[Mark Tyson]

ACLU files lawsuit against Patriot Act

From Kevin Bohn
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, July 30, 2003 Posted: 6:17 PM EDT (2217 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The American Civil Liberties Union Wednesday filed the first lawsuit against the Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The lawsuit claims one section of the law authorizing searches of records, including those of businesses, libraries and bookstores, is unconstitutional.

"This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which vastly expands the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain records and other 'tangible things' of people not suspected of criminal activity," the lawsuit states.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of six mostly Arab and Muslim-American groups.

The groups claim the provisions of the law allowing the searches violates the Constitution's First, Fourth and Fifth amendments.

They include the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor, Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services and the Islamic Center of Portland, Masjed As-Saber.

Without directly commenting on the suit, Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock defended the act in a written statement, saying it was "a long overdue measure to close gaping holes" in the government's anti-terrorism efforts.

She described Section 215 as having "a narrow scope that scrupulously respects First Amendment rights, requires a court order to obtain any business records, and is subject to congressional reporting and oversight on a regular basis."

Justice Department officials say the section can be used only in a narrow set of circumstances, including to obtain foreign intelligence information about people who are neither American citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and to defend the United States against foreign spies or international terrorists.

"Section 215 cannot be used to investigate garden-variety crimes, or even domestic terrorism," Comstock said in her statement.

Those bringing the lawsuit contend it is too easy to get approval for a search under Section 215.

"To obtain a Section 215 order, the FBI need only assert that the records or personal belongings are 'sought for' an ongoing foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism investigation," the lawsuit says.

"The FBI is not required to show probable cause -- or any reason -- to believe that the target of the order is a criminal suspect or foreign agent."

Previously, such broad powers were permitted only in investigations of suspected agents of foreign powers. Section 215 expanded the type of information that can be subpoenaed and broadened the scope to add probes into al Qaeda and other terrorism suspects.

Another controversial element of the Patriot Act involves what are called "sneak and peek" searches of homes and other locations in which the owners are informed only after the search has been conducted.

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to bar the Justice Department from executing such searches under the act.

In a letter last week to House Speaker Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, the department said the idea of delaying notification of such searches is "to prevent tipping off terrorists in the war on terror" and is a "long-existing, crime-fighting tool."

In February, the ACLU and a coalition of other civil liberties groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn new, more lenient standards for wiretaps in foreign intelligence investigations.

Before the Patriot Act, foreign intelligence had to be a "primary" purpose of the investigation. Now, foreign intelligence has to be a "significant" purpose. The court overseeing the issuance of wiretaps had ruled against that interpretation last year, saying it was too broad.

[SkunkApe]

The nerve of those darn liberals. We have to give up some rights if we want to catch those dirty terrorist foreigners. If you're innocent, why be worried?

Four legs good, two legs better.

[ACP]

Good for the ACLU. The Patriot Act is riddled with Constitutional violations.

[greyhound]

I have no love for the ACLU as they don't believe the 2A guarantees individuals the right to bear arms. Just 'cause they defended a Nazi or two doesn't mean they aren't stupid liberals!

[dustind]

This may be the thing that gets me to join the biased pick and choose ACLU. I hope this lawsuit goes well.

[jimpeel]

I agree with their position. The Patriot Act is evil disguised as good.

It is getting really, really hard to argue with the Endtimers these days.

[themic]

the ACLU may not pick all the fights, nor the best of fights, but it is awful rare that they pick the wrong fight.

on 2A, they have a wrong position, yes, but they will never argua a case either for or against it. their policy is to avoid it. it's good for their own survival, so more power to them. there are similar groups that include protecting 2A rights, and probably we should send our money to them.

but all in all, we should give credit where credit is due. or at least, I will.

good job, ACLU.


( ... let the flames begin )

[seeker_two]

Imagine, me & the Anti-American Communist Lewdness Union on the same side on this one.... :scrutiny:

What a weird feeling...:uhoh:

[Stinger]

The nerve of those darn liberals. We have to give up some rights if we want to catch those dirty terrorist foreigners. If you're innocent, why be worried?

I'm assuming you said that in jest, hence the Orwell reference?

If so :cool:

If not :barf:

Stinger

[Gordon Fink]

I’m glad the ACLU is fighting the USA PATRIOT Act. However, if the ACLU can just file suit over unconstitutional legislation, why can’t the NRA do the same thing for the “assault-weapons” ban or the myriad of other unconstitutional gun-control “laws”?

~G. Fink :confused:

[CMichael]

The fact that the ACLU is against the Patriot Act definetly increases the credibility of the Partriot ACt.

[alan]

Editor:

The article in question headlined "ACLU joins legal challenge to key part of Patriot Act", reprinted from The Washington Post, contains some rather interesting comments.

The 5th paragraph provides some of the above mentioned, via the offerings of DOJ spokeswoman Barbara Comstock who comes to the defense of Section 215, not mentioned by it's number, the "defendant" or "offending party" in the above mentioned "legal challenge".She claims that the section has "a narrow scope....", later on mentioning a requirement for "congressional reporting and oversight on a regular basis".

Unfortunately, the record of The Congress, respecting the carrying out of it's oversight responsibilities regarding agencies it funds and legislation that it enacts is less than encouraging. One might go so far as to observe that the record of The Congress is terrible in this regard.

Later on in the article, mention is made of some "federal lawmakers" expressing concern or objections regarding at least some parts of the Patriot Act that they so hurriedly enacted, which leaves the writer wondering as to the following. Even at this late date, how many of our elected representatives, the ones who voted for this U.S.A. Patriot Act have ever gotten around to actually reading the thing?

[clem]

Check this out:


http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/62.htm


Besides being against the 2nd Amendment, isn't the ACLU against Christians & religion too? I 've seen lots of stuff about the ACLU sueing for the removing of "the Ten Commandments" and such from courts and public buildings.
And as mentioned, they do defend a NAZI once in a while?
So, I wonder if the linked document is being used as a guide?
:D

[Iain]

Well, all those of you who are against the Patriot Act should be with the ACLU on this one. Doesn't mean you have become a liberal, just means you pick your fights on the basis of the issue.

Just a question, you say the ACLU defends Nazi's? Do they do it in order to defend the right to a fair trial? If so, it is admirable that they risk so much themselves (credibilty, possibly even their own lives etc) to defend what I believe is a constitutional right.

[agricola]

st.johns,

i think he is more suggesting that the ACLU's opposition to the link between religion and the state is akin to, if not the same as, the anti-religious policies of the NSDAP.

rest,

the ACLU is correct to file the motion and all of you should support it, and question why the NRA, which has more money and more clout, has not performed in a similar fashion.

[clem]

I just find it unusual that something, so great, so help the masses, like the ACLU which is against the Patriot Act that goes against the Constitution, is against the 2nd Amendment (rights to have weapons).

They seem to pick the rights that THEY think we should have.

And I feel that they are anti-religion, especially against the basic Christain principles that this country was founded on.

In part, it says:

"But never again must an influence on leadership of the people be yielded to the churches. This (influence) must be broken completely and finally.
Only the Reich government and by it's direction the part, its components and attached units have a right to leadership of the people. Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers and other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the state, so must the possibility of CHURCH INFLUENCES also be totally removed."

sig//M. Bormann
Reichsleiter

I suggest that the complete document be read.

Sort of like what the NAZI were doing in Germany before the "final solution".

Sorry if anyone is upset (not really) and I'll not do it again (another lie).:D

[Waitone]

Ahh, the old "The eneny of my enemy is my friend" argument is alive an well on a forum infested with self-professed "libertarians." I read lots of gorilla dust about how the PA violates our consitutional rights yet I see precious little documented evidence, just assertions.

I'd like to think the ACLU suddenly decided to become a protector of constitutional rights. I may be dumb but I ain't stupid. I will not invest trust in an organization that is so selective in its outrage.

Just after Ashecroft became AG but before 9-11 the ACLU made an announcement that it was earmarking $6 million for a campaign to discredit Ashecroft. Is the lawsuit against the PA just a smokescreen to allow the ACLU to get around to knifing Ashecroft? Can't tell. Motives are too mixed up.

[Moparmike]

:confused: Last I heard the ACLU had just changed its views on the 2nd to mean that firearms ownership is a Constitutional right.

Maybe I am mistaken.

[Waitone]

Moparmike,

The Second Amendment Wars changes fronts from time to time. Earlier on the battle was over whether or not there was a second amendment. Then there was the fight over whether or not it should be considered valid. That particular argument parallelled the validity of the third amendment. That being historical situations changed and there is no longer a need to worry about quartering troops in houses. Therefore you can say there is no need for the second amendment.

Thankfully the battle front is now changed to acceptance (for the time being) of the legitimacy of the second amendment but there are questions as to what it really means. So now the fight is over the interpretation of the term "people." Two interpretations emerge. First is the individual interpretation which says people refers to individuals. . . .just like the terms refers to individuals in the first, third and fourth amendments.

Second, the collectivist interpretation says "people" refers to the collective people meaning the states have right to keep and bear arms and that the individual has no such right. It is ok for individual states to have national guard units but it is not ok for individuals to possess arms. Virtually the entire anti-2 establishment has adopted the collectivist view. It does two things: First is it removes political baggage of opposing RKBA in a political environment where such opposition is political suicide. Second, it allows siad establishment to continue its opposition to armed citizens as well as the entire concept of self-defense.

I too have heard the ACLU has signed off on the second amendment but I'll bet a steak dinner is not a individual interpretation.

[longeyes]

Men being what they are, I don't trust the Patriot Act. Liberals, being
what they are, I sure as hell don't trust the ACLU.

I'd still like to know, though, what we are supposed to do to afford this
country internal security. No Patriot Act? Fine. At least the PA
operates under the color of law and professes to honor basic civil
liberties. If we start experiencing terrorist acts that are linked
to radical Islamic groups in this country, whether its members are
here legally or illegally, it is frankly going to be very difficult for
Moslems to retain residency in this country. That would be a very
unfortunate eventuality, but it wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Combat-wombat]

Good for the ACLU. I don't agree with them not supporting the 2nd Amendment, but other than that they are a good organization.

[Zundfolge]

Good for the ACLU ... just goes to show that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[MeekandMild]

This sounds like a better thing for them to spend their money on than trying to get all the mental institutions closed, pornographers paid grants by the NEA and religious speech banned in public. Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then. :rolleyes:

[dustind]

as far as religion the ACLU is just fighting for the seperation of church and state. I think some of the battles are silly, but the ACLU has not done anything wrong that I am aware of concerning religion.

How many pages of laws were passed after 9/11? The patriot act was written a long time ago, and waiting under a rock to emerge. People have agendas, this was not written as a response to anything, it was pulled out and terrorism was the excuse.

I do not think we will see any major abuses until after the sunset is gone, it would be dumb for them to not lay low and show how it wont be abused right now.

I cut a few irrelivant parts out to make it shorter.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

[TheOtherOne]

Just 'cause they defended a Nazi or two doesn't mean they aren't stupid liberals!That reminded me of this news story:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3211/acludefends.html

:D

[JimP]

I'm curious, for all of you railing against the PATRIOT act, how many have actually read it??? Don't believe the news media - the sky isn't going to fall. be careful of what you ask for, you just may get it. As one poster stated, the fact that the ACLU is against it is good evidence that it can't be bad for America.

Before you start "hamstringing" the government's ability to snag terrorists, go and actually read the text of the act. Then see how many imagined horrors actually exist.

[Glock Glockler]

JimP,

While I've not read the entire thing, 300+ pages of legalese nonsense is a bit much even for a masochist like me, I have read a decent amount of it and I see plenty of instances where the govt basically wants to steamroller over the 1st, 4th, and 6th amendments.

The idea that because the ACLU is against it it is therefore a good thing, is complete nonsense. Any law must be judged by it's own merits, not by who's for it and who's against it. If Satan held a press conference and declared that he was against gun control and thinks that all gun laws muct be immediately removed, would you be against it because it was Satan who was supporting it?

I'm not going to give up my freedom because the govt thinks it needs more power to do whatever. They can go pound sand for all I care, as they neither care about my well being nor can do anything to enhance it.

[Waitone]

Those who fight the Second Amendment Wars on the side of constitutional principals pride themselves on having a good handle on the facts of gun control. So much so the anti-2's are reluctant to engage in a debate of the facts.

I'm not so sure those of oppose the Patriots Act on constututional grounds have the same high ground. As I've said before, I hear lots of noise but I just don't see the same level of documentation as I see in fighting the war. Does that mean I think the PA is fully constitutional and that we face no threats from an overreaching government? Not hardly. One is well-advised to always be suspicious anytime government seeks to protect us. That great defender of consitutional liberties, Orin Hatch, wanted to dispense with the sunset provision in the PA. That made me suspicious as to why he thought it was necessary to eliminate a review scheduled 4 years in the future. No, Orin. Leave it alone. . .

Having said that, I do know enough about the situation to know the previous administration put into effect policies designed to make it difficult for intelligence and LE to cooperate and share information. If there is any lesson to be learned from 911 it is both need to talk and work together. Something made difficult if not impossible because of Ms. Reno and her handler. To the extent PA eliminated those barriers, I applaud the effort.

My fear is we spend too much time chasing snipes that don't exist and thereby ignore true and dangerous threats.

I'm open to changing my mind but I do it when I see facts, not "well, everyone says. . . "

[Spot77]

Haven't read it yet, BUT

QUOTE:
Justice Department officials say the section can be used only in a narrow set of circumstances, including to obtain foreign intelligence information about people who are neither American citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and to defend the United States against foreign spies or international terrorists

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you're NOT an AMERICAN citizen, or a LAWFUL RESIDENT, I have no problem whatsoever with this.

The ACLU can pick better battles than this.

[dustind]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation did a nice write up on it. Basically it shreds the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment, feel free to read for yourself.

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

EDIT: or from www.cato.org

a brief
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-069es.html

patriot act search results at cato
http://search.cato.org/query.html?col=allcato&qc=allcato&pw=100%25&rf=0&qt=patriot+act&x=7&y=14

From wired.com
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html
* Conduct domestic wiretapping without court order for 15 days following a congressional authorization of use of force or an attack on the United States.
* Secretly detain citizens.
* Deport any alien, including green-card holders, who are convicted of drug possession or an aggravated felony.
* Access a citizen's credit reports without a subpoena.
* Abolish federal court "consent decrees" that limit police surveillance of non-criminal organizations and public events.
* Criminalize the use of encryption software in the commission or planning of a felony.
* Apply strict gag rules to those subpoenaed by a grand jury.
* Collect DNA from suspected terrorists and indeed from any individual whose DNA might assist terror investigations.
* Extend authorization periods for secret wiretaps and Internet surveillance.
* Ease restrictions on the use of secret evidence.

[Safety First]

Impossible, there is no way the Anti Christian Lawyers Uninon and I could both be on the same side:rolleyes:

[MicroBalrog]

You know, I'm reading this, and I'm thinking, you Americans are so lucky... at leas you don't have "Security Detainment".

[Marko Kloos]

You know, I'm reading this, and I'm thinking, you Americans are so lucky... at leas you don't have "Security Detainment".

Sure we do. All it takes is for a member of the Executive branch to declare you an "enemy combatant". Bingo! No right to a lawyer, no trial by a jury of your peers, no limits on length of detainment without charges. Just ask Jose Padilla.

[MicroBalrog]

How about - legal random wiretapping?:banghead:

[Duncan Idaho]

The American Criminal Liberties Union does only those things that further the destruction of this country. Those who mistake their efforts as a search for truth and justice are either ignorant of the A.C.L.U. (and its history), delusional, or otherwise impaired. Perhaps they would also care to salute the A.C.L.U.'s efforts to secure the right for predatory pedophiles to train one another in seduction and kidnapping techniques that have worked for successful predatory pedophiles in the past.

Me? I will continue to see the A.C.L.U., and its agents, for exactly what they are.

[Glock Glockler]

Ok, maybe I should say this again: If Satan declared himself to be against gun control, would you then support gun control because of Satan's position?

While I do think the ACLU has it's head up it's butt on many things, I agree with them on a handful of issues, this being one of them. If they really were intent on destroying the US as agents of the Soviets, they probably would do an occasional good thing to keep people off balance and off gaurd. Being completely evil 100% of the time would give you away. Actually, if I wanted to subvert the country I would do good things 99% of the time and commit that 1% of evil when people least expected it and where it would do the most harm. Even if they are the agents of darkness, at least give them a little credit and don't insult their intelligence by thinking them that stupid.

The sheepish non-thinking displayed here is reprehensible. Simply forming an opinion on a law, without reading the law, because of a group that you don't like that has a position on said law, is being intellectually lazy at the expense of your nation and freedom. Oh well, I guess it's easier than thinking and reading the law.

I'd like to see some here actually READ THE LAW, then think about it and if it coincides with your belief in freedom.

[Iain]

The sheepish non-thinking displayed here is reprehensible. Simply forming an opinion on a law, without reading the law, because of a group that you don't like that has a position on said law, is being intellectually lazy at the expense of your nation and freedom. Oh well, I guess it's easier than thinking and reading the law.

That is the most sensible thing I have seen posted anywhere for some considerable number of days now.

No, your enemies enemy is not always your friend (think OBL or Saddam) However the ACLU are not Saddam or OBL, they are fighting for your constitutional rights on this issue. Whether they are right or wrong about whether the PA violates your constitutional rights on this one, if you disagree with the PA then it is ok to support the ACLU on this issue.

Pick your issues on the basis of the issue, not on the basis of the personalities or political machines attached to each one. To switch Glock's analogy around: if Satan became pro-guns over night would you become a Satanist?

The political thinking I read on this forum and on others can be so one-dimensional as to be infuriating.

The Demorats are evil, thus I must hate all demorats and all their ideas

or

GW Bush is a moron, thus all Republicans are morons


Think outside of your narrow definitions.

[SkunkApe]

The political thinking I read on this forum and on others can be so one-dimensional as to be infuriating.

The Demorats are evil, thus I must hate all demorats and all their ideas

or

GW Bush is a moron, thus all Republicans are morons


Think outside of your narrow definitions.




That's the sweetest thing I've read here in a long time.

[Duncan Idaho]

If Satan declared himself to be against gun control, would you then support gun control because of Satan's position?No. Just as I wouldn't support the A.C.L.U. because (as in this instance) they happen to support a position that I happen to agree with. To switch Glock's analogy around: if Satan became pro-guns over night would you become a Satanist?See above

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[faustulus]

My fear is we spend too much time chasing snipes that don't exist and thereby ignore true and dangerous threats.
I too fear this, but I see the greatest potential threat coming from the inside not the out.

[CMichael]

Jim excellent post.

What some biased organizations say about it doesn't mean it's bad legislatioin.

I read the relevant parts of the Patriot Act. I think it's a great law.

It's easy to be cynical when you aren't in charge of protecting the public from terrorism. It's a different story when you are on the front lines.

I agree with the Patriot Act.

And it does make a difference that the ACLU is against it. It shows what a great Act it really is.

[MicroBalrog]

And it does make a difference that the ACLU is against it. It shows what a great Act it really is.


Sound like something MrBenchley would say...:D

The Patriot act is unconstitutional. I don't care how effective it is.

[Glock Glockler]

CMichael,

If you really think that the govt is going to keep you safe from terrorism I've got some great beachfront property I'd love to sell you. Just one thing you want to keep in mind in your quest for security: the people who have the most security in the US are those that are in Maximum Security, prison that is.

Nazi Germany, which was argueabley the most efficient police state in history, could not eliminate terrorism not only in the conquered territories but even in the Fatherland as well. Sabatours and assassins regularly blew up buildings, killed various people, etc. Do you really expect any govt to protect you without first stripping you of all your freedom?

The Patriot act is unconstitutional. I don't care how effective it is.

Micro,

For a self-declared liberal Israeli, I kinda like you. :D

[LawDog]

ACLU official stance on the Second Amendment is found here:
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25

While I applaud the ACLU for taking a stand against the Patriot Act (before anyone starts - yes, I have read the Patriot Act), I still remain very suspicious of the ACLU as a whole.

LawDog

[Gordon Fink]

I’m not so sure those [who] oppose the Patriots Act on constututional grounds have the same high ground. As I’ve said before, I hear lots of noise but I just don’t see the same level of documentation.…

Of course you don’t. Investigations initiated under the PATRIOT Act are secret.

~G. Fink

[CMichael]

If you really think that the govt is going to keep you safe from terrorism I've got some great beachfront property I'd love to sell you. Just one thing you want to keep in mind in your quest for security: the people who have the most security in the US are those that are in Maximum Security, prison that is.

I don't think anything is 100% effective. However, I think the government can do what is in it's power why maintaining essential liberties that we have in order to minimize the threat.

The way you deal with terrorism is by capturing and killing the terrorist. I don't think anyone here can do that better as an individual than the government.

How many planned attacks have already been thwarted? I would imagine we will never know.

However, that we haven't had another major attack since 9 11 shows how effective the US has been. I am sure Al Qaida is itching to execute another major attack within the US.

[MicroBalrog]

CMichael: We also never had another attack of that scale before 9/11.

[CMichael]

That's true Mirco.

I wish that those who disprove of the Patriot Act would quote directly from it and then state why they oppose the passage.

At least that why it's based on the facts and not the rhetoric.

And that does include the interpretation of some biased organization.

[CMichael]

That's true Mirco.

I wish that those who disprove of the Patriot Act would quote directly from it and then state why they oppose the passage.

At least that why it's based on the facts and not the rhetoric.

And that does include the interpretation of some biased organization.

[Tamara]

I'm curious, for all of you railing against the PATRIOT act, how many have actually read it???

Why should you? The guys that signed it didn't, after all. ;)

[dustind]

I'm curious, for all of you railing against the PATRIOT act, how many have actually read it???

edit: I reread your posts CMichael, do you think the the PA violates the 4th, 5th, or 6th amendments? The act does exactly what the founding fathers said the .gov could absolutely not do.

No one should pass laws without reading them, or debating them.

I will quote parts later tonight(8-4-03), I have to leave soon.

[4v50 Gary]

The ACLU is selectively liberal. Liberal when it comes to dirtbags and convicts. Haughty when it comes to firearms. In respects to the Patriot Act, I'm glad they filed.

[JimP]

Where are you guys getting your information??? "Random wiretapping"??? Where did you get that??

Again - please don't listen to the liberal media (the very same media you flame on every other issue), but actually go and read the act - I think you'll see things in a different light.

CMichael, you've obviosuly read it. I re-read it again yesterday after some of the more ignorant statements made in this post and can't believe the inflammatory rhetoric being spewed here.

Someone, please point to me where it guts the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments??? Most of the "increased security" must be pursuant to an already ongoing criminal investigation. It merely removes some of the ties from sharing information amongst agencies. You all need to take some lithium and go read the act.

Are you all also aware that it provides for civil and criminal sanctions for misuse?? There are a lot pf protections buit into it. Why do you think even the 'rats voted for it??

[MicroBalrog]

"Random wiretapping" - I said that.

Never said it happens in America.
Said it happens in Israel.

[alan]

JimP:

In part, you wrote: "Are you all also aware that it provides for civil and criminal sanctions for misuse?? There are a lot pf protections buit into it. Why do you think even the 'rats voted for it??"

Jim:

Re the above, a couple of querstions if I may.

1. Re the civil and criminal sanctions for misuse, one assumes of power/authority under the PA, likely looks good on paper, as have other things, however can you cite or remember any instances of what have been described as JBT's, ever having been seriously called to task for their abuse of authority, or for riding rough shod over the rights of individuals? I don't believe that I can, however it is certainly possible that I'm missing something.

2. I haven't read the PA, however respecting the "'rats" having voted for it, if claims to the effect of their socialist leanings are correct, and given that the PA greatly broadens the powers and authority of government, is anyone all that suprised at the democrats having voted for the thing?

3. Would you please clarify "pf" as in pf protections for me. Thanks.

[CMichael]

Jim I did indeed read it and I posted it here several times trying to get a discussion going on the substance. I wasn't successfuly.

Basically all I get back is how it violates the constitution (not saying how exactly of course) and how it's like nazi germany.

It's kind of frustrating.:rolleyes:

[CMichael]

Here it is. Perhaps those against it can quote what passages they are against.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

[Tamara]

"I've posted it on here before..."

All 300 pages? Neat trick.

"I've read it..."

Which is an isometric exercise without an annotated copy of the U.S.C. handy, since a good 50% is amendments, insertions, and alterations to existing law.

Like I pointed out before, though, don't feel too bad, as those who passed it into law didn't read it, either. ;)


Most of what it does is slightly modify already loathesome and intrusive laws to make them slightly more loathesome and intrusive. It weakens posse comitatus, loosens requirements for warrants, broadens their scope, and if it had been proposed by a Demican administration rather than a Republicrat one, there'd be ringing cries of "traitors!" and "impeachment!" As a matter of fact, several of the laws that it polishes up a bit were lambasted by the same crew now praising it. I can't recall that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were exactly darlings with the "Conservative" set when they were passed during the Clinton and Carter regimes; as a matter of fact, they were decried for their intrusiveness. Now the get expanded and made more intrusive, but that's suddenly "okey-dokie". This "cheering for my team" school of politics will be the death of this country yet...

And it does make a difference that the ACLU is against it. It shows what a great Act it really is.

Sec. 1; replace "ACLU", "against" and "great" with "CMichael", "for" and "anti-freedom". ;)

[CMichael]

The legislation is organized in chapters. If you want to you can easily find the topic you are interested in and see what it says about it.

I don't see how so many people here can be so adamant against it and have no clue what is actually in it.

And no I don't care to read the opinion of some biased organization in its interpretation of it.

[Tamara]

Yes, CMichael, I've read it.

I even took the time to really read it.

Here's a bit at random:

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:...

Quick, CMichael, what's Sec. 3103a of title 18, U.S.C. say?
Without knowing, how does "reading the Act" give you any understanding of it?

[LawDog]

Okay. The big one? Section 215. Do you see the words "probable cause" in there anywhere?

A warrant to search and seize tangible property requires good probable cause to believe that the property sought and seized is criminal or is linked to criminal activity.

Well, it used to be.

Thanks to section 215 of the Patriot Act, the only thing required to search for and seize tangible property is: "shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

No "probable cause to believe that the records...etc." just some Fibbie telling a US magistrate that "We need these records to protect against terrorism."

Horse Hockey.

And what's even better is that Congress was worried enough about potential misuse of this endrun around the Fourth Amendment that Congress specified that each and every request to seize tangible property under this statute shall be reviewed by part of Congress on a semi-annual basis.

Excuse the hell out of me, does anyone around here think that a room full of sleepy congress-critters listening to a monotone recitial of each seizure of tangible property over the last six months is going to twig onto the misuses of this?

Wait! It gets better. When the Fibbies come and take away your tangible property, they don't have to tell you why they're taking it away.`(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).

"Why are you seizing my hard-drive?"

"None of your business. Hand it over."

Hang on just a minute, it gets better!

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.

If you decide to go to a lawyer for the purpose of getting your stuff back, you just committed a Federal crime!

If you decide to complain to your congress-critter to try to get your stuff back, you just committed a Federal crime!

If you seek recompense for your seized stuff through the courts, you just committed a Federal crime!

The Feds can: 1)seize your tangible property on a whim, 2)Not tell you anything about the seizure, and 3)throw your butt in Federal lockup if you tell anyone -lawyer, minister, Congress-critter, Senator, Judge, editor of the local paper - it happened.

And this is Constitutional??

LawDog

[Waitone]

The problem with legislation such as the Patriots Act is that it is a technical correction to existing code. Only a small handful (3 to 5 ) of staffers who researched and wrote the bill knows what it actually says. More than likely the changes made have been in the works for decades waiting just the right vehicle. The continuing bureaucracy at CIA, FIB, NSA, etc are the ones who have agendas that are not necessarily those of the president. Legislation such as the Patriots Act gives visibility to the great shadow government that has plagued presidents throughout the 20th century.

That is why the only proper defense is an ironclad, lead pipe cinch sunset provision. Which BTW should be attached to any and all federal legislation.

[Marko Kloos]

And this is Constitutional??

LawDog



Of course it is. CMichael will be around shortly to tell you that they wouldn't do all these things to you if you're not a terrorist.

[Duncan Idaho]

LawDog is cheating! He is reading it, and comprehending what it means. No fair!

[LawDog]

I ain't done yet.

Up until section 213 of the Patriot Act, a search of your home required that you be presented with a search warrant at the time of the search, said search warrant to clearly state what was being searched for.

No longer!

Now, not only can the feds search and seize your property without telling you why they're doing so, they can search and seize your proprety without telling you they are doing so!

For example, when you leave your house the next time, the Feds can enter into your house, search it and not tell you that they have done so!

Not only can the Feds enter your house without telling you so, but they can seize your tangible property without telling you so.

I don't know about y'all, but around these parts we call that 'burglary'.

You will note under section 213 that the Feds are required to tell you that they snuck into your house and stole (excuse me, seized) your computer hard-drive "within a reasonable period."

And guess who defines "reasonable period"? Yes! The same people who snuck into your house and took your stuff without telling you in the first place! And if that wasn't enough, a court can extend the period before the Feds have to tell you that they snuck into your house and seized your stuff for an indeterminate period.

Do note that this bloody significant change in the law is not limited to anything the Feds decide is terror related.

Nope, this little darlin' extends to anything that "constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States".

Let me tell you how this one works. I think that you, CMichael, are a dirty, nasty little criminal. I can't prove that you are a blot upon baseball, motherhood, and apple pie, but my gut says that you're a criminal. Thanks to the Patriot Act, if I can find a sympathetic judge, I can sneak into your house while you're gone tomorrow evening and rifle the place looking for criminal evidence. If I don't find anything, I can sneak back in there next week, and the week after, ad infinitum until I find something.

That sound you hear in the back is the Fourth Amendment taking it in the neck.

LawDog

[MicroBalrog]

Just when I thought my country wasn't well-off...:banghead:

[rock jock]

The fact that the ACLU is against the Patriot Act definetly increases the credibility of the Partriot ACt.
Unfortunately, that is probably true. As a rule, the general public tends to be for anything the ACLU is against. BTW, this is not without cause since they are typically out defending child molestors and crack-addicted welfare queens. However, ever once in a blue moon they file a case that has some merit. This would seem to qualify.

[alan]

CMichael:

The following, below my thoughts, was posted by Tamara.

For myself, I haven't read the PA, just bits and pieces thereof, however with regard to the following, i seems to me that the s.o.b's, congressional/senate staffers who "wrote" the PA deliberately intended to OBFUSCATE. They managed pretty well, to achieve that end, and one suspects that their bosses haven't read the thing, to this very day.

I'm not an attorney, nor do I have anything much in the way of legal background. Matter of fact, prior to retirement, I guess that I was a 1/4 baked machanical engineer, actually a Piping Designer/Checker, sometime Field Engineer/Construction Supervisor.

It does seem to me that re the law, it should be written in such manner as to allow any reasonably intelligent citizen to be able to understand exactly what is required of them, with a minimum of effort on their part. Looking at the way the thing was written, see below, this is the very last thing achieved, or intended, and there is something terribly wrong with such a situation. At least, that is the way it appears to me.

By the way, it also seems to me that if law cannot be written, as above described, then quite possibly, it shouldn't be written at all. It also appears to me that if you for instance, are either unable or unwilling to CLEARLY state exactly exactly what it is that you are after, that others are well advised to view your actions with great suspicion. The same applies to the PA, and those who wrote it. By the way, no personal attack on you is intended, after all, you didn't write the PA, did you?

Please see Tamara's post below.

Tamara Yes, CMichael, I've read it.

I even took the time to really read it.

Here's a bit at random:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quick, CMichael, what's Sec. 3103a of title 18, U.S.C. say?
Without knowing, how does "reading the Act" give you any understanding of it?








Tamara Yes, CMichael, I've read it.

I even took the time to really read it.

Here's a bit at random:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quick, CMichael, what's Sec. 3103a of title 18, U.S.C. say?
Without knowing, how does "reading the Act" give you any understanding of it?

[Spot77]

Quote:

It does seem to me that re the law, it should be written in such manner as to allow any reasonably intelligent citizen to be able to understand exactly what is required of them, with a minimum of effort on their part. Looking at the way the thing was written, see below, this is the very last thing achieved, or intended, and there is something terribly wrong with such a situation. At least, that is the way it appears to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THAT is probably the best issue raised yet.

I for one, am sick of "See section A, paragrach 32, subsection c, 3rd amendment to paragraphs 16, 19, 32 (a and b), of the amended amendment as seen in........"

yikes....

[telomerase]

Representative Ron Paul gave a speech last weekend that agrees with Lawdog's analysis. Paul also confirmed that no Congressman had the Act available to read it in time for the vote; Dr. Paul said "so of course I voted NO".

Too bad there's only one like him out of 435.

[dustind]

Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order.

Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.

"Nationwide" pen register warrants, section 214
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."

This section also allows for warents to track transactional data such as urls and email headers, such as subject lines, both contain information on the content.

I starting getting a headache reading the thing, I am a computer programmer, reading stuff like should be second nature. I cheated and starting quoating what others have found.

As for the 4th, 5th, and 6th being gutted, yes I stand by my original statement. I highlighted the parts of them at the beginning of this thread that were violated.

EDIT: Sorry, I know I promised more, and by last night, but I ran out of time, and squandered the rest on other posts :(

Expect more in the next few days, I plan to search to see if there are detailed analysis of any given seaction, and if not, build one for a couple sections and submit them to any group that cares.

[Bruce H]

Anything done in haste by a government is generally detrimental to those being governed. I wonder how many people inside the beltway who had a hand in this monstrosity laugh daily They know congresscritters very seldom to never read legislation. They listen to their aids and vote accordingly.

[alan]

dustind, who wrote in part, the following:

"Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order.

Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.

the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.", which leads me to the following question, regarding the actions or antics of those stalwarts of law enforcement, The FBI, regarding this Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Will the Fan Belt Inspectors get after those wonderful folks who innundate my, and likely your e-mail inboxes with endless variations on the theme of cut rate viagra, penis and breast enlargers, yes there is something of a dichotomy therein, special low mortgage rates, free pornography and or adult entertainment, for which there always seems to be a fee of some sort, and so forth and so on? NAH.

By the way, complete this jingle in 25 words or less and you will win an all expenses paid trip to east McKeesport for a weekend. This by the way, is first prize. Second prize is a one weeks trip, same location. No offense intended to the good people of East McKeesport.

[Stickjockey]

If you decide to go to a lawyer for the purpose of getting your stuff back, you just committed a Federal crime!

If you decide to complain to your congress-critter to try to get your stuff back, you just committed a Federal crime!

If you seek recompense for your seized stuff through the courts, you just committed a Federal crime!

So LawDog,

By extension, if I come home and find my house broken into and my computer missing, and I call the local police to report the burglary, if the "burglars" were actually the Feds then I've comitted a Federal Felony?

[/tinfoil hat]

[alan]

Stickjockey:

If the PA actually says what you indicate it says, and you acted as you described, having come home, and finding your abode burglarized, you might well have broken federal law.

You might be wise in demanding a jury trial.

[Duncan Idaho]

You might be wise in demanding a jury trial.Seems like someone arrested under the PA might not have that option.

[JimP]

This is getting silly - "If you go to a lawyer, you've committed a crime"; "If you go to the Police, you've committed a crime". Where did you get this stuff??

Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Courts have been around for quite a while. FISA is nothing new, and it shouldn't be big news to anyone paying attention to the state of the law BEFORE PATRIOT. PATRIOT merely keeps up with the means and methods utilized by terrorists for clandestine communications; still gotta have PC, still gotta go to court to get the warrant for intrusion.

Again, the ignorant statements here are scary. The 4th is not gutted as it still requires PC and an affidavit to a magistrate to allow entrance to a home - even more for surreptitious entry. There are also Criminal penalties associated with misuse of the "new" powers. BTW, it must be part of an ongoing criminal investigation or you must have popped hot on a suspected terrorist investigation to have this happen. An FBI agent just can't decide to start screwing with their neighbor or with you because he/she doesn't "like the way you look". Do abuses happen?? Of course and some points made by a previous poster about JBT's are quite valid and I am not one to defend the abuses.

I am keenly aware and defensive of the stripping away of liberties but try to look at the whole package before I start a rant.

I just wouldn't fly off the handle when anyone mentions the PATRIOT act as being this massive disembodiment of civil liberties.

Read the act and where it mentions insert "generally" instead of "specificallY' at section XYZ of section ABC, go and piece them together and tell me where we've stripped the liberties. :confused:

[CMichael]

Dog Thanks to section 215 of the Patriot Act, the only thing required to search for and seize tangible property is: "shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."

Law first I want to commend you on actually making the discussion one of substance.

Law enforcement must prove that the records are needed for an authorized investigation. They must prove it to an independent court. What is wrong with that?

Isn't that the point of having warrant? To get information necessary needed for an on going investigation?

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.

Since a lawyer representatives the person, I doubt that is true.

You will note under section 213 that the Feds are required to tell you that they snuck into your house and stole (excuse me, seized) your computer hard-drive "within a reasonable period."

So they must tell the person within a reasonable period. Quite different from what you were saying previously that they don't have to tell at all. The court defines what a reasonable period is.

Let me tell you how this one works. I think that you, CMichael, are a dirty, nasty little criminal. I can't prove that you are a blot upon baseball, motherhood, and apple pie, but my gut says that you're a criminal. Thanks to the Patriot Act, if I can find a sympathetic judge, I can sneak into your house while you're gone tomorrow evening and rifle the place looking for criminal evidence. If I don't find anything, I can sneak back in there next week, and the week after, ad infinitum until I find something.

And how is that different than pre Partriot Act? If you get a sympathetic you can do just about anything.

However, there needs to be some trust in system. As you said not only do the Feds have to get the approval of a judge it also Congressional oversight. And I'm sure the opposition party would love to have ammo if they can get it.

So very little has changed, right?

[CMichael]

Wait The problem with legislation such as the Patriots Act is that it is a technical correction to existing code. Only a small handful (3 to 5 ) of staffers who researched and wrote the bill knows what it actually says. More than likely the changes made have been in the works for decades waiting just the right vehicle. The continuing bureaucracy at CIA, FIB, NSA, etc are the ones who have agendas that are not necessarily those of the president. Legislation such as the Patriots Act gives visibility to the great shadow government that has plagued presidents throughout the 20th century.

It can't be that difficult to find what it actually says. I just posted the link to it from the Internet.

[CMichael]

Alan It does seem to me that re the law, it should be written in such manner as to allow any reasonably intelligent citizen to be able to understand exactly what is required of them, with a minimum of effort on their part. Looking at the way the thing was written, see below, this is the very last thing achieved, or intended, and there is something terribly wrong with such a situation. At least, that is the way it appears to me.

You could say the same thing about any legislation, can't you?

[alan]

CMichael:

In quoting part of what I posted, added the short, pointed comment appearing below, on a single line. Mr. Michael, you are, of course, absolutely correct re your observation, which echos something that I have maintained for a very long time. Assuming, as might well be the case, that when lawmakeres are so admonished, they complain about how difficult such effort would be, ask them the following. Exactly what are you breing paid for?

Alan

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does seem to me that re the law, it should be written in such manner as to allow any reasonably intelligent citizen to be able to understand exactly what is required of them, with a minimum of effort on their part. Looking at the way the thing was written, see below, this is the very last thing achieved, or intended, and there is something terribly wrong with such a situation. At least, that is the way it appears to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You could say the same thing about any legislation, can't you?


__________________

[LawDog]

Law enforcement must prove that the records are needed for an authorized investigation. They must prove it to an independent court. What is wrong with that?

Isn't that the point of having warrant? To get information necessary needed for an on going investigation?

Warrants are based on Probable Cause. These aren't. The only thing that is required for these warrants is a Federal Officer saying that the warrant is necessary for an authorized investigation. Not 'prove' that it is necessary. Not give 'probable cause' as to why it is necessary. Just tell the judge it's necessary.

Since a lawyer representatives the person, I doubt that is true.

The part you quoted is directly lifted form the Patriot Act. Do you see an exemption for counsel in it? I don't. It very clearly and unamibgiously says: 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.

The only people you can talk to about getting your stuff back is the people who have, and can produce, your stuff -- in other words, the FBI.

So they must tell the person within a reasonable period. Quite different from what you were saying previously that they don't have to tell at all. The court defines what a reasonable period is.

Show me the court ruling that defines the "reasonable" period for seizures under the Patriot Act. Please.

And that doesn't even include the nifty little clause at the end which allows the court to extend the reasonable period "for good cause shown."

We won't even get into the problems with "good cause shown".

And how is that different than pre Partriot Act? If you get a sympathetic you can do just about anything.

Search a house without producing a warrant? No, sir.

However, since you brought up sympathetic judges, let us take a look at Section 220. Prior to the passage of the mis-named Patriot Act, the authority to sign a search warrant was restricted to the judge of the Federal District in which the warrant was going to be served.

In other words, if the Feds wanted to search my house, they're going to have to convince a judge of the Northern District of Texas to sign off on it.

Used to, anyway.

Now, if the Feebies want to search my house because they need to seize my guns because they might be pertinent to a terror investigation; and the Right Honourable Mary Lou Robinson won't sign off on the search warrant because she sees the same damn guns in half the cars on the highway to work -- well, the Feebies can go to a Federal judge in New York, or California, or Guam and get that judge to sign the search warrant.

By-the-by, the also means that if I live in South Florida, and the Feds really, really, really want to put my Hanes in a half-hitch, they can get the Federal Judge in the Northern District of Alaska to sign off on the search warrant for my house, seize my hard-drive (or pistol, or mail, or anything else of relatively low monetary worth).

That way, I (or my designated legal representation) bloody well has to travel from South Florida to the Federal Court of Northern Alaska to petition to get my stuff back!

$99.99 hard-drive vs. a ticket to Guam + hotel fees + expenses + whatthehelleverelse.
:fire:

You will note the camel's nose under the tent: this little gem only applies to investigations of terrorism (never mind that 'terrorism' can be a slippery little bastard to define in it's ownself) -- for now. Congress only has to change one little word ("For the Good of the Children" of course) and it applies to all Federal crimes.

Finally:
However, there needs to be some trust in system. As you said not only do the Feds have to get the approval of a judge it also Congressional oversight. And I'm sure the opposition party would love to have ammo if they can get it.

Sure, I trust that my Congress-critter will have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against the abuses of the Patriot Act when he jolly well knows that fighting against the Patriot Act will get him labled as being "Soft on Terrorism".

"Soft on Terrorism" being the short way of saying "Suzy Soccermommy Will Vote You Out Of A Job In The Next Election In Order To Save Her Children From Your Terrorist Allies."

Trust. Hah!

LawDog

[Bruce H]

The solution is so simple. Use everything Lawdog dug out of the act and use it against congresscritters. The sound of gored buffons would be great comedy. Just listening to their justification for passing this would be the best doublespeak heard is generations.

[seeker_two]

You will note the camel's nose under the tent: this little gem only applies to investigations of terrorism (never mind that 'terrorism' can be a slippery little bastard to define in it's ownself) -- for now. Congress only has to change one little word ("For the Good of the Children" of course) and it applies to all Federal crimes.

As a matter of fact, much of the Patriot Act refers to laws already on the books and instructs the reader to change a "few little words" in those texts. So, in a way, the Patriot Act rewrites dozens of existing laws to allow the Feds to do their dirty deeds... :what:

And how long will it be before another "Patriot Act" changes a "few little words" to cover other "crimes" and "investigations"?... :fire:

[Marko Kloos]

And how long will it be before another "Patriot Act" changes a "few little words" to cover other "crimes" and "investigations"?

Those of you rah-rahing the Patriot Act "because it was passed by our team" will be in for a rude awakening when the next Democrat in the White House gets his (or her) hands on all that new and exciting power.

The Beltway Sniper should have served as a wake-up call for you "but it only applies to terrorists" folks. Imagine a future occurrence, only with a Democrat in the White House. How muc do you want to bet that the intentionally loose definition of "terrorist" will be expanded to include black rifle owners? All it takes is a bunch of schoolkids offed in a camera-friendly fashion on the 6-o'clock news, and President Hillary will pounce on "domestic terrorists".

Some people will only realize they tolerated the creation of Nazi America when the jackboots kick down the front door.

[Calmwater]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how long will it be before another "Patriot Act" changes a "few little words" to cover other "crimes" and "investigations"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not long. http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/38478

[Tamara]

However, there needs to be some trust in system.

*snicker*

Would that be the same "system" that wants to take your guns away?

Oh, yeah, I trust them all right... :rolleyes:

[Giant]

Patriot Act! No thanks, don't need it! Looks like we got it though, it bodes ill for all citizens. Many honest law abiding patriots, United States citizens will be put up against a wall and executed by the federal gubment before this is all over. It's all about power and greed folks, power and greed!

Ain't no Constitution, it done been superseded by the Patriot Act. Best do everything the gubment tells you to do, or suffer the consequences of being an antisocial outlaw and enemy combatant. Enemy of The State.

Freedom at last! Soon, when we finish the showers we will all get clean clothes and plenty to eat - Freedom, how wonderful!

Giant

[alan]

Lawdog and ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED:

Seems as if there are a couple of differing points of view re this thing called the PA.

Let sleeping dogs lie, and or do not open that can of worms is one such. Re the first instance, the dog is not sleeping, not in the least, though it's putative masters might be. Secondly, I submit that not only must this can of worms be opened, it must be held up to the closest possible examination, under the most powerful available light, with it's cover completely removed. Earlier on, someone had mentioned that this thing, the PA was likely written by a few congressional staffers. I believe that I would buy that story, which leads to the following.

Let's find out exactly who these people are, and have them expalin exactly what they had/have in mind, re what they have concocted. If their explaination is, in any way at all lacking, I suspect that it would be, they should then be immediately fired, disbarrred if they are attorneys, and forever blocked from any sort of public office or congressional/legislative employment. Let them go dig holes in the ground.

As I said earlier, if the law cannot or is not written so that the reasonably intelligent citizen can read it, and clearly know what was required, quite likely this law should not be written at all. Additionally, the type of thing seen with so much legislation, in line 27, of section 842.1, the comma following the second reference to blah is removed, and the word "is" emplaced, simply will not do. Such double-talk, such obfuscation, though it be much beloved of lawyers and similar creatures, is not acceptable.

Law Dog, somewhere in your post, I think it was in a quoted part, there was mention of "congressional oversight". As I've recently finished a nice dinner, oyster stew and a lovely salad, I wish that you hadn't mentioned congressional oversight, as it drives me into the throws of almost hysterical laughter, so miserable is the record of The Congress regarding it's constitutional oversight responsibility, or at least what I believe to be their constitutional responsibility.

I also believe that each and every last member of The Congress (House and Senate) should be required to clearly explain the how's and why's of their vote re the PA, and also, given that they likely hadn't read the thing, they be required to explain how they came to vote the way they did. It isn't going to happen, but if it were to somehow happen, I'm certain that the "explainations" would be most interesting.

[alan]

Calmwater:

Very interesting, perhaps prophetic article that you posted, or so it seemed to me.

[Duncan Idaho]

The solution is so simple. Use everything Lawdog dug out of the act and use it against congresscritters. That would most likely be construed as an act of terrorism.

[Glock Glockler]

As I said earlier, if the law cannot or is not written so that the reasonably intelligent citizen can read it, and clearly know what was required, quite likely this law should not be written at all.

I agree 100%, but that would include probably ever piece of legislation ever passed by the US govt, and would include the lawyer written Constitution. It amazes me that the obvious conflict of interest takes place that allows lawyers to be a member of the Legislative branch while they are obviously part of the judicial system (blurring seperation of powers). They write the laws that they and their bretheren get to interpret for us on the outside, no wonder all of our laws are so damn ccomplicated.

[seeker_two]

Not long. http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/38478

I REALLY should keep my mouth shut & stop giving people ideas... :what:

[CMichael]

Dog Warrants are based on Probable Cause. These aren't. The only thing that is required for these warrants is a Federal Officer saying that the warrant is necessary for an authorized investigation. Not 'prove' that it is necessary. Not give 'probable cause' as to why it is necessary. Just tell the judge it's necessary.

That is not what the law says. It must be shown that what is needed is necessary for an ongoing operation. And it's a judge who makes that determination.

The part you quoted is directly lifted form the Patriot Act. Do you see an exemption for counsel in it? I don't. It very clearly and unamibgiously says:

You are taking it wee bit too literal. A lawyer represents the individual.

Show me the court ruling that defines the "reasonable" period for seizures under the Patriot Act. Please

I am not sure if the court has yet or it hasn't. However, it's up to the court to do so. That is what courts do.

And that doesn't even include the nifty little clause at the end which allows the court to extend the reasonable period "for good cause shown."

Once again that has to be demonstrated to a court.

Perhaps it means that if there is a planned terrorist attack that the FEDS would rather the terrorists don't know that they have certain information. That could be one possiblity.

Search a house without producing a warrant? No, sir.

Even with the Patriot Act law enforcement needs to get a search warrant.



Now, if the Feebies want to search my house because they need to seize my guns because they might be pertinent to a terror investigation; and the Right Honourable Mary Lou Robinson won't sign off on the search warrant because she sees the same damn guns in half the cars on the highway to work -- well, the Feebies can go to a Federal judge in New York, or California, or Guam and get that judge to sign the search warrant.

If I recall correctly there is a procedure of which judge they would have to go to.

You will note the camel's nose under the tent: this little gem only applies to investigations of terrorism (never mind that 'terrorism' can be a slippery little bastard to define in it's ownself) -- for now. Congress only has to change one little word ("For the Good of the Children" of course) and it applies to all Federal crimes

Which is true for just about any legislation. Changing little words can mean much. That's why words are chosen to carefully.

Sure, I trust that my Congress-critter will have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against the abuses of the Patriot Act when he jolly well knows that fighting against the Patriot Act will get him labled as being "Soft on Terrorism".

I think some liberal congressmen would love the opportunity to have more ammo to use against Pres. Bush.

[CMichael]

Would that be the same "system" that wants to take your guns away?

You mean the one that just recently made it a lot easier to get a CCW in MI? Yup that's the one.

[Glock Glockler]

You mean the one that just recently made it a lot easier to get a CCW in MI? Yup that's the one.

This is brilliant. Suppose I slash your tires but sell you a new set at a really good price, is that a good deal, am I worthy of trust? So now instead of completely stripping you of you rights they just make you beg for permission and then decide whether or not to grant the privilage. Wow, you are really making out in MI.

It must be shown that what is needed is necessary for an ongoing operation. And it's a judge who makes that determination.

It's supposed to be a Jury that makes that determination.

You are taking it wee bit too literal.

Who are you to make that determination? The govt is the one who decides what the deal is, not you.

[Marko Kloos]

You are taking it wee bit too literal.

You're blissfully handing those tools to a government that has a history of taking everything very literally, if it suits their power grabs. Remember when RICO was supposed to be used only against organized crime? Remember that the Feds have invoked the "Interstate Commerce" clause to claim authority when a single object involved in the case crossed state lines at one point, or that the EPA claims fed authority over "migratory bird protected wetlands" when a wild goose parks its feathery derriere in a pond on someone's property, because the goose has conceivably crossed a state line. And don't even get me started on the massive money-and-power grabs in the name of fighting the War On Some Drugs. Asset Forfeiture abuses, anyone?

I hope that your blissful faith in the benevolence of your government won't come back to bite you in the derriere sometime, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll get a good and hard wake-up pinch when the next Democrat starts abusing the Patriot Act while staying within the (intentionally vague) letter of the law. History shows that those who trust the government to be fair, impartial, and efficient usually end up with their pants around their ankles and a bewildered look on their faces.

[CMichael]

Markos do you realize we have had a wee bit of a tinsy winsy little problem with terrorists lately?

Perhaps the White House isn't doing this in some evillllll conspiratorial plot to gain more power but for the purpose of protecting the public against terrorists.

It must be shown that what is needed is necessary for an ongoing operation. And it's a judge who makes that determination.

It's supposed to be a Jury that makes that determination.

Glock that is not accurate. When it comes to issuing warrants it's a judge that makes the determination.

[JimP]

"It's supposed to be a Jury that makes that determination"


God, this is funny - where DO you guys get this stuff??? Please name ONE instance where a jury is convened for a PC determination. Just one.....

That's the last I'm going to say about this - It's not just because OUR team is putting this forward, it's about the depth, intrusion, restrictions and civil and criminal accountability of new laws.

This topic is done - reasonable minds will differ on this but we're beating a dead horse. Most of you make some great points, hard to argue 'cause there is some truth in the fear behind this with what a Janet Reno could do with a law like this. My simple point is - do not trust the liberal media for what IT says is the stripping away of civil liberites.

Go forth and do great things.

[rock jock]

What bothers me about this discussion is that those who deride the PA as pure eveil (and to be sure it needs to be challenged often until we have a workable system) is that you don't offer any solutions for combatting terrorism within our borders. Now, I have heard a lot of solutions offered, but very very few of them are realistic. Example, it is not realistic to expect that passengers are EVER going to be allowed to carry firearms on a plane. Even if they did, I personally don't think it would solve a thing. Arming pilots is a great idea, and we may actually see that but even that is a band-aid. The real problem is that there are people who come into this country with the sole purpose of causing widespread death and destruction, of bringing the U.S. to its financial knees and knocking us off as a global leader. But, ceasing immigration won't work because there are also people who immigrated here long ago and are now citizens, but still hate the U.S. and would love to this country become one large nuclear desert. If successful, they'll just crawl back to whatever cesspool they came from and be lauded as heros. Everyone carrying guns is great, but it won't stop a WMD. This breed of criminal is unique in our history. They aren't in it for the money. They don't want to negotiate. They are not easily discouraged. They don't necessarily want to make a statement (although that is certainly a side benefit to them). They don't even care for their own survival. They simply want to destroy. The are intelligent, disciplined, organized, and well-financed. Traditional LE tactics will only make a small dent in their operations. They are like termites - kill a few and they will simply break up and re-form new colonies. And they will try and try again until the succeed. Therein lies the problem. One success on their part could cause irreparable harm to the U.S. Heck, they knocked down two buildings and we go into a tailspin. Imagine the devastation if a city is gone. You can be cavalier about your willingness to accept such a thing "to preserve liberty", but I wonder how you would really react if such a thing happened in your neck of the woods.

I think we need to repair the PA, but not eliminate it. It was hastily written and approved, and now we have the time and benefit of hindsight to find its obvious flaws and correct them. But tossing it out completely? Not unless you can come up with a workable alternative bacause among the obligations of government, the most important is protection of its citizens and preservation of the Republic.

[dustind]

CMhichael said "If I recall correctly there is a procedure of which judge they would have to go to."

Anyone prove or disprove this?

To JimP do not leave because of one incorrect remark, besides I have more to add. If I get time tonight, I would like to tally up everything, organise it, and note everything that has gone unchallenged.

No one has touched 214, the section I posted. It has a few nasty violations.

My reply to alan is, probaly not, most spam is legal, and there are laws for spam.

[CMichael]

You didn't post section 214. You posted someone's creative interpretation of it.

[CMichael]

In fact here is section 214 which is contrary to the interpretation that you posted. Notice it also says "a certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person.."

It goes to show how the rhetoric of the anti PAers have little to do with the reality of the PA.

The application for a warrant must be very specific.

SEC. 214. PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE AUTHORITY UNDER FISA.
(a) APPLICATIONS AND ORDERS- Section 402 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1842) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `for any investigation to gather foreign intelligence information or information concerning international terrorism' and inserting `for any investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution';
(2) by amending subsection (c)(2) to read as follows:
`(2) a certification by the applicant that the information likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or is relevant to an ongoing investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.';
(3) by striking subsection (c)(3); and
(4) by amending subsection (d)(2)(A) to read as follows:
`(A) shall specify--
`(i) the identity, if known, of the person who is the subject of the investigation;
`(ii) the identity, if known, of the person to whom is leased or in whose name is listed the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied;
`(iii) the attributes of the communications to which the order applies, such as the number or other identifier, and, if known, the location of the telephone line or other facility to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or applied and, in the case of a trap and trace device, the geographic limits of the trap and trace order.'.

[CMichael]

Lawdog may I please have your attention. This is Section 213. The one you were freaking about of how the Feds don't have to tell the target about the search.

Notice it says that "may be delayed if--

`(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
`(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.'.

So let's say there is an imminent terrorst attack. The Feds want to capture the culprits. The Feds telling the target that some material may make it much more difficult to step the impending attack. That is a good reason IMO to delay telling the target. That could be a possible adverse effect.




WARRANT.
Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `In addition'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(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--

`(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
`(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.'.

[CMichael]

Oh and notice please that the target of the warrants needs to be told immediately with few exceptions which are listed above.

[CMichael]

Sorry one more thing if not immediately then notification of the target can be delayed "for good cause shown."

It's funny how a few words make a difference, huh?

[dustind]

Rock Jock: I agree that arming passengers is not going to happen, but I believe it would work. Why would terrorists start shooting on a plane if they would just kill a few people, and then be killed themselves. They would have much better odds at a school for mass murder. That assumes we get armed pilots and better doors to go with the armed passengers.

As for how to fight terrorism, thats a tough one. We did not fail because the federal buracracies were not powerful enough. They were not even onto the terrorists iirc. I doubt more power would have helped. Two were given citizenship nine months after the attack, I think that points to our problem. The quality of the agencies themselves, not their "lack" of power. We have seen some nasty abuses by the feds, and except in the most extreme cases nothing happens, and even when something does it is a joke.

I agree we should not destroy 100% of the PA, but a lot of it needs to go. Especially every part that involves secrecy and violates the BOR.

[MicroBalrog]

"for good cause shown."

This reminds me about the Israeli High Court ruling that banned certain torture techniques, but left others legal "if used in interests of Israel's security".:cuss:

[LawDog]

Sorry one more thing if not immediately then notification of the target can be delayed "for good cause shown."

It's funny how a few words make a difference, huh?

Considering that that exact quote has been a point of contention in at least one of my discourses, I'm starting to get the impression that I'm wasting bandwidth here. :banghead:

*sigh*

It boils down to this: I don't give a tinkers' damn about how noble an unConstitutional law is; I don't give a tinkers' damn about how well-intentioned an unConstitutional law is; I don't give a tinkers' damn about how many lives an unConstitutional law is supposed to save; and I don't give a tinkers' damn about how safe an unConstitutional law is supposed to make us.

The Patriot Act violates the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution and that is inexcusable.

LawDog

[Moparmike]

Pulled from: http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/38478

The chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine are toxic and highly combustible Oh crap! I have a domestic terrorist's lab under my kitchen sink and in my medicine cabinet! How did that get there?:confused: :mad: :what:

I agree with Lawdog, in that something that violates my civil liberties to protect my civil liberties isnt doing so at all.But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1775They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

[Tamara]

We're done here. :rolleyes:

Quoting, say, Sec. 214 of the USAPATRIOT Act is positively meaningless without also quoting 50 U.S.C. 1842, since Sec. 214 constist of nothing but addenda and insertions to the latter. Quoting Sec. 214 (or any other portion) as though it has some self-contained or self-evident meaning says diddly about the law, but speaks reams about the quoter. If you can't see that, then there is no further point to this discussion.


(As you can plainly see, what I have said is the following:

1) Post #10487 On TFL is to be amended by inserting "including" between "not" and "others".
2) Post #9325 on THR is to be amended by deleting "commended" and inserting "made fun of" after "should be". )

[Giant]

LawDog, thank you very much! Logic and the Constitution rule the day. Let us hear it for the tinkers damn and the Constitution, the original "Homeland Security." Lets hear it once again, the Patriot Act is unconstitutional! and can not be allowed to stand!!!


Giant

[seeker_two]

Markos do you realize we have had a wee bit of a tinsy winsy little problem with terrorists lately?

I'm not Markos, but I'll be the first to say it....

!!!IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN THE TERRORISTS & THE PATRIOT ACT, THEN I'D PREFER THE TERRORISTS, PLEASE!!!

:fire: :fire: :fire:

[Marko Kloos]

!!!IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN THE TERRORISTS & THE PATRIOT ACT, THEN I'D PREFER THE TERRORISTS, PLEASE!!!

I second that.

Once again, government breaks our legs, then hands us a crutch and says, "See? If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be able to walk."

If it wasn't for the government forcibly disarming us everywhere a weapon can do good, we wouldn't need to be protected from terrorists.

There's always a reason why we need to suspend the Bill of Rights. There are really bad people out there, you see? These are only emergency powers, you see?

What you need to see is that this country is always "at war". Warfare is the ground upon which statism grows fastest. That's why our leaders declare perpetual wars on nouns, wars that cannot be won by definition. There will always be a "terrorist threat", because there will always be terrorism on this planet. The War On Terrorism cannot be won, because it is self-serving and self-perpetuating. It just gave the fed.gov a convenient hobgoblin for dismantling the Bill of Rights at an even faster pace, just when the War On Drugs was losing steam.

Now all they have to do is plant horror visions of nuked American cities in people's heads, and some folks can't click their heels fast enough as they give Caesar his "emergency powers" to save them from the barbarians at the gates. The sad truth is that if a terrorist organization has the money and know-how to nuke a major city, all the Patriot Act legislation won't be able to prevent it. An open society like ours cannot be hermetically sealed; it is a logical, technical and logistical impossibility. Scare the sheep some more, and maybe they'll let you pass Patriot Act II and III, and this country will be turned into a concentration camp...and you still won't be able to stop every determined fanatic with a grudge and a ton of fertilizer.

The question you need to ask yourself is whether you want to face the dangers of this world as a free man, able to control your own fate...or as a prison inmate, disarmed and strip-searched ten times a day, and only safe whenever one of the armed guards is in sight.

Thinking CMichael's line of reasoning through to its logical consequences would be that if giving up some of our rights will make us a little safer, giving up all of our rights will make us totally safe.

Me, I'd rather have my principles shot out from underneath me, than put a bullet into them myself.

[alan]

To whomever it might be that is still listening/reading:

Might I suggest reading the last few (4 or so) posts, and consider the degree of angst toward "government" reflected therein.

Even allowing for a certain number of the tinfoil lined hats crowd, it strikes me that the comments/complaints voiced should not be so easily dismissed. They certainly can be so dismissed, but they shouldn't be.

I submit that a great many people, people in all sorts of places really need to think carefully about the above mentioned angst, the distrust, the anger reflected by these posts, and also realize that many more people might share such thinking, but haven't posted on The Internet.

While they probably won't, I believe that people at the highest levels of government, badly need to think about the above mentioned, and that they need to take corrective action, corrective action most definately NOT leaning in the direction of an ever more authoritarian society, which seems to be the direction that they lean in.

While the foregoing will likely prove unsatisfactory to any number of people, I submit that my suggestions need to be taken seriously and acted on.

[Waitone]

I submit that a great many people, people in all sorts of places really need to think carefully about the above mentioned angst, the distrust, the anger reflected by these posts, and also realize that many more people might share such thinking, but haven't posted on The Internet.

While they probably won't, I believe that people at the highest levels of government, badly need to think about the above mentioned, and that they need to take corrective action, corrective action most definately NOT leaning in the direction of an ever more authoritarian society, which seems to be the direction that they lean in. Comments were directed toward Patriots Act. Let's just add a few other issues to the warning.

Let's just add deindustrialization of the US and illegal immigration and tyranny of trial lawyers and obscene levels of taxation and loss of US sovereignty to foreign bodies and others I can't think of right now.

Never in my life time have I seen as many example of the alienation of the taxpaying class with the ruling class. It seems our rulers are complete oblivious to the concerns, desires, demands, and expectations of those being ruled. Patriots Act is merely a clearly defined example of many such irritants.

[dustind]

One point that no one has brought up is that the side against the act should not be playing offence(attacking the act), the other side should be telling us how great it is. Even if this act did not violate the BOR, we should ask why do we need it, why should we give our goverment these powers.

Sure terrorists are bad, but how much of the PA really helps, I am gessing a little, but this thing needs to be debated peice by peice. I really doubt any terroist acts would have been thrawted throughout history had this act or goverment powers existed.

I agree with LawDog, and thank you Tamara for saying that. I was not looking forward to researching that section, this law is so much harder to understand than any I have ever read. If CMichael can translate that into english I would be happy to reply. I did not want to post someone else's research, but I was unable to figure it out. I did not want to have to print tons of pages, and research those changes with other laws down the line.

CMichael and JimP, do you guys even comprehend most of the PA, if so how?

[Glock Glockler]

CMichael and JimP, do you guys even comprehend most of the PA, if so how?

It really doesn't matter a damn how they interpret it, the lawyers that wrote it did so in a manner that is very confusing and open to interpretation, and it's going to be some arm of the govt that chooses to interpret it in a certain way.

[CMichael]

Well there they go again. Back to the same ol' mindless rhetoric.

These new arguments are rather interesting. They go something like it doesn't matter what the PA actually says violates the Constitution and is Unconstitution because I say t is, although I have nothing whatsoever to base that on.

Lawdog just about all your points when you look at the actual wording aren't true.

You said that the Feds can say anything and the judge must grant a warrant. That is incorrect. The Feds must show to the judge that what they want to seize is necessary for an ongoing investigation.

Then you said that that if the Feds seize something that they need to tell the target in a reasonable time. And that can be delayed.

That is not what the law said either. The Feds need to tell the target immediately. But "for good cause shown" to a judge it can be delayed until a reasonable time or longer. In any case they must sway a judge to see their point of view.

I guess the facts really mean nothing. You are probably going to hate the PA because you have invested so many months if not years hating it. It probably doesn't matter that the PA doesn't say what you think it says

And it is in English. Just read what it says. Not what you want it to say so it can support your beliefs.

[CMichael]

!!!IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN THE TERRORISTS & THE PATRIOT ACT, THEN I'D PREFER THE TERRORISTS, PLEASE!!!

If AlGore became Prez I'm sure you would have gotten your wish. Fortunately, he was defeated.

[rock jock]

!!!IF THE CHOICE IS BETWEEN THE TERRORISTS & THE PATRIOT ACT, THEN I'D PREFER THE TERRORISTS, PLEASE!!!
Hmmm. This sort of reminds me of the qoute from radical environmentalists who say they would gladly return society to the stone age to protect mother earth. Of course, they make these statements from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices with their VW van sitting outside on a paved parking lot while eating pasteurized cheese and tofu. Point being, it is easy to be cavalier about a WMD attack knowing that in all probability it won't happen precisely because there are men and women working behind the scenes to prevent it. The PA should be amended, not scrapped.

[CMichael]

I wonder if they would feel the same way if a bomb exploded in their local mall killing 500 people.

[Marko Kloos]

Here we go again, waving the scary terrorist boogeyman.

Hey, if it makes you feel safe to surrender your civil liberties to the benevolent federal masters, don't let me stop you. But don't assume for one second that your need to feel safe entitles you to surrender my civil liberties in the process via mobocracy.

The Bill of Rights is ironclad, and makes no exemptions for "really scary threats". It is majority-proof, and all the armed federal lackeys in the world can't make the Patriot Act constitutional. The mob can pass it into law, and the mob can enforce it, but all the badges and guns in the world can make it lawful. It directly violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution, and it is thereby null and void. It doesn't matter whether the majority applauds it, condones it, supports it, and enforces it.

It doesn't matter how many unthinking goose-steppers raise their right arms in its support and ask for more, it violates the supreme law of the land. End of story.

[CMichael]

And how exactly does it violate the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment? How exactly does it violate the Bill of Rights?

[Marko Kloos]

It's been laid out to you in great detail, even though you've been admant in taking the "odie, odie, odie" approach, fingers in ears and all.

But I'll recap it for you:

The Patriot Act...

* Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee, the provision allowing the right to peaceably assemble, and the provision allowing the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

* Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized." The Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house. Under the act they are not required to even tell you why.

* Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people to be kept in prison for life without even a trial.

* Violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to a speedy and public trial. Now you may get no trial at all, ever.

* Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

* Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without conviction).

[CMichael]

* Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee, the provision allowing the right to peaceably assemble, and the provision allowing the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Markos and how exactly does it violate that? In fact it says specifically that the government can not seize anything that is allowed by the First Amendment?

* Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized." The Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house. Under the act they are not required to even tell you why.

That is incorrect. The PA says that the Feds must show that what is needed is necessary for an ongoing investigation. That IS probably cause.

Also, the warrant must be very specific. I quoted the passages.

* Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people to be kept in prison for life without even a trial.

That isn't in the PA. If you tihnk it is I would love to see the passages please.

* Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).

This should be interesting. Where exactly does the PA allow for cruel and unusual punishment.

* Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without conviction).


Same question. Markos could we get back to our home planet please. Do you have anything whatsoever to back up your assertions? Once again, I posted the link to the PA.

[rock jock]

Here we go again, waving the scary terrorist boogeyman.
Hmmm, that's funny. Some would say that waving the proverbial boogeyman threat around is exactly what you are doing.

I would ask though, since you did not respond to my earlier post, what would you do to prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil?

[TheOtherOne]

Pulled from: http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/38478

:banghead:

No! No! No! That can't be. It must be a misprinted story. Terrorist laws are for terrorists -- the government said so.

[CMichael]

This is why I posted the link to the actual PA so that you don't have to rely on the disinformation from skewed articles that just make stuff up.

[MicroBalrog]

I wonder if they would feel the same way if a bomb exploded in their local mall killing 500 people.

I live in Israel. Need I remind you how often do bombs blow up here?

But this is how I feel.

My freedom is more important than your good idea.:neener:

[Glock Glockler]

Rock Jock,

You're asking the wrong question, why does it matter if it comes at the expense of the BoR? Should we deep six the 2nd Amendment if some anti admits "yes, it does trash the BoR, but so what, how do we save the children and prevent gun violence"? I could walk into my living room right now and put a few rounds into my roommate's head (he'd taking a nap), do you think that there's anything you can do to stop me?

I was doing some creative thinking and found probably 1/2 dozen ways I could really cause some domestic havoc and I doubt there's anything the govt could do to prevent me. Even the Nazis, with one of the most comprehensive police states in history, has plenty of domestic terrorism. Do you want to give the govt as absolute power as the Nazis had?

[dustind]

CMichael, could you tell me what is allowed by the first amendment? How have the feds interpreted that?

Also what about being able to talk about your house being raided, I can not believe people stand for that. It also prevents redress of greviences.

[rock jock]

You're asking the wrong question.......I could walk into my living room right now and put a few rounds into my roommate's head (he'd taking a nap), do you think that there's anything you can do to stop me?

Nice try, but I don't know you. And your roommate's death, while certainly tragic, would not affect me in any way. OTOH, 9/11 affected the whole country. A WMD event would do the same, with much more dire circumstances. I would also point out that while I could not stop you from killing your roommate, he certainly could, especially if he were paying enough attention to recognize signs of sociopathic behavior on your part. However, he could also choose to stick his head in the sand and pretend that everything's allright, that your abnormal behavior does not warrant further investigation. He could rationlize this by telling himself that it's no business of his how insane you're acting, that he would be violating your rights by questioning you, by watching you. But, in your hypothetical, he would still end up dead.

Choosing to ignore a threat does not make it go away, it simply makes you unprepared and irresponsible. I for one am not willing to sit back and watch complacently as we get hammered again. You offer no alternative ot the PA; no one here does. Therefore I don't see where you have much cause to complain.

[Marko Kloos]

You offer no alternative ot the PA; no one here does. Therefore I don't see where you have much cause to complain.

I believe I have already stated that we wouldn't need to be protected from terrorists if the government didn't bind the hands of its honest citizens by forbidding them from protecting themselves. A half dozen permit holders on each of the 9/11 flights would have solved the problem before it resulted in the deaths of 3,000 citizens. Let's recap that: the WTC was destroyed, and 3,000 people were killed on 9/11, because an overbearing busybody government has forcibly disarmed its citizenry anywhere a weapon may actually do good.

Now we get the Patriot Act foisted upon us by that same government, and you honestly think that the brazen infringement on civil liberties is the only way we can be kept safe from terrorists? Well, if giving up some of our rights makes us a little safer, wouldn't giving up all of our rights make us a lot safer?

Like I've said before: the only reason we need to be protected is because the government has stripped us of our own ability to protect ourselves. They have broken our legs, handed us crutches, and said, "See? Without us, you wouldn't be able to walk!"

The alternative to the Patriot Act is for the government to leave us the hell alone, stop infringing on our rights, and let us protect our own interests. Who is more qualified and more motivated to defend my family: myself, or some federal bureaucrat?

[Moparmike]

Rock, I dont offer anything in response to the PA because I dont have a response to it. While I agree that we need to stop sitting on our hands and act, as of this moment there arent alot of places to direct that action. I dont advocate for a "wait and see" policy, but directing it at our own populus and violating our rights and civil liberties isnt the action to take.

The things in the PA are scary indeed, and while they do point a direction that is potentially prosperous for the nation, it also points directly at a fork where on one side is an 8-lane highway to oppression and a complete lack of liberties, and the other is a grown-over donkey trail to prosperity that can be completely overlooked if we dont have a rationally-thinking group of law-enforcers and leaders at the helm.

Like I said, you have a point that we have offered nothing to replace the PA and have done nothing but complain that the PA will come back to bite us in the @$$, but most of us look at what one of the Founding Fathers said: "Those that would now give up liberties for a little temporary security, deserve niether" (not an exact quote, got to find the exact one) and think that there has to be a different way.

I dont think that spying on my next door neighbor is a good idea (unless I have a reason, like funky smells or 3-eyed fish in his fish bowl, etc). I dont like the government spying on me. I dont like the idea that I cant perform my BOR-guaranteed rights without someone yelling "treason" or "sedition" or something. That is what the PA seems to allow. If so, it is completely unconstitutional. Just because we decide that "there are BG's out to get us" doesnt mean that the BOR and Constitution suddenly becomes toilet paper, which is exactly what the PA has done.

How can we protect ourselves without turning the CONUS and BOR into TP? Lots less bad PR of guns, and more people carrying them. One guy with a .45 on each plane could have put those planes safely on the ground. More people being less afraid to be good samaritans and stop crime and terrorism thru more grass-roots efforts.

I am loosing my train of thought, more later.

Edited to add: Marko posted right before me. He said some things better than I could have.

[Tamara]

Same question. Markos could we get back to our home planet please. Do you have anything whatsoever to back up your assertions? Once again, I posted the link to the PA.

And actual, you know, law enforcement officers have chimed in to tell you what they think about it.

Apparently, though, you're more up on what it takes to get a warrant than cops are.

The PA says that the Feds must show that what is needed is necessary for an ongoing investigation.

No, the act just says they needs to tell the judge that it's necessary.

Also, they don't even need to tell you that they served the warrant. Someone could be rummaging through your underwear drawer with a blank warrant right now (they'll fill in the "persons or things to be seized" part if they find anything, a legacy of the WoD with fun new implications under the WoT. And vice versa) while you're out at McDougal's grabbing a burger. If they don't find anything, they'll put everything back and not tell you (as it would jeopardize their "ongoing investigation") and come back later when the monitoring software they've put on your hard drive spots a juicy bit of your typing.

Maybe you're so anxious over this "terrorist" thing that you find such Stalinist tactics appealing. Could you sit down and explain things like secret warrants and folks being held without trial to Jefferson and Paine? Do you think they'd cry, or challenge you to a duel?

[rock jock]

I believe I have already stated that we wouldn't need to be protected from terrorists if the government didn't bind the hands of its honest citizens by forbidding them from protecting themselves. A half dozen permit holders on each of the 9/11 flights would have solved the problem before it resulted in the deaths of 3,000 citizens.
Marko, that is simply not realistic. It is never going to happen. You need to base your solutions on reality and that is not one of them.

For some reason, you seem to think that the solution to every problem is giving someone a gun. RKBA has its limitations in protecting individuals and societies. For example, you state:

Who is more qualified and more motivated to defend my family: myself, or some federal bureaucrat?

Are you kidding me? How do you plan to protect your family from WMD? Is your concealed handgun going to magically shield you from anthrax? From ricin? From a nuclear blast? From the destruction of a dam? A bridge? A skyscraper? Are you going to investigate suspicious persons on your own? Are you going to track the bank accts of suspected terrorists? Are you going to singlehandedly conduct the level of investigation and electronic survelliance that professionals (i.e., the evil feds) take years to learn? When do you plan to do this - between posting on THR and trips to the range? No, you're going to sit at home with your guns and pretend that there are no bad guys out there trying to obliterate the U.S. and that if there were, you would take them out with two to the COM before they could turn unleash their hell on us. My goodness, with that kind of invulnerability you could have mopped up Iraq with a Makarov in a matter of days. Unbelievable.

I've got news for you. The level of denial you are exhibiting is what got us into this mess in the first place. People not willing to face reality, living in their own little fantasy worlds, pretending that we could never be touched here, in our own land.

[LawDog]

Not the most subtle ad hominem attack I've ever seen.

Lights out.

LawDog