Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[Guest freedomfighter]

Here's to water... and bridges... and friends who love Z's

 

[Guest freedomfighter]

One of the points I gathered from this thread (Pulled from Kerry's Websight):

The Administration conducts "sneak and peek" searches (delayed notification searches) that can be conducted "without any judicial oversight" and "without ever telling anyone." ("Kerry Campaign Statement on New False Bush Ad," http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/archives/001782.html#more, 5/25/04)

 

Here's the actual truth regarding this matter:

Kerry's claim is false. A court order is expressly required before a delayed notification search can be conducted. Moreover, the statute requires that the subject of the search be notified after a reasonable period of delay. The amount of delay is determined by a judge. The Patriot Act requires standard judicial oversight – a search warrant or court order – before a search can be conducted. (PATRIOT Act § 213) And as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) acknowledged in October of 2003, there have never been any reported abuses of the Patriot Act.

Kerry's false claim that searches can be conducted "without any judicial oversight" and “without ever telling anyone†is just another example of John Kerry playing politics with the War on Terror.

 

It seemed to me that alot of us agreed on 95% of the Patriot Act... and the part we seemed to go around and around on was this very point. I thought this little nugget would be of interest.

[blueovalz]

Well now, just because the rules state "such and such" doesn't necessarily mean they will be followed to the letter (especially for a government that feels the means justify the end), and that issue is part of the point being argued. If you are sooo trusting that Uncle Sam would do nothing outside of the rules set before it, then I've got some great ocean front property in Arkansas I'll sell ya .

 

Same for the abuse reports. Just because there are no reports of abuse doesn't mean it doesn't exist as well. In twenty years time, if no reports of abuse appear, then it will still be too early to tell.

 

Remember the wonderful reports of how the incident rate for terrorist events dropped in the time since 9/11 because of our administration's actions? Lots of hype, but when the new revised numbers (by our own government) came out showing a marked increase, nothing was said. "The truth is the first casualty of war."

[Guest freedomfighter]

Hey there, blue... a little off topic for a sec:

Has anybody told you how incredible your car is lately...

I can't help but think that every time I see you post. You really should update your pictures with some professional quality shots. The ones you post are really grainy and unclear. Truly an amazing work of art deserves better! I would love to see that thing in person some day.

 

Well now' date=' just because the rules state "such and such" doesn't necessarily mean they will be followed to the letter (especially for a government that feels the means justify the end), and that issue is part of the point being argued. If you are sooo trusting that Uncle Sam would do nothing outside of the rules set before it, then I've got some great ocean front property in Arkansas I'll sell ya .

 

Same for the abuse reports. Just because there are no reports of abuse doesn't mean it doesn't exist as well. In twenty years time, if no reports of abuse appear, then it will still be too early to tell.[/quote']

 

I must say, using this line of logic... why even bother with the Patriot Act at all. With what you just said, nothing matters anyway. They're going to do what they want... when they want... no matter what any of us do or say, anyway. Why even "ALLOW" something like the Patriot Act to exist? Seems to me that it would only stand in the way of them doing whatever it is they're going to do anyway faster... and open them up to future problems and exposure. With no PA, they could do what your suggesting more easily, with even less public awareness.

It would be impossible to live life and never trust anyone or anything. Well, let me restate that... it would be impossible to live a happy and successful life. While I agree the government is full of corruption and people out to screw you... when it comes to politics, I rather focus on the positives and support the leaders I feel will take America in the right direction.

[Guest Aaron]

Ok, a small point I have though about in this thread. Many people are complaining that this act gives the government certain privileges that it could abuse, and that the goverment also oversees that abuses do not happen. Someone please tell me exactly how this is different from the rest of our Justice system. The government sets rules/laws (legislative and executive branches), the government enforces those rules (various federal, state and local departments), then the government (judicial branch) oversees those rules.

 

I know that someone will say that the judicial system gives you a jury of your peers. However, given some of the other arguments in this thread, it would be easy for the government to manufacture, alter, or otherwise manipulate evidence and undermine the defence's efforts to make sure the jury reaches the desired verdict. (Salem witch trials come to mind.)

 

We have even gotten around the Fifth Amendment protection of double jeopardy by allowing Civil Suits (OJ is the prime example here.) that require less proof than a criminal trial.

[Pop N Wood]

Here's the actual truth regarding this matter:

Kerry's claim is false. A court order is expressly required before a delayed notification search can be conducted. Moreover' date=' the statute requires that the subject of the search be notified after a reasonable period of delay. The amount of delay is determined by a judge. The Patriot Act requires standard judicial oversight – a search warrant or court order – before a search can be conducted. (PATRIOT Act § 213)[/b']

 

Hate to get back into this but you might want to go back 7 or 8 pages and look at the details more closely. Yes, technically a judge is required for all search warrants, but when you look how the PA has changed that process the judge is essentially nothing more than a rubber stamp.

[Guest freedomfighter]

Ok' date=' a small point I have though about in this thread. Many people are complaining that this act gives the government certain privileges that it could abuse, and that the goverment also oversees that abuses do not happen. Someone please tell me exactly how this is different from the rest of our Justice system. The government sets rules/laws (legislative and executive branches), the government enforces those rules (various federal, state and local departments), then the government (judicial branch) oversees those rules.

 

I know that someone will say that the judicial system gives you a jury of your peers. However, given some of the other arguments in this thread, it would be easy for the government to manufacture, alter, or otherwise manipulate evidence and undermine the defence's efforts to make sure the jury reaches the desired verdict. (Salem witch trials come to mind.)

 

We have even gotten around the Fifth Amendment protection of double jeopardy by allowing Civil Suits (OJ is the prime example here.) that require less proof than a criminal trial.[/quote']

 

My point... exactly.

[Kevin Shasteen]

You know what we really need? We need some manner in which we can track all the people in the US!

 

Maybe if we made the cell phone towers proactive instead of passive regarding locating a cell phone - then that would help us keep track of people...oh wait - we are already doing that.

 

What if we added to that system and somehow introduced legislation that required all of us to obtain a "Homeland Security/Anti-Terrorist Card" of some kind. This card would require all of us to ID ourselves prior to making any purchase - then maybe we could actually keep track of those that have something to hide -vs- those that have nothing to hide. You know - a system similar to Dept. of Defense's card system where all their employess must use their card system to buy and sell.

 

Perhaps more cameras on the buildings and street corners would help - I'm sure that would also help.

 

Anyone know of a system that would allow us to track people - you know, something similar to those ankle bracelets put on white collar criminals who are under house arrest! What are they called - RFID's or something like that? Maybe you could put those things in our Anti-Terrorist cards, that way we would always be able to separate the terrorist from the rest of us "That have nothing to hide".

 

You know - something like that family in Florida that got micro-chipped that Fox showed a few years ago. If only we could somehow micro-chip everybody; then we could keep track of everyone and know where they were to protect them from the terrorist at anytime.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news/jsp?id=ns99995022

if this is a broken link then simply do a google for the Barcelona Bech Club RFID and you will read a very sureal article about VIP's choosing to micro-chip themselves.

 

Hey if the Bacelona Beach Club can miro-chip their VIP members..then why not an entire nation?

 

We cant protect everyone unless we know where they are all the time, right?

 

I know I would feel much safer with such a system.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

 

PS: for those who dont know...I do not condone such a system that would track any of us.

[blueovalz]

I must say, using this line of logic... why even bother with the Patriot Act at all. With what you just said, nothing matters anyway. They're going to do what they want... when they want... no matter what any of us do or say, anyway. Why even "ALLOW" something like the Patriot Act to exist? Seems to me that it would only stand in the way of them doing whatever it is they're going to do anyway faster... and open them up to future problems and exposure. With no PA, they could do what your suggesting more easily, with even less public awareness.

 

Yes, but it's not a political bonanza if kept secret. Now that an "Act" is passed we can tout that we've done something to make everyone feel more secure and insure a public approval rating increase of, say 15 points?

 

And thus is the root of my frustration. I've become so jaded over the decades watching our government and politicians migrate along a continuum from one end of ethical and humble behavior, toward the other end of outright corruption and overt brazen behavior (to hell with compromise, it's my way or the highway). Yeah my vote counts. Right, I just keep telling myself that. And this filters down to everyday life. "Thank God," I tell myself that I've got a triad of financial resources to retire on, because with the market is now below 10000 again, and SS going down the tubes, and corrupt book-cooking is stealing my pension, I need everything I can get my hands on because Washington is doing nothing substantial to prevent these trends from continuing.

 

Yeah Kevin, I'll be greeting you at Wal-mart when I'm 91, and just then getting my first SS check, that I can use on this hermaphrodite prescription medicine health plan that the pharmaceuticals hatched out while the CFO overseeing my destroyed pension gets 3 months probation for greed, and ruining my last vestige of financial well being. Yeah, I'm jaded all right.

[Guest Phil1934]

Hey! I already called dibs on that Walmart job!

[Mikelly]

Oh christ Phil...

 

You got me on the ropes with that one... Laughing HARD!

 

You girls seem to miss something.. a real softball... Ever hear of a guy named CAT STEVENS?

 

Good case for a PA F-A-I-L-U-R-E!!!!

 

My gift to you...

Mike

[blueovalz]

This string has taken a decidedly lighter (and welcomed) tone. Too funny

[Guest freedomfighter]

LOL ...

 

NOW that was freakin funny!!

[Pop N Wood]

Good article on the no fly lists

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6113896/

 

Q: How do people find out how they got on the list?

 

A: They don't.

 

 

Q: How many names are on the lists?

 

A: The Homeland Security Department won't say, but says the lists have been greatly expanded since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Estimates range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands.

 

.....

 

A: Privacy advocates, both liberal and conservative, have blocked a similar plan. They were concerned about the government having access to large amounts of personal information about people. They question whether the Homeland Security Department has a strong enough commitment to a system for allowing innocent people to get off the lists. They're concerned about lists that are developed in secrecy and could be used to target people with politically unpopular positions.

[blueovalz]

A federal judge in New York rules that a portion of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional. The judge said the FBI's power to demand records from companies does not provide sufficient oversight or controls.

 

 

It seems a National Security Letter (official request for private information) can be processed for any investigation, regardless of any terrorism investigative ties or not, plus the recipient of the NSL is barred from disclosing the letter was received, ever.

 

I know, I know, the first fireball coming out will have the 4 letter word "ACLU" on it, but I think we can all admit that overall, the benefits of the ACLU to this country far outweigh the harm.

[johnc]

Read in the paper today that a Federal judge has tossed out a "secret search" provision of the PA that allowed Homeland Security to demand information from ISPs and phone companies and then require both to never disclose the search to their customers.

[pparaska]

The article on that judgement is here:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040930_417.html

 

It's already falling apart!

[JMortensen]

[Pop N Wood]

He noted that the Supreme Court recently said that a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

 

It is still early in the battle. Wait and see how things hold up on appeal. Sometimes it is easy to shop for the right judge.

[johnc]

It's already falling apart!

 

Bzzzzztttttt! Wrong answer (and my post was wrong too). We are both a victim of ACLU and media spin:

 

Patriot Act Misinformation

October 1, 2004; WSJ Page A14

 

The American Civil Liberties Union has been spinning its victory in a federal court in New York this week as a blow against the USA Patriot Act. One typical headline: "Federal Judge Calls Patriot Act Secret Searches Unconstitutional." An ACLU press release hails the decision as "a landmark victory against the Ashcroft Justice Department."

 

Well, no. If reporters had bothered to read Judge Victor Marrero's decision, they would have learned that the law he actually struck down was a provision of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Section 2709 authorizes the FBI to issue "National Security Letters" to obtain information from wire communications companies about their subscribers. NSLs are issued secretly and the recipient is prohibited from notifying anyone about the request.

 

As Judge Marrero noted in his ruling, "Section 2790 has been available to the FBI since 1986." He concludes that there must have been "hundreds" of NSLs issued since that time. The Patriot Act did amend Section 2790, but that amendment has nothing to do with the part that Judge Marrero says is unconstitutional.

 

One more thing: The Electronics Communications Act was not the invention of John Ashcroft. It was sponsored by that famous and menacing right-winger, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, who said at the time that Section 2790 "provides a clear procedure for access to telephone toll records in counterintelligence investigations."