[ProGlock]

Many of us discuss this horrible excuse for a law, but many don't even know what's in it. I urge those of you interested to save this document for future reference. Please read the whole thing. The blatant violations of the Constitution should be obvious.

http://www.fincen.gov/hr3162.pdf

[mbs357]

Good find, and thanks for the link. I currently don't have Adobe Reader, but I have saved it. Again, thanks. =D

[MrTuffPaws]

I have read the parts dealing with law enforcement expansion of powers. I stopped there, being to degusted to go on.

[JimP]

I've not only read it; but worked with it.

1) what are the constitutional violations you fear??

2) If it was so bad, why did almost ALL democrats vote for it??

[Zundfolge]

...I currently don't have Adobe Reader...


:eek:
Not having a PDF reader is just not acceptable

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

[dustind]

I have read parts of it. I swear they made it intentionally hard to understand. 2) If it was so bad, why did almost ALL democrats vote for it?? Democrats frequently vote for bad things, that statement does not help your argument with me.

[Michigander]

2) If it was so bad, why did almost ALL democrats vote for it??

It is my understanding that the act was not available to Congress when they voted to pass it.

Is this just a myth?

[larryw]

Interesting take from last year:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/291ryznn.asp?pg=1

[snip]

How's about we concentrate on some facts, Feinstein suggested.

"I've tried to see what has happened in the complaints that have come in," she said, "and I've received to date 21,434 complaints about the Patriot Act." Except these turned out to be unrelated civil liberties gripes, or complaints about a "Patriot Act II" that doesn't yet exist. "I have never had a single [verified] abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff emailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They emailed back and said they had none."

The widespread hullabaloo over the Patriot Act, Senator Feinstein concluded, proceeds from "substantial uncertainty . . . about what this bill actually does do." And "perhaps some ignorance," she added.

We'd challenge that "perhaps" part. Otherwise, we're with Dianne Feinstein a hundred percent. Wonders never cease.

[ProGlock]

what are the constitutional violations you fear??

I very much appreciate what the 4th amendment enumerates for all people, that being they are to be free from unreasonable searches on their persons, papers and effects unless served with a warrant.

Lovely how the patriot act allows for the searches, and then the warrant can be served AFTER the search is done.

[Michigander]

Lovely how the patriot act allows for the searches, and then the warrant can be served AFTER the search is done.

Actually, I believe Section 215 of the act allows for searches and seizers of your personal effects and they NEVER have to inform you that a search has taken place.

Talk about "no knocks."

[griz]

Well I just looked at it, read would not be the right word. The reason is most of it reads like this:

"The heading for section 481 of title 18, united states code, is amended by stricking "or stones" and inserting "stones, or analog, digital, or electronic images".

This is on page 184 of 342 or so pages.

My copy of the United states code turned up missing, OK I never had a copy, so it's more than a little difficult to piece it together and figure out what any of it means.

One thing that caught my attention just in the contents was Title IV, Protecting the border. Under that are these: Subtiltle A is Protecting The Northern Border, Subtitle B is Enhanced Immigration Provisions, and Subtilte C is Preservation of Immigration Benifits for Victims of Terrorism.

Do you see what's missing? Well unless I missed a memo the southern border is pretty pourous, where is the protection for that gateway for terrorists?

[The Rabbi]

Have there been any actual documented complaints of civil rights violations due to the Patriot Act? Not aware of any.

[Michigander]

Have there been any actual documented complaints of civil rights violations due to the Patriot Act? Not aware of any.

Considering that you NEVER have to be notified that a search of your effects, records, etc., has been conducted and that your right to privacy has been violated, and those who may know of said search (i.e. Internet Service Provider, Psychiatrist, etc.) are forbidden (permanent gag order) to EVER tell anyone about it (even in general terms), who can lodge a complaint?

[The Rabbi]

Considering that you NEVER have to be notified that a search of your effects, records, etc., has been conducted and that your right to privacy has been violated, and those who may know of said search (i.e. Internet Service Provider, Psychiatrist, etc.) are forbidden (permanent gag order) to EVER tell anyone about it (even in general terms), who can lodge a complaint?

What is your source for this?

The DOJ website's FAQ's tell a different story. Of course for people intent on believing the worst that would just be considered additional evidence for how sneaky the gov't is.

[Michigander]

What is your source for this?

The text of the law itself.

I cannot find anywhere in the USA PATRIOT Act where an order issued under Section 215 must be presented to the person who's effects, records, etc. are to be (or have been) searched. Neither could I find it in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. If you know where it says this, please inform me.

As for the perepetual gag order:


(c)(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that
it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection
(a).Not even the order itself discloses the purpose of the search.


(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than
those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this
section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or
obtained tangible things under this section.A librarian would be in violation of this law if he disclosed to me that the FBI had contacted him in order to search under this law. Whether my activities were the focus of the search or someone else's, that librarian (doctor, ISP, psychiatrist, employer, etc.) would be in violation of this law. Even if I were merely taking a poll of various libraries to see how many FBI investigations have occurred under this act, that librarian would be breaking the law if he told me.

Notice there is no time limit for the expiration of this gag order.

[DMF]

Lovely how the patriot act allows for the searches, and then the warrant can be served AFTER the search is done.You think delayed notification warrants are an invention of the USA-PATRIOT Act? Further proof that people go off half-cocked and rant without knowing any of the facts.

Delayed notification warrants have been around for decades, and the USA-PATRIOT Act, just standardized how they are done. There is nothing about the delayed notification warrants that violates the 4th Amendment. LE still has to establish PC to the judges to get a warrant issued.

EDIT TO ADD: For those whining that you never have to notified, please read this: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/docs/patriotact213report.pdf

[DMF]

Is this just a myth?Yes.

[rock jock]

Considering that you NEVER have to be notified that a search of your effects, records, etc., has been conducted and that your right to privacy has been violated, and those who may know of said search (i.e. Internet Service Provider, Psychiatrist, etc.) are forbidden (permanent gag order) to EVER tell anyone about it (even in general terms), who can lodge a complaint?Doggone it! I KNEW that someone has been rifling around in my house when I'm out. Just the other day I was looking for my left Spongebob sock, and it was MISSING!!! Those damn feds! Will they never stop screwing with my mind?

the preceding rambling delusional and factually baseless paranoid fantasy has been brought to you by rock jock in an attempt to relate to certain members of THR

[Michigander]

http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/docs/...ct213report.pdf (http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/docs/patriotact213report.pdf)

No where, in the above link, is any reference to Section 215.

Also, Section 213 states, in part:


(2)‘(b) DELAY.—With respect to the issuance of any warrant or
court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search
for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence
of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States,
any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may
be delayed if—(emphasis added)
Notice that this delay applies only to "property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense." If they go fishing and find no "evidence of criminal offense," this delayed notification section would appear to not apply.
And the phrase "or that may be required" indicates that such notice may not be required.

It continues:
(1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing
immediate notification of the execution of the warrant
may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705);

(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property,
any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section
2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any
stored wire or electronic information, except where the court
finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and
Without looking up up section 2510 or chapter 121 for now, my only comment about this subsection is that I noticed that items have to be prohibited from the warrant. That is opposite of the words and intent of Amendment IV.

Then:
(3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice
within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may
thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.’’.I suppose "good cause" is open to interpretation. In any case, it certainly leaves the door open to delay notice indefinitely.

[DMF]

Michigander you neglect to note in your analysis that the courts, not LE agencies, determine how long they may delay notification. Before and after the USA-PATRIOT Act, delayed notification warrants are extremely rare, because judges are loathe to grant them, and very cautious about how long they allow the delay.

[Wildalaska]

DMF please dont insert a knowledge of the law into a chicken little argument

And yes fellow traveelrs, I HAVE read the Patriot act

WildandtheusctooAlaska

[dustind]

Keep in mind that no one read it before passing it.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/feds/justice_redaction.htm Justice department censures supreme court quote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml CBS article about abuses, the first thing that google turned up. It looks to have some credible claims.

The ACLU has been against it for a very long time, and has many examples. Feinstein is lying as usual.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/lynch-030910.html Talks about section 215, and how the judges must comply. "Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter." Plus it includes a gag order so you can not tell anyone about the abuse.

http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=344&issue_id=68 Has more on section 215, basically a court working in secret (no one knows what they are considering or doing, except congress twice a year and the FBI) must rubber stamp anything that is filled out properly.

There where a few good threads about this before.

Disclaimer: I could be wrong about a few things I said. If I am, try to act like an adult about it please, and take the high road.

[DMF]

Keep in mind that no one read it before passing it. Oh where does this crap come from? http://glocktalk.com/images/smilies/crazy.gif

No one read it? Are you aware of any of the procedures to get a bill through both houses of Congress, then signed into law by the President? If no one read it, who wrote it, and proposed the legislation in the House, and Senate? 67 people (66 in the House and 1 Senator) voted AGAINST the Act. Do you think maybe they read it, and saw something they didn't like?

It amazes me that people here on the THR, who claim to love the Constitution, and are so concerned about the civil rights it protects, don't even understand the basic mechanisms of the government the Constitution creates.
:banghead:

Can we please skip this tinhat nonsense when these topics are discussed and get on with real discussions? :rolleyes:

Disclaimer: I could be wrong about a few things I said. Why not do some research first, rather than put this caveat here, and post BS that you haven't properly researched.

[LadySmith]

Keep in mind that no one read it before passing it.
They voted for it before voting against it. :evil:

[Ryan in the House]

I have read summaries of the Act and then went to look up the controversial passages in it.

About the FBI searching my records... I can kick and scream and call it an invasion of my privacy all I want, but I shouldn't be hiding anything anyway - I'm not a criminal in hiding. So let's say I am prematurely notified that my records are being watched. If this same luxury had been applied to a terrorist, he or she may have a chance to get away and live to fight another day. We want the terrorists to be apprehended, not scared off. You're willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans just so you can keep your records to yourselves? Is there something that you don't want the FBI to see? Or are the records of terrorist suspects being privately monitered by government officials a non-issue to you? The same goes for delayed warrant notification.

I'm willing to give up a little privacy, being that this technique will not be misused to discriminate, to thwart the attempts of a terrorist who is planning to, for example, gas a subway train in the D.C. / Metro area. Sacrifice for your country is what being American is about.

I just consider that these tactics are being used to protect us, not to harm us.

Then again, I'm going to hear some speculation here that "the man" is out to take our guns and what not... go ahead and hit me with it now. :banghead: ;)

[publius]

I got the idea that nobody really read the entire thing before passage for several reasons.

One, members frequently don't read an entire bill prior to passage. They have staff for that.

Two, the passage happened extremely quickly, and I read the Patriot Act, and if you're sitting there referencing the relevant sections of the USC for every item, it's going to take quite some time. I just don't see our congresscritters busy doing that. I see them passing it without reading it.

Three, nobody wrote it just after 9/11. Most of it was taken from the "we wish" shelves of drug warrior politicians, dusted off, and cobbled together with other pieces.

Four, Ron Paul said (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst112601.htm) that virtually nobody read the entire thing, and that a final copy was unavailable to him at the time of passage.

The"anti-terrorism" legislation recently passed by Congress demonstrates how well-meaning politicians make shortsighted mistakes in a rush to respond to a crisis. Most of its provisions were never carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate the bill despite its importance. No testimony was heard from privacy experts or others from fields outside of law enforcement. Normal congressional committee and hearing processes were suspended. In fact, the final version of the bill was not made available to members before the vote! These political games should not be tolerated by the American public, especially when precious freedoms are at stake.

He keeps on saying it (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul114.html), btw.

Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's lying, but his story seems entirely credible to me. I think they were still busy dusting and cobbling right up until the moment of passage.

[The Rabbi]

Four, Ron Paul said that virtually nobody read the entire thing, and that a final copy was unavailable to him at the time of passage.

Dang! Ron Paul said that?? Well, it must be true.
Ok, NO ONE read the act before it was passed. The members were all drunk and their staffs were out cavorting with interns. The president was conspiring with the Saudis (or was it the Mexicans, I cant remember) and the Vice President was out duck hunting. It musta been that Karl Rove feller done all this.

[publius]

Has any member of Congress stated that he read the whole thing prior to passage, or is the score still 1 to 0?

[The Rabbi]

Do Members of Congress regularly state whether they have or have not read acts? No, I dont think I ever heard they did. If a congressman states that he voted on something without reading or understanding it then I would question his competance in performance of duties and his judgement in talking about it.

[Ryan in the House]

I don't know much about the Congress debate system, but isn't there a thing called a filibuster which you do to make more time... for just such an occasion?

[Michigander]

Michigander you neglect to note in your analysis that the courts, not LE agencies, determine how long they may delay notification. Before and after the USA-PATRIOT Act, delayed notification warrants are extremely rare, because judges are loathe to grant them, and very cautious about how long they allow the delay.

My point has been that no notice is required. I have not been concerned with "delayed-notice"; as others have pointed out, they have been around for a couple decades. I even pointed out particulars from Section 213 (which some one else brought up) that no one has rebutted; just snide remarks and jokes (which are excellent debate techniques I might add :cool: ).

[The Rabbi]

Filibusters are only valid in the Senate: the House has a time limit for debate. I think there are other avenues available if someone needs more time to consider a bill.

[Ryan in the House]

Sorry Michigander I missed that post.

Notice that this delay applies only to "property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense." If they go fishing and find no "evidence of criminal offense," this delayed notification section would appear to not apply.
And the phrase "or that may be required" indicates that such notice may not be required.

Notices are ALWAYS required for a search (as far as I know, I've done searches on Yahoo and have come up with nothing that says otherwise), whether they're delayed or not. The Patriot Act does not eliminate the need for a notice when it says "may be required." The wording is not strong enough to do that. You can't change something like that in one word - "may" - you need to devote a section to it. 213 is titled "Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant," and if there was any part in there that was to completely rewrite Amendment 4, then you can be sure it would have been outlined a bit more clearly than one person's speculation of the word "may" being placed infront of "be required."

[The Rabbi]

I'll add that there is no "going fishing" allowed. They have to present some specific grounds to the judiciary to request a warrant.

[rock jock]

Can we please skip this tinhat nonsense when these topics are discussed and get on with real discussions?Please. Without these paranoid rants about the gubmit, what would we have to discuss? Oh wait, I guess there are the substantive issues surrounding gun control and real documented abuses by the state, but those are no fun because they nivolve things like investigations and evidence and courts and credible news sources and stuff like that. It is much more exciting to ramble on about stories garnered from the Weekly World News (or its equivalent).

[pax]

All right, folks.

Everyone take a deep breath and step back.

If you want to discuss this, you will do so without insults, name-calling, or childish accusations.

One more closes the thread.

pax

[Ryan in the House]

Thanks Pax... I'm not sure if I was getting out of hand or not; but I've been known to do that in a debate - even if it's over a message forum... ;)

[ProGlock]

I will say only this.

This IS the actual Patriot Act. Take a look, you're even downloading it from a government site.

Many times people like to insult and use snide remarks simply because they have nothing in the inventory with which to retort. Have we not seen this tactic before? Of course we have, liberals do it all the time when we present them facts over the debate of gun control. :barf:

So why are people here using insults and snide remarks? My personal belief is because this piece of legislation, which IS now law, doesn't entirely sit well with everyone. Hey, even I think some parts of this law make sense, but others infuriate me to no end. It is perhaps those parts that anger people that may finally make them realize that this is a product of a Congress with a republican majority. I know there are many libertarian types here, even I am to some extent, and there are some hard-lined conservatives who totally support the republicans in power. Perhaps you believe that with so much controversey surrounding this law that your party is not the same you believe it is?

Even I, someone who publicly stated I was supporting the libertarian party 100% this past year do not agree with everything Badnarik proposed or attempted to address.

[jojo]

Thanks pax, I think that was needed.

As to the legislators reading everything, I think it is reasonable to assume (uh oh) that they would not have the time required to read every piece of legislation that they vote on, hence the use of aids to do that task.

Look at some of the goings on, the latest being the laser incident, and the misc. items where people were "detained" without cause (in some cases) and who knows what else. Just a thought.

jojo

[Flyboy]

About the FBI searching my records... I can kick and scream and call it an invasion of my privacy all I want, but I shouldn't be hiding anything anyway - I'm not a criminal in hiding.

Shouldn't be hiding anything? I was under the impression that what I did was my business, and not the government's. In fact, the US Supreme Court has held that there is a right to privacy and anonymity, particularly with regard to speech (including such things as library books), on the grounds that some speech must necessarily be made anonymously, as publicity would stifle said speech. Further, they held that there is a right to receive such speech anonymously, for the same reason.

Think about it: how many people would really want to get caught with a book that describes how to make explosives, shells, fusing devices, triggers, mortars, etc? Seems to me that such a book would look like prima facie evidence of a plot to do harm. Doubly so if he was found out to have raw materials--sulfur, charcoal, saltpeter, magnesium, lampblack--and tools (ball mill, casting blocks, etc.).

It could also be that the guy is just interested in fireworks.

So let's say I am prematurely notified that my records are being watched. If this same luxury had been applied to a terrorist, he or she may have a chance to get away and live to fight another day. We want the terrorists to be apprehended, not scared off.

We want the terrorists to not attack us. In jail, or in Afghanistan, minding their own business, I don't much care. As long as they're not blowing stuff up here in the US, who cares? I live by a simple rule: if you don't bother me, I won't be bothered by you. You want to go out and say things I don't like, make people dislike me, and so forth? Have fun, just leave me be.

How many of us on this board have tried to change the political system by spreading information intended to bring candidates into disfavor and ill fame? If you haven't, you're not working hard enough.

If you've incited (or, Heaven forbid, committed) violence, well, that would be bothering somebody, and it's time for you to spend some time in lovely and exotic Leavenworth, KS.

You're willing to sacrifice the lives of Americans just so you can keep your records to yourselves? Is there something that you don't want the FBI to see?

Yes. Everything. At least, until they can come up with some sort of articulable reason to suspect that I intend to hurt somebody.




To answer another line of comment, about elected officials not reading the bill before voting on it: A) that's common practice. In fact, my congressman (at the time) told me--personally, while we were standing in his office in the Capitol--that it's common practice. He explained that Congress is so busy passing laws that there's no way individuals could ever hope to read all of the bills, so they depend upon their clerks and interns (whose views are carefully vetted to match the Congressman's) to specialize in different legislative fields, and to give them a recommendation as to how they should vote on given bills. He even explained that such a recommendation could be as slight as a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on the way to the chamber, if time was short. Yeah, I was kinda scared by that.

B) As to the USA PATRIOT Act specifically, go have a quick look at that PDF. It's 342 pages long. 342 pages of dry, barely-readable legalese, and a lot of it is incorporation-by-reference, amendment to existing code, and the like (i.e. not included in the page count). Now, pop over to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for HR 3162 in the 107th Congress (you'll have to use the advanced search features). When you find it, click on "All Information" (I'd post links, but Thomas throws errors about "temporary files;" sorry), and scroll down to near the bottom where the schedule of events is. If you look closely, you'll see that the bill--all 342 actual pages--was introduced on 23 October. The bill--all 342 pages--passed the House, under suspension of the rules, before lunchtime on 24 October. The Senate passed it the next day.

Now, my challenge to you: print out that PDF (or read it on-screen, I don't care), and read it--in it's entirety, including researching the relevant sections of the United States Code which would be amended--thoroughly enough to have an informed opinion on everything included therein, and be able to make an informed, considered vote on the bill. Because I'm generous, I'll assume that you would have been given a copy at 0800 on the 23rd. The bill passed at 1103 on the 24th, so you have 27 hours and three minutes to accomplish this Herculean task.

Still want to argue that it was read, and properly understood, by everybody?

[Molon Labe]

Could someone, um, just post the facts about warrants and notification?

Once and for all,

1. Regardless of the notification procedure, does a search warrant require a judge’s signature in every case? Yes or no? If the answer is "no," what are the exceptions?

2. Regardless of anything else, is it true that a person must be notified that a search warrant has been issued targeting their property or belongings? Yes or no? If the answer is "no," what are the exceptions?

3. If a person must be notified, can it be done after the search? If so, how long after? Is the time limit defined in a law? If not, who makes the decision for the maximum amount of notification time?

4. If a person must be notified, what options are available in terms of format and procedures? Must it be in writing? If so, is it sent through the mail? Is it a paper document that must be hand-delivered to the property owner? Is it a paper document that can be simply left on the kitchen counter? Are the searchers allowed to hide the document on the property?

[Flyboy]

Add to Molon Labe's questions:

5. For all of the above, explain how the new law differs (or doesn't) from the law in effect before USA PATRIOT was passed. I assume that everything will have some sort of a change, even a minor one, else the legislation would be irrelevant. I think this is probably the most important question to answer in gauging the merits (or demerits) of law: what is the effect of this law?

[corncob]

Sacrifice for your country is what being American is about.

All this time I thought it was about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but apparently my highest purpose is to serve the needs of our great collective.

[The Rabbi]

Molon:
The answers to your questions can be found in the FAQ at the Justice Dept website.
They are "yes" to the first three. The magistrate decides based on the recommendation given and after looking at the facts when notification must take place. The idea is to preserve the integrity of an on-going investigation. That is the only reason to delay notification, and I dont think it happens very often or for very long. Again, there are no "fishing expeditions" allowed. The law enforcement agency must be very specific about what they are searching for and why they think they will find it. The onus is on them to show why notification should be delayed.
On the fourth one, I do not know the answer. I do not know whether there is any specified means of notification, although I would assume that somewhere along the line a copy of the warrant would have to be shown to the individual.
On the changes, the law makes it easier for agencies to share information. That is its purpose. Because of many other laws and Presidential orders some agencies were not allowed to share such information and this led to terrorists falling through the cracks. Any idea that the purpose of the act is to spy on Americans or snoop on what they taking out of the library is simply hogwash.

[dustind]

DMF: Many elected representatives disagree with you. Many have stated through the years that they just read the summaries presented by the author, or vote based on special interest groups opinions on the bills. Having watched C-SPAN I would have to agree with those statements, new amendments are proposed and they just vote based on what the rep says the bill is about. I have read many statements in news papers and such related to representatives passing things without reading them.

I have found over thirty sources, mostly news papers, during a quick search that said no one read the PA before signing it into law. Some other news papers said "it passed virtually without hearing or debate." Maybe you took the "no one" statement that I made before way to literally.

An article from fox news. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140204,00.html

From the article:
"The Patriot Act, for example, weighs in at 340 pages — svelte by federal legislation standards. Yet the Senate was given just three days to read the bill before voting on it (and approving it 98-1). And just two days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Sen. Orrin Hatch found a pending appropriations bill due for a vote, and tacked on a slew of amendments that served as a kind of precursor to the Patriot Act — again, giving the Senate no time to actually read and contemplate them."

and

"Baird's op-ed was in response to a particularly embarrassing episode, in which someone inserted a provision into the recently passed omnibus spending bill which would have allowed for the staffs of the Republican finance committee chairmen to examine any individual American's income tax returns.

The language understandably provoked outrage from privacy and civil liberties advocates. The funny thing was, after the bill passed and that language became law, no one in the Republican party — not Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, not the bill's sponsors, not the finance committee chairman — seemed to know how the language got there."

[rock jock]

Could someone, um, just post the facts about warrants and notification?
Whenever I see nashing of teeth and general rage about the PA, I always ask the same question and have yet to receive a realistic response. The question is: What other mechanism would you propose for tracking, investigating, and catching the unique group of criminals known as terrorists in this country, IOW, preventing another 9/11? The responses I usually receive fall along two lines: (1) we don't have a terrorist problem (denial), or (2) I don't care what the terrorists do (up to and including destroying our current society as we know it) as long as the state doesn't interfere with my personal definition of "rights" (unacceptable), or (3) give everybody more guns (looneytunes).

So, I will ask my original question yet again and would request that responses not fall along the above lines.

[publius]

Dang! Ron Paul said that?? Well, it must be true.

Hey, you don't have to believe him. I just noticed that there was a request on page one of this thread for facts, and I figured an eyewitness member of Congress' statement, especially if not refuted by any other statement, would satisfy that request.

Simple derision is not terribly convincing to me, so maybe you could share the reason(s) for your apparent skepticism about Dr. Paul's statement?

If a congressman states that he voted on something without reading or understanding it then I would question his competance in performance of duties and his judgement in talking about it.

Actually, my understanding is that voting without reading is more the rule than the exception up there. When congresscritters spend late nights poring over paperwork, it's not bills they are reading. It's fundraising reports.

[griz]

Rock Jock said:

What other mechanism would you propose for tracking, investigating, and catching the unique group of criminals known as terrorists in this country, IOW, preventing another 9/11?

1. Secure the borders. There is good evidence that terrorist come in illegally and while legal immigration is fine, we shouldn’t make it easy for people to sneak in.
2. Prosecute real terrorist. Using the PA to give harsh sentences to some common criminals makes sentencing a coin flip based on how .gov decides to proceed and does nothing to prevent terrorism.
3. Execute convicted terrorist. In other words, don’t call it a war if you don’t want to kill the enemy.

$0.02

[lostone1413]

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin
Franklin

SAYS IT ALL! DON'T IT??

[rock jock]

1. Secure the borders. There is good evidence that terrorist come in illegally and while legal immigration is fine, we shouldn’t make it easy for people to sneak in.
What do you plan to do with the homegrown variety, i.e., foreign-born US citizens who have committed themselves to the goals of terrorist groups and are actively working with them?

2. Prosecute real terrorist. Using the PA to give harsh sentences to some common criminals makes sentencing a coin flip based on how .gov decides to proceed and does nothing to prevent terrorism.
So you're saying that the PA itself is fine, its just being used against the wrong people?
3. Execute convicted terrorist. In other words, don’t call it a war if you don’t want to kill the enemy.
What does the punishment phase of a terrorist prosecution have to do with the elements of the PA?

[rock jock]

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin
Franklin

SAYS IT ALL! DON'T IT??
Actually, no it doesn't. There is nothing substantive in your answer that addresses the issues raised.

[Ryan in the House]

All this time I thought it was about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but apparently my highest purpose is to serve the needs of our great collective.

Then there's a difference between us. I can't say that you're wrong for wanting more privacy / less security, and you quite frankly can't say that I am wrong for wanting more security / less privacy.

And no Ben Franklin passage is going to prove otherwise.

[Flyboy]

Rabbi:
The answers to your questions can be found in the FAQ at the Justice Dept website.
I'm not necessarily inclined to believe legal analysis done by the very people who benefit from the new law. Something about a conflict of interest.

[Chris Rhines]

and you quite frankly can't say that I am wrong for wanting more security / less privacy. Yeah, I can. And I do - you are wrong for wanting more security and less privacy.

What you do with your own life is no concern of mine. If you want to live in a transparent society, fine and dandy. If you want to post your private medical records and bank statements on the web for all to see, that's your biz. But if you try to force me to do the same, then we have a problem, and not one that will be solved politely...

- Chris

[griz]

I'll not bother with pasteing Rock Jock, I'll just respond.

1. I'm not saying my suggestions are the solution to all terrorism, I was trying to respond to your question. Yes we still have to catch the home grown terrorists.

2. I am not an expert of the PA. From what I understand there are useful parts that can help catch and prosecute terrorist. My objection is the act seems to be a list of all LEO wishes that couldn't stand up to public opinion before 9-11, but was rushed through congress as a knee jerk responce to the attack. Time and the courts will tell us if it works. The only results I have seen so far are harsh sentences for people who are not terrorists.

3. You are right, the punishment has nothing to do with catching them. But please note that the PA has punishment provisions as well.

[publius]

(2) I don't care what the terrorists do (up to and including destroying our current society as we know it) as long as the state doesn't interfere with my personal definition of "rights" (unacceptable)

So if an acceptable answer cannot hinge on my view of which mechanisms would or would not invite/constitute abuse of rights, what can it hinge upon?

Or, asked another way, let me turn your question around. Is there ANY power you would not be willing to grant to the government, and if there is, please explain why you would not grant that power, but do so without any reference to violations of rights.

[corncob]

But if you try to force me to do the same, then we have a problem, and not one that will be solved politely...

My sentiments exactly, Chris. Or to put it another way: if you want to live in a home free of firearms (or drugs, Bibles, comic books, motorcycles, porn, privacy, cholesterol, tobacco, thoughtcrime, etc.), I am behind you 100%. If you want to force me to do the same, well....

[The Rabbi]

I'm not necessarily inclined to believe legal analysis done by the very people who benefit from the new law. Something about a conflict of interest.

Already dealt with this attitude above:


Of course for people intent on believing the worst that would just be considered additional evidence for how sneaky the gov't is.

[Ryan in the House]

Yeah, I can. And I do - you are wrong for wanting more security and less privacy.

What you do with your own life is no concern of mine. If you want to live in a transparent society, fine and dandy. If you want to post your private medical records and bank statements on the web for all to see, that's your biz. But if you try to force me to do the same, then we have a problem, and not one that will be solved politely...

Me force it on you? For refusing to cooperate with actions that could be used to save lives on the national scene, I could very well say that you are forcing your conveniences on other people, and denying the government tools that it could use to imprison hostile terrorists.

I know the Act can not cover all situations but it can and does cover situations that could have been avoided otherwise. Quite frankly, as well as I can remember, the government has ALWAYS had the ability to check your records, regardless of how much you thought it impeded on your rights.

But like I said, I won't judge you for what level of convenience you are about to demand while it could put Americans at risk, just as you shouldn't judge me for accepting to cooperate with a new law that could effectively jail and deter terrorist activities in the country.

Honestly, I would be less offended if the FBI saw that I liked going onto Amazon.com and ordering Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies than if the FBI had to prematurely notify a terrorist that they were watching his records, which let the terrorist escape rather than arrest him by surprise.

[Justin]

Ryan, since you are obviously a social utilitarian, I'm curious as to where you would draw the line with regard to sacrificing individual civil rights for societal safety.

[corncob]

Yes, Ryan, where do you draw the line? Or more importantly, what reason do you have to draw one?

[mbs357]

Thanks alot, Zundfolge, I'm reading it now. =D
Lost everything on my C drive in a recent unscheduled format...trying to peice things back together. ^.^

[carebear]

This is two pages late, and not a "big picture" thing, but Michigander:

(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property,
any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section
2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any
stored wire or electronic information, except where the court
finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

Doesn't read to me as:

items have to be prohibited from the warrant

It reads to me that items are prohibited from seizure unless they are included in the warrant ("court finds necessity").

Anyway, minor thing.

[Ryan in the House]

I can't just say where I'd draw the line, because it has to happen before I disagree with it. What I can say is that I don't see anything particularly offensive in the Patriot Act. I've read the controversial passages - all the controversy is over speculation and not fact. John Travolta once said in a movie, "A good controversy is one you can't prove." Well, I guess he was right. I might agree with you if the government's idea was to oppress and dictate us... but I see the government as a force to serve and protect. Again, this is all open to individual interpretation - depending on how evil a person thinks the government is.

[Justin]

Ah, young Padawan, you have much to learn. Must a law first be used to abuse the civil rights of a citizen for that law to be inherently unjust?

[publius]

Just a silly question, Ryan, but what would you do if selected for a Constitutional Convention? Would you hand a piece of paper to the new government which said, "Just start doin' stuff. I'll let you know if I don't like something."?

Glad our Founders could do a bit better than that! ;)

[Chris Rhines]

Me force it on you? For refusing to cooperate with actions that could be used to save lives on the national scene... Bad Chris! Bad, uncooperative Chris! :D

I could very well say that you are forcing your conveniences on other people,... You could. You could, of course, say anything you want to - you could say that the sky is blaze orange and that cow dung tastes like strawberry shortcake. That, by the way, would make much more sense than your quote.

I'm trying to phrase this in a way that's easy to understand... It is impossible to force a convenience on someone. Convenience implies choice. Every individual has the choice to cooperate with any actions that they so desire. As I said before, you are always free to turn whatever information you desire over to the government. It's your life, and you can do with it what you please. Please be so kind as to accord me the same courtesy.

...and denying the government tools that it could use to imprison hostile terrorists. Yippy skippy. You'll forgive me if "imprisoning hostile terrorists" isn't high on my list of things worth pitching my rights down the toilet for. :rolleyes:

- Chris

[Glock Glockler]

But like I said, I won't judge you for what level of convenience you are about to demand while it could put Americans at risk, just as you shouldn't judge me for accepting to cooperate with a new law that could effectively jail and deter terrorist activities in the country.

Ryan, suppose the govt wanted to perform random house to house searches and monitor all communications in the hopes of finding terrorists, would that be kosher with you?

[The Rabbi]

You're right, Publius, that is a silly question. No one has asked Ryan to be part of a Constitutional conventional and the prospect of it seems pretty remote. I am sure if it came closer to reality he would think more about it. It certainly does not invalidate his position.

Ah, young Padawan, you have much to learn. Must a law first be used to abuse the civil rights of a citizen for that law to be inherently unjust?

First off, no one has ever alleged civil rights abuse stemming from the law. Second, I have not seen a credible claim of "injustice" and would be interested to see someone make a claim and the basis for it.

[Ryan in the House]

Ah, young Padawan, you have much to learn. Must a law first be used to abuse the civil rights of a citizen for that law to be inherently unjust?

When the only complaint of the Patriot Act is that it abuses civil rights, then yes, I'll have to see some proof of that before I considered it unjust (and I'm not just talking about conspiracies).

Ryan, suppose the govt wanted to perform random house to house searches and monitor all communications in the hopes of finding terrorists, would that be kosher with you?

Random? No, I would not feel too happy about that. Considering that all search warrants must be backed by reasonable evidence (and nothing in the Patriot Act implies random searches, wiretaps, or file-searching), I don't see how this has much to do with my approval of the Act.

Yippy skippy. You'll forgive me if "imprisoning hostile terrorists" isn't high on my list of things worth pitching my rights down the toilet for.

What rights are being pitched down the toilet? Your privacy is not being attacked, now that I look at it again; the government's privacy is being boosted. They've always had the power to issue search warrants - the PA does not change it. They've always had the power to check your records - the PA does not change it. The difference is that the PA gives them more privacy, for the sole purpose of preventing terrorists and terrorist suspects from being tipped off prematurely.

If national security is a non-issue to you, then I'd suppose you wouldn't mind awarding terrorists the luxury of knowing if the government is watching them and preparing to arrest them. After all, the sanctuary of the Mexican border is only a car drive away.

You could. You could, of course, say anything you want to - you could say that the sky is blaze orange and that cow dung tastes like strawberry shortcake. That, by the way, would make much more sense than your quote.

I'm trying to phrase this in a way that's easy to understand... It is impossible to force a convenience on someone. Convenience implies choice. Every individual has the choice to cooperate with any actions that they so desire. As I said before, you are always free to turn whatever information you desire over to the government. It's your life, and you can do with it what you please. Please be so kind as to accord me the same courtesy.

I don't get it. According to you, I am "stomping on your rights" by being an individual who supports the Patriot Act, but by being an individual who opposes it, you aren't forcing your conveniences on other people who might be effected by the terrorists who enjoy and manipulate the same amount of privacy (for lack of better word) that you are willing to grant them? The Patriot Act covers the entire nation; of course an outcome will be forced on everybody.

Let's say, for example, that the outcome of the PA actually came down to what you thought - which means you can either veto or approve it right here. If you do not support the PA, then you are forcing the government to adopt their policies to your conveniences, and in turn, forcing away the security from everyone else by denying the government tools that it can and will use to imprison hostile terrorists that target innocent Americans. If you approve the PA, then you are allowing the government to stay more secretive, while denying the citizens the ability to moniter their government as freely as they might like. Either way you look at it, one of us is "forcing" something on the entire population. I'd rather be forcing security on our nation than my own interpretation of civil rights.

Just a silly question, Ryan, but what would you do if selected for a Constitutional Convention? Would you hand a piece of paper to the new government which said, "Just start doin' stuff. I'll let you know if I don't like something."?

Nah, I'd hand them a piece of paper that says, "Do stuff for the good of the nation, and not the "good" of the selective opinions of individual High Road members." ;)

[publius]

So has anyone found any evidence that complete copies of the PA were available to members of Congress prior to the vote?

[publius]

So a desirable government is one which has a mandate to do good and can achieve that end by whatever means, without any pesky public oversight. I see.

Well, it's a darn good thing you won't be invited to any Constitutional Conventions! :D

[Flyboy]

Ryan:

If terrorists were to shoot up a mall (or several) next week, and the government decided that banning firearms would help them "serve and protect," would you support that law?

What if terrorists smuggled weapons on board an airliner (again). Would you support a measure requiring every passenger to submit to a body cavity search before flying?

What about roadside checkpoints at which you have to provide your identification papers and prove your citizenship?

Would any of those bother you? Or is your qualification strictly whether the government can "protect" you from some particular harm?

[griz]

I'd rather be forcing security on our nation than my own interpretation of civil rights.

Jails are pretty secure by defineition.
Thanks, but I think I'll keep the founders ideas of civil rights instead of yours.

[Ryan in the House]

If terrorists were to shoot up a mall (or several) next week, and the government decided that banning firearms would help them "serve and protect," would you support that law?

What if terrorists smuggled weapons on board an airliner (again). Would you support a measure requiring every passenger to submit to a body cavity search before flying?

What about roadside checkpointsat which you have to provide your identification papers and prove your citizenship?

Would any of those bother you? Or is your qualification strictly whether the government can "protect" you from some particular harm?

How can you possibly equate this to the passages of the Patriot Act, or even my approval of it? I don't need to be 100% Authoritarian to support the Patriot Act any more than I need to be 100% Libertarian to support gun ownership. Refer to my "random house searches" post for the answer to your question; or if you want, I'll repeat it here. Yes, I'd be bothered by the events you listed, because they are actually quite extreme.

I support the Patriot Act. I don't support random house searches, the banning of all guns because terrorists use them, or full-body cavity searches to all airport passengers. How is there ANY similarity between these two in terms of magnitude?

[Michigander]

This is two pages late, and not a "big picture" thing, but Michigander:


(2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property,
any wire or electronic communication (as defined in section
2510), or, except as expressly provided in chapter 121, any
stored wire or electronic information, except where the court
finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and

Doesn't read to me as:


items have to be prohibited from the warrant

It reads to me that items are prohibited from seizure unless they are included in the warrant ("court finds necessity").

Anyway, minor thing.

Carebear, you are correct. I made a mistake in interpretation. When reading Section 213 in it's entirety, I find that it is basically saying: if the court finds reasonable cause (to delay notification) and tangible property or any of the certain other items listed are on the warrant and the warrant provides for giving notice within a reasonable period, then delaying notification is not permissible.Well, delaying notificaton is not permissible unless court decides to delay with "good cause shown."

OK. Section 213 has specific instructions as to when the notification of a warrant being served may be delayed.

Then why doesn't Section 215 has such notification insturctions?

[why_me]

So has anyone found any evidence that complete copies of the PA were available to members of Congress prior to the vote?

Nope and if they did have full copies they probably wouldnt have personally read them either.

Vote against something called the "Patriot act" and youll get booted out of office.

[publius]

The difference is that the PA gives them more privacy, for the sole purpose of preventing terrorists and terrorist suspects from being tipped off prematurely.

That's the sole stated purpose.

But then, nobody ever stated that RICO was to be used against abortion protesters, it just worked out that way.

Nobody ever stated that the Patriot Act would be used to keep PayPal from being used by online gamblers (http://www.cei.org/gencon/016,03443.cfm), it just worked out that way. I don't know about you, but I feel safer already!

I'm actually a supporter of parts of the PA, other parts I don't like. What I like least is all the secrecy. Governments are better behaved if they are watched. Secret courts which issue secret warrants based on secret evidence, or secret subpoenas which the recipients are not allowed to discuss, are tools ripe for secret abuse.

The "administrative subpoenas" sought by the administration for Patriot II are even worse, bypassing even the pretense of a secret court which never, ever says no. (Can anyone produce any evidence that "no" is in the vocabulary of those FISA courts?)

I don't trust 'em.

[publius]

In case you missed it in the article above...

police are interested in pursuing larger amounts of money, especially when they can seize it and keep it. And this may well be what is underlying state prosecutor’s interest in Paypal’s past role in gambling. The Patriot Act provisions that Paypal allegedly violated bar the transmission of funds known to have come from criminal activity. And they also provide for civil forfeiture. Whether Paypal could actually be convicted is questionable; Ebay argues that they acted in good faith. The Missouri prosecutors sent a settlement offer along with their letter. Maybe Paypal broke the law, and maybe they didn’t. Assume, for a moment, that our law against gambling is justified and that those are breaking it are doing something wrong (an assumption that probably wouldn’t stand close examination). Paypal is certainly less involved in the wrongful transaction than those who actually gambled. But civil forfeiture means that prosecutorial discretion will be directed not at the actual wrongdoers (under our assumption, gamblers or gambling businesses), but businesses caught up with them because they offer services to everyone without inquiries into the exact nature of their business.

Deep pockets = guilt.

This screwed-up incentive structure is made even worse where seizing agencies are allowed to keep what they seize, as is all-too-frequently the case. I don't want cops worrying about which bust will be better for their budget. I want them worrying about which one will better protect citizens.

[Flyboy]

Ryan:

Those examples really weren't that extreme; I specifically chose them for that reason. Have a look:

If terrorists were to shoot up a mall (or several) next week, and the government decided that banning firearms would help them "serve and protect," would you support that law?

Every time there's some sort of a shooting, we hear calls for more and more laws restricting firearms ownership. San Francisco is trying to pass a law forbidding handguns (or, according to one claim, all firearms, though I've yet to confirm that). Look at DC. Look at Chicago. Look at New York.

What if terrorists smuggled weapons on board an airliner (again). Would you support a measure requiring every passenger to submit to a body cavity search before flying?

OK, we're not to strip searches yet. Now, it's X-ray, magnetometer, bomb sniffing, and pat-downs with rules about how the screener can touch "sensitive areas," with more in-depth searches authorized at the discretion of the screener. And a witness/videotape of the search? Dream on.

What about roadside checkpointsat which you have to provide your identification papers and prove your citizenship?

This is the easiest one. We already have checkpoints for sobriety, seatbelts, and just proof of driver's license and insurance. Are you going to tell me that the latter (license and registration checkpoints) are that dissimilar from an "ihre papieren, bitte" stop?

I support the Patriot Act. I don't support random house searches, the banning of all guns because terrorists use them, or full-body cavity searches to all airport passengers. How is there ANY similarity between these two in terms of magnitude?

The question had nothing to do with the USA PATRIOT Act, at least not directly. I was trying to determine where you would draw the line. I suppose there is an incidental relation between the two, though, in that government naturally and inevitably tries to enhance its own power. It does this by slowly, but steadily, passing increasingly restrictive laws, and granting ever-broadening powers to itself, typically under the guise of a law passed for a specific purpose, then used far more broadly. The USA PATRIOT Act is a part of this; there's a thread with examples on this forum right now. But my question was whether or not you'd support those measures, based on the utility they'd provide to the government to protect you, and why or why not. To that, I'll add a second and third question: would you support them before they passed, until the government abused it ("keep doing things and I'll tell you when I object"), and do you support the measures we currently have (as explained above)?

[The Rabbi]

Those examples really weren't that extreme; I specifically chose them for that reason. Have a look:

A full Federal ban on all firearms even those currently in civilian hands and you dont call that an extreme example?? I must be missing something. As pointed out frequently, SF has tried this ban business before and it has been shot down (so to speak) every time.

I was trying to determine where you would draw the line

And once you did that, what would it show? Just trying to figure out what the fishing expedition is all about.

[rock jock]

So if an acceptable answer cannot hinge on my view of which mechanisms would or would not invite/constitute abuse of rights, what can it hinge upon?

Or, asked another way, let me turn your question around. Is there ANY power you would not be willing to grant to the government, and if there is, please explain why you would not grant that power, but do so without any reference to violations of rights.
You dodged the question and the issue all at once. The question was (and still is), what would you offer as a substitute for finding terrorists before they strike. Still no answer, as usual.

The issue is, what sacrifices are we willing to make in the area of individual rights to allow greater essential (not tempoary) security? I think it is obvious from your answer that you would be willing to sacrifice our country to that end. Frankly, that is completely irrational and, I'm willing to bet, unaaceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans.

[carebear]

rock jock,

The counter is that there's no evidence that these new methods have particularly improved our terrorist fighting abilities yet have been shown to be used against common crime.

Given the possible risk of "greater attackability" vice the historically solid chance of misuse as anti-terrorism blends into anti-crime blends into increasing gov. intervention into everyday life (penumbra stuff), most here would err on the side of some risk.

[spacemanspiff]

what sacrifices are we willing to make in the area of individual rights to allow greater essential (not tempoary) security
1. in this post-9/11 age of 'homeland security' and 'tsa', have the libertys and dignity the American public have been forced to give up stopped any terrorists or even any common criminals, for that matter?

2. why stop at just stopping terrorists? maybe we can stop all bad activities if we just surrender a few more 'rights'?

[Justin]

...what would you offer as a substitute for finding terrorists before they strike. This is specious reasoning. I have yet to see one example of how the PATRIOT Act has been instrumental in capturing, killing, or outing terrorists that would have otherwise gotten away.

[rock jock]

in this post-9/11 age of 'homeland security' and 'tsa', have the libertys and dignity the American public have been forced to give up stopped any terrorists or even any common criminals, for that matter?
We really don't know if they have been effective or not. FBI is not really willing to release details on active investigations. Maybe the fact that LE has these new powers is a deterrent in and of itself. we really don't know that either. Kind of like arguing that CCW laws prevent crime. We can't really say with certainty that the CCW laws should get the credit, or mandatory prison sentenses, or a better economy (compared to 70's/80's). All we know is that CCW laws became widespread and crime stats went down. All we know regarding the PA is that since it went into effect, no terror attacks on U.S. soil.

However, I would still ask, what sacrifices are you willing to accept in terms of the likelihood or severity of another 9/11 to NOT have a PA?

[Justin]

A pessimist might think that the reason the FBI hasn't released any information on pending investigations or the PATRIOT Act's efficacy on same is a result of it being fundamentally ineffective.

If you cannot empirically prove its effectiveness then your support for the PATRIOT Act rings hollow.

[carebear]

Heck, I'm all for only profiling and searching flyers who match the terrorist profiles and letting me carry my knife on board aircraft again.

I'd even let, say, CCW holders carry onboard like prior to '63.

That is security.

[spacemanspiff]

well since our own gov't has admitted that gun control laws have not done anything to prevent crime, i think its feasible to expect that they also admit that the PA has not done any good.

i'm not willing to sacrifice ANYTHING. law enforcement should still be required to obtain its evidence according to the same procedures, obtaining search warrants when necessary, as they have always been expected to do.

[griz]

However, I would still ask, what sacrifices are you willing to accept in terms of the likelihood or severity of another 9/11 to NOT have a PA?

I'm willing to sacrifice the illusion of security the Act provides. If you think of security to liberty as a linear scale (and that is debateable), I think we are too far away from the liberty side and headed still further.

[rock jock]

If you cannot empirically prove its effectiveness then your support for the PATRIOT Act rings hollow.
I don't have to, because I can prove the ineffectiveness of the law prior to 9/11. To wit, the inability of the FBI to follow up on flight school suspects because of the lack of investigative tools at their disposal, the inability to thoroughly investigate support groups in the U.S., etc. So, since the need exists, YOU must either prove that the PA is not the proper mechanism to respond to this need, or explain why not meeting this need is acceptable.

I'm willing to sacrifice the illusion of security the Act provides.
Again, you don't know if the additional security the PA purports to provide is real or illusory. You wuld have to know the details on every terrorist-related investigation post-PA. However, what we DO know is that we have not had a terror attack on US soil since introduction of the PA. That much is fact.

[Ryan in the House]

I have yet to see one example of how the PATRIOT Act has been instrumental in capturing, killing, or outing terrorists that would have otherwise gotten away.

How about these instances:

-FBI efforts to nail the Lackawanna Six al Qaeda cell began in summer 2001. Separate teams probed their suspected drug and terrorist violations. According to the Justice Department's "July Report from the Field: The USA Patriot Act at Work," "there were times when the intelligence officers and the law enforcement agents concluded that they could not be in the same room during briefings to discuss their respective investigations with each other." Under the Patriot Act, these officials began exchanging data, pooled their energies, and jailed all six upstate New York terrorists for seven to ten years for pro-al Qaeda subterfuge.

-In the Portland Seven case, the Patriot Act let the FBI follow one terrorist's plans to attack domestic Jewish targets while other conspirators tried to reach Afghanistan to help al Qaeda and the Taliban battle American GIs. The FBI and prosecutors jointly imprisoned six of the Seven for three to 18 years. As the DOJ dryly adds: "Charges against the seventh defendant were dismissed after he was killed in Pakistan by Pakistani troops on October 3, 2003."

-The Palestinian Islamic Jihad Eight were indicted for materially supporting foreign terrorists. Before that, Patriot Act Section 219 let the supervising federal judge quickly issue a search warrant in another jurisdiction, rather than consume precious time by involving an additional, local jurist.

-The Virginia Jihad Nine have been jailed for four years to life for training in Pakistani and Afghan terror camps between 1999 and 2001 and for paramilitary jihad instruction in northern Virginia, near Washington, D.C. Patriot Act information-sharing language helped incarcerate these members of the Dar al-Arqam Islamic Center.

-Patriot Act Section 371 is helping the feds seize $659,000 that Alaa Al-Sadawi, a terrorist-linked New Jersey mullah, tried to smuggle to Egypt through his elderly parents. Customs agents found this cash in a Quaker Oats carton, a Ritz Crackers box, and two baby-wipes packages, all stashed in the imam's father's luggage.

-As Dick Morris recalled in the September 12 New York Post, under the Patriot Act, federal intelligence agents in March 2003 gave information to the NYPD gleaned from interrogations of al Qaeda honcho Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). This prompted New York's Finest to guard the Brooklyn Bridge and arrest Iyman Faris before he could [sink] it into the East River.

-Similar intelligence sharing helped the NYPD unravel an al Qaeda plot to use a law-abiding Manhattan garment company to ship bombs and Stinger missiles into New York. Details massaged out of KSM foiled Islamist designs to fire these Stingers at jetliners departing Newark Airport.

-Despite its caricature as an anti-Islamic nightstick, the Patriot Act helped save a mosque. Jared Bjarnason allegedly e-mailed the El Paso Islamic Center April 18 and threatened to torch it if hostages were not freed in Iraq. Patriot Act Section 212 let the FBI locate Bjarnason through his Internet service provider and cuff him before he could set the mosque ablaze.

[The Rabbi]

I have yet to see one example of how the PATRIOT Act has been instrumental in capturing, killing, or outing terrorists that would have otherwise gotten away.

In addition to the fact that examples have been given, this is one of the very arguments we use in support of gun rights: how many criminals have been deterred from committing crimes in the presence of an armed populace? No one can quantify that number but everyone on the RKBA side knows that there is one. Why should PATRIOT be any different?

[Ryan in the House]

In addition to the fact that examples have been given, this is one of the very arguments we use in support of gun rights: how many criminals have been deterred from committing crimes in the presence of an armed populace? No one can quantify that number but everyone on the RKBA side knows that there is one. Why should PATRIOT be any different?

I was going to say... I was hearing remarks on this forum from pro-gun right advocates that are similar to the arguments that Liberals use to ATTACK gun rights. The similarities are... Liberals say something like this: "Theoretically, gun control could be used to lower crime... but it hasn't been proven." Some of the the people here say: "Theoretically, the Patriot Act could be used to sap away our rights and create a corperate police state... but it hasn't been proven."

[Glock Glockler]

However, what we DO know is that we have not had a terror attack on US soil since introduction of the PA. That much is fact.

What about the Maryland Snipers, or the one in Ohio, or the guy in Co who bulldozed his town? It seems you're being awefully selective in what you consider terrorism?

Also, if we do have another terrorist attack does that mean that the PA is ineffective if removed, or will you just argue that it failed because it was not strong enough? Why is it that the default position must be to always make the govt more powerful at our expense?

[griz]

"Theoretically, gun control could be used to lower crime... but it hasn't been proven." Some of the the people here say: "Theoretically, the Patriot Act could be used to sap away our rights and create a corperate police state... but it hasn't been proven."

You don't see the difference between arguing for a right (2nd A.) and arguing against something that could take away rights?

We are down to repeating ourselves on this one, see ya on the next thread.

[publius]

Here's the thing about all that great intelligence sharing...

I have a couple of friends who are Defense Intelligence type spooks. It's great that we have people like these out there, doing what they have to do around the world, dealing with other thugs. I don't really want them to play by many rules, if you know what I mean.

And then there are the NSA type spooks. They have incredible capabilities for all manner of electronic monitoring, and they spy on the various governments and thugs around the world whenever they try to communicate. This is great. We have to do this. I don't want too many rules on those people either.

BUT I do not want a bunch of spooks and thugs without rules and all their electronic capabilities turned on citizens or institutions here at home.

But they have to get permission, you say? OK, show me evidence that the word "no" is in the vocabulary of FISA courts.

Asking for a warrant is meaningless if "no" is not a possibility. It's asking me to trust that prosecutors will not overreach, and that (well-intentioned) intelligence agents will not apply their looser set of rules to domestic targets. I don't think prosecutors are evil. My mother was a felony prosecutor for the state. I just don't think they should always be trusted. Her boss was Janet Reno.

[Ryan in the House]

You don't see the difference between arguing for a right (2nd A.) and arguing against something that could take away rights?

We are down to repeating ourselves on this one, see ya on the next thread.

I was simply mentioning the similarities of the tactics; that certain members here, on the one hand, tell the Liberals that guns reduce crime because there is nothing that proves to the contrary, but then turn around and state that the Patriot Act could theoretically be used to usurp power and create a corperate police state, although there is no evidence to support the cause, and just speculation.

[The Rabbi]

I was thinking the same thing but in the opposite way.

We argue constantly that the knowledge that people are likely to be armed (or unarmed) in itself acts to suppress incidents of crime (or the converse that it increases the incidents where criminals believe they are more likely to get away with it) But there is no way to measure something that never happens.
Similarly with the PA there is no way to measure which terrorist acts were thwarted by its existence. Of course the fact that we have not had any terrorist acts since 9/11 at least suggests it is effective. I am defining terrorist acts as those perpetrated by a conspiracy of people to create terror with a view to influencing policies. That would exclude acts of individuals or pairs.

[why_me]

However, what we DO know is that we have not had a terror attack on US soil since introduction of the PA. That much is fact.
From 1994 -2001 we didnt either

[White Horseradish]

I was going to say... I was hearing remarks on this forum from pro-gun right advocates that are similar to the arguments that Liberals use to ATTACK gun rights. The similarities are... Liberals say something like this: "Theoretically, gun control could be used to lower crime... but it hasn't been proven." Some of the the people here say: "Theoretically, the Patriot Act could be used to sap away our rights and create a corperate police state... but it hasn't been proven."

When it is proven by the the fact that the police state has been created (I assume you will accept no other proof) it will be much too late to do anything about it.

[Ryan in the House]

When it is proven by the the fact that the police state has been created (I assume you will accept no other proof) it will be much too late to do anything about it.

Random terrorist car searches, random house checks, and warrantless police searches would be indication enough for me. Increasing the privacy of the government, for the purpose of preventing terrorists of being tipped off on an investigation, is hardly convincing enough.

[Flyboy]

Here's the other thing about intelligence sharing:
it doesn't take 342 pages to authorize it.

I don't object to that part of the Act; it's some of the other stuff I find objectionable. We keep discussing the Act as a whole, but we don't have to. There are provisions in there that are quite useful; intel sharing, fr'instance. There are others that are not so nice; they've been discussed here and elsewhere.

The USA PATRIOT Act is flawed; fatally so, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that it doesn't do some good, just that I think the cons outweigh the pros.

[publius]

You dodged the question and the issue all at once. The question was (and still is), what would you offer as a substitute for finding terrorists before they strike. Still no answer, as usual.

I was attempting to demonstrate that you've deliberately framed a question so that the only possible answer to the question is: the PA is fine.

It is not fine with me, but the reason is because it conflicts with my notion of individual rights and the proper limits of government with respect to those rights.

You've stated that such a reason is unacceptable, leading me to conclude that no reason can be acceptable.

So, so that we don't just talk past each other here, why don't you show me how it is done? Name a power that you would not be willing to give to the government (if any), and then explain why you would not give that power to them, but do so without reference to your notion of individual rights and the proper limits of government w/respect to those rights.

If you manage it, I'll give it a shot as well.

[Flyboy]

The real problem here is that some people--heck, a lot of people--are unwilling to accept that freedom necessarily implies a certain amount of danger. Freedom, by definition, means that people have a choice in what they do. Part of that choice is the choice to do Bad Things. A lot of people seem unwilling, or unable, to grasp that concept.

Freedom isn't safe. Life has risks. Get over it, or lock yourself in a padded room.

[The Rabbi]

Actually, I believe Section 215 of the act allows for searches and seizers of your personal effects and they NEVER have to inform you that a search has taken place.

And you have support, Michigander, from a Congressman no less.

Without a warrant or probable cause, the FBI can now search your private medical records or access your library records. Your doctor or local library is forbidden from notifying you when these searches take place. The government may search your home while you are away and in some cases even confiscate your property. Judicial oversight of these measures is virtually nonexistent. These are only a few of the PATRIOT Act's provisions that compromise our civil liberties.

Source: http://www.kucinich.us/issues/patriot_act.php

Of course if Dennis Kucinich were on my side I'd switch sides in a hurry.....

[publius]

If you fled to the opposite end, you'd find Ron Paul waiting for you, Rabbi.

Oh, and speaking of Dr. Paul, I never did get any facts or reasons behind your skepticism of his account of the hurried passage and lack of debate on the PA. Do you have any?

[Flyboy]

Of course if Dennis Kucinich were on my side I'd switch sides in a hurry.....

So, Rabbi, if Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy said the sky was blue, would you argue with them?

Even a blind chicken finds a kernel now and then.

[Hawkmoon]

Have there been any actual documented complaints of civil rights violations due to the Patriot Act? Not aware of any.
Does the name Padilla ring a bell?

Yeah, so he probably isn't a very nice guy, and he probably would not have made Eagle scout. But ... he IS a United States citizen, and he has been incarcerated for more than a year without being charged with any crime, and he was for a long time denied access to an attorney. I think I recall reading that some court has finally agreed that he should be allowed access to an attorney, and the government then tried to say that they would allow him to speak with an attorney only if they could tape record the meetings.

[The Rabbi]

I dont think Padilla has anything to do with the Patriot Act. There were no violations alleged specific to it.

[Warbow]

The Rabbi wrote:

I dont think Padilla has anything to do with the Patriot Act.

You're correct.

[jojo]

I don't think so Warbow.

I'll have to look up a specific article, but I am certain that he IS held under the PA.

jojo

[publius]

He's being held as an "enemy combatant." Not part of the PA, but part of the war on PayP...uh...I mean....terror.

[Warbow]

PATRIOT has nothing in it which allows for detention, for any amount of time, of US citizens.