the danger - the quality of life for the median citizen in the USA is nearly unmatched.

Except it is a quality of life issue. Not many people are willing to endure a worsening quality of life simply to achieve philosophical purity. I'm glad that it worked for you, but do understand that simply by being an immigrant you are demonstrably different. That it worked for you is absolutely not a prescription for everyone.

It's been 10 years since the PATRIOT Act was passed, and nothing has really changed here. The consequences of the legislation were vastly overblown.

Also, the ractchet does not only work in one direction. We've had peaks of restrictions on civil liberties far worse than what we have now. E.g. alien and sedition acts, reconstruction, japanese internment, mccarthyism.

You seem to have worked yourself into a froth over nothing.

> It's been 10 years since the PATRIOT Act was passed, and nothing has really changed here. The consequences of the legislation were vastly overblown.

How exactly have the consequences been overblown? The Patriot Act has been used for everything EXCEPT terrorism. That was predicted and that is what happens now.

> If change from within worked, it would have accomplished measurable effect within the first decade.

Why do you think that's true? Is that just a gut feeling, or is it based on some logic that you did not include here?

To be clear, it is far from obvious to me that what you say is true. It seems to me that change from within could potential work, despite the events of the last ten years.

I am all for changing who is in the White House every four years until they take the hint. I would be of the same mind for Congress but they keep changing the rules to make it near impossible to get them out. The only recent threat to them had even the press siding with politicians!

Just like with schools, most people will claim that Congress is bad but have no reason NOT to support their guy because he is "the good one".

Term Limits, I am more than willing to take the bad many associate with term limits over the situation as is

Reply on news.ycombinator.com