Bush Urges Renewal of Patriot Act


April 17, 2004, 01:06 PM
A call to renew the Patriot Act by Bush. I wonder if we'll hear the same call for an AW Ban renewal? Another blow to the Bill of Rights.

Bush Urges Renewal of Patriot Act (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040417/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism&cid=544&ncid=716)

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Declaring the Patriot Act a vital tool in the war on terror, President Bush says Congress would place the nation at greater risk of attack if it fails to renew the law's wide-ranging law enforcement powers.

Key elements of the post-Sept. 11 law are set to expire next year and "some politicians in Washington act as if the threat to America will also expire on that schedule," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

"To abandon the Patriot Act would deprive law enforcement and intelligence officers of needed tools in the war on terror, and demonstrate willful blindness to a continuing threat."

Several conservative Republicans have joined liberal Democrats in saying that portions of the law are too intrusive on Americans' lives. They are threatening to allow the provisions to die at the end of next year.

Some want to impose more judicial oversight of how police and prosecutors conduct investigations.

"Our government's first duty is to protect the American people" and the Patriot Act "fulfills that duty in a way that is fully consistent with constitutional protections," Bush said.

Asked Friday whether Bush was making a campaign issue of the Patriot Act, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the president is "going to continue to talk about it" and there are "some clear choices on this issue ... in this election."

Bush's remarks strike a theme that he will return to next week, beginning Monday in Pennsylvania, a state that is key to his re-election hopes.

There, he and law-enforcement officers will stress the Patriot Act's importance. On Tuesday, the president will speak about the Patriot Act again with law-enforcement officers in Buffalo, N.Y., the site of recent criminal cases against the Lackawanna Six, a group of Yemeni-Americans convicted of supporting terrorism by briefly attending al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan.

"Since I signed the Patriot Act into law, federal investigators have disrupted terror cells in at least six American cities," said Bush. He said that since Sept. 11, the Justice Department has charged over 300 people in terrorism-related investigations, more than half of whom have been convicted or pleaded guilty.

A recent study concluded that while the Justice Department has sharply increased prosecution of terrorism-related cases since the Sept. 11 attacks, many fizzled and few produced significant prison time.

Bush says the Patriot Act must not be weakened.

The law "tore down the artificial wall between the FBI and CIA , and enhanced their ability to share the information needed to hunt terrorists," said the president.

He said the Patriot Act also marked a major shift in law enforcement priorities in which "we are no longer emphasizing only the investigation of past crimes, but also the prevention of future attacks."

Because of the law, FBI agents can better conduct electronic surveillance and wiretaps on suspected terrorists, he said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush Urges Renewal of Patriot Act" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
April 17, 2004, 02:31 PM
What! He we don't want that, no he should have done it sooner, no I mean he could have attacked Afghanistan before 911, not enough sharing info, too much invasion of privacy..Ohh I dont know what I am saying..but then again I agree with John Kerry.

April 18, 2004, 12:32 AM
To abandon the Patriot Act would give Americans some of their liberties back... The Elitists can't have any of that now!

Oh, can by the way, the more draconian parts of the Patriot Act do NOT sunset.


April 18, 2004, 12:37 AM
If you think the patriot act is about taking away are rights think again. All the guns in your hands in the world isn't going to stop a sucide bomber. Just ask the jews what good all those fully automatic weapons they have do. The chicken littles would have us think were one step away from a police state

Lord Grey Boots
April 18, 2004, 12:45 AM
Um, what liberties did the Patriot Act take away?

April 18, 2004, 12:48 AM
"The chicken littles would have us think were one step away from a police state, bullsh_t"

Sorry & congrats to date, rich2u, the police state is already here. You just haven't been personally affected by it yet & when you are, we'll be hearing your howls of protest as well - give it time, & I sincerely you never get to see it.

The old saw about a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged holds well-true about a conservative-turned die-hard libertarian who's been jacked by the JBTs.

Only a matter of one encounter & subsequent perspectives.

""Our government's first duty is to protect the American people" and the Patriot Act "fulfills that duty in a way that is fully consistent with constitutional protections," Bush said."

Unmittigated BS. The primary aspect of government is to "secure these liberties .... " something every adminstration has eroded over several decades.

Our security, we can provide for ourselves.

April 18, 2004, 12:53 AM
The problem is a gun isn't going to stop some whacko with a bio weapon or a nuke or even a chem weapon. Only intellegence gathering is going to do that. I'm not saying I'm thrilled with the patriot act but what the hey it's a choice of the lesser of 2 evils. In Jordan they just intercepted some terrorists with a chemical weapon which if detonated at its intended target could have killed 20,000 people. What the hell are your freedoms going to do when your family is part of that #

Chairman Meow
April 18, 2004, 01:04 AM
No amount of FBI agents, phone taps, email scanners, and suveilance equipment is going to stop someone determined enough to get their hands on a WMD. To think otherwise is just wishful thinking. We may make a dent, but eventually someone will get through if they work hard enough. Obscurity is on their side. There is no such thing as a nation secure from attacks that come from individuals, it simply can't be done without destroying commerce. The country is too big and people are too small. There are really only two realistic solutions as I see it. We either have to stop making enemies or be prepared to kill a whole lot of people. Either will work, but neither require the Patriot act.

April 18, 2004, 01:15 AM
I can't help but wonder if on 9/11 a pilot, stewardess, LEO in plain clothes, or a civilian with a handgun , would have stopped the tragedy that occured that day.

Yes firearms can make a difference. Principles of Liberty sometimes require they be fired, often times the principles of free men with firearms in itself protects Liberty.

No free man benefits from having the Constituiton stomped on, misinterpreted, re-defined, disregarded...

April 18, 2004, 01:22 AM
Nonsense, rich2u.

Besides all the liberty-infringements of the patriot act (I gag at the mere wording!), when's the last time you saw anything relating towards civil defense? Anything!? at all? Thought not.

Nope, the .guv wants us sheep, to depend on more & further draconian laws so that these same people who gave us 9/11 will somehow protect us (again!?).

Stuff & nonsense.

We had some idiot (Col Hackworth, I believe) come out right after 9/11 who said we should watch out for "folks with backpacks." Don't know about you, but I live in Colorado, close enough to Boulder, & about every second person wears a backpack .... another was watch out for people around lakes, etc. who had "antennae-looking devices" Some could misconstrue a fishing rod as such. :rolleyes: & :barf:

I have yet to see one single item put out by the .guv-folk that would do one single thing to allow us to protect ourselves, wouldn't scare the living daylights out of them in the first place & other than "buying duck-tape & plasctic sheets" (so we could all asphyxiate in our own home) to protect ourselves.

The .guv-folk aren't issuing any "directives" simply because there's not a damned thing we could do to prevent a terrorist attack - none, but they won't tell you that, but will attempt to crack down on all your liberties 'cause it makes the sheep feel better about it all.

So, the whole thing is pointless, it gives very wide-spread & further "legal powers" for the .guv to crack down on civil liberities (a misnomer if I've ever heard one) in the name of making you safe - which they can't do.

& good deal! more "intellegence gathering" to do what exactly? They gonna arrest me because I question its validity?

The Nazis could only wish for the amount of survelance that our .guv are already doing to us in the name of a non-exitent "security."

A pipe dream.

Civil defense is a joke, suggestions for our "protections" are a joke

April 18, 2004, 01:27 AM
How's this Wqay. (Art's Grammaw wuz here.)

April 18, 2004, 01:34 AM
sm, cross-posting, but thank you!

Used to fly with firearms & applicable ammo. Hi-jacks eventually occured & the answer was to take away everyone's guns.

Used to be able to fly with a pocket knife - 9/11 happened & the answer was to deprive everyone of anything sharp.

Anybody see a pattern here?

Where good people are deprived the right to defend themselves, & others, bad stuff happens.

The removal of our liberties does nothing but to further both terrorists - that of the true bad guys that want to do us harm & our own government that "merely" wishes to not allow our self-protection - which leads to the same damnable thing.

ANYONE who would deprive you of the right & wheerwithall to defend yourself is a certified BAD GUY - no matter their implied intentions, or well-wishes.

If they will not allow you, a certified Good Guy, how in the world would you trust, or allow them to legislate away your right to the very same things that they enjoy due to their status as "elected things!?"

April 18, 2004, 01:39 AM
I'm just saying that if the goverment can't keep an eye on the bad guys were screwed. There has to be some middle ground. If the gov couldn't use wire taps & bugs, how the heck would they have gutted the crime syndicates?

April 18, 2004, 02:00 AM
"I'm just saying that if the goverment can't keep an eye on the bad guys were screwed. There has to be some middle ground. If the gov couldn't use wire taps & bugs, how the heck would they have gutted the crime syndicates?"

What "crime syndicates, "rich2u?

The "crime syndicates" aren't blowing us up = they're providing "a service," as akin to the "alcohol prohibition" of earlier days that our government has somehow decided that they can't control it enough to make their own cut so they make it "illegal." Same goes for drugs.

The government itself is a huge scam that says if they can't garner a cut, then it's illegal.

They pass laws that says that if they don't get "their fair share," it's "a bad thing" & "bad" = illegal. Total BS!

This "government" is totally out of control, totally out of bounds of anything contitutionally allowable = read the constitution once, at least regards to powers allowed)

In any event, "bad guys" would easily enough be held in check regards "domestic terrorist." We have the means, we have the wherwithal, & if our "governmental security apparatus" would only aspire to allow some semblance of security awareness we might have some idea of what to look for. Alas, we don't, we won't = we are a nation of sheep & that is exactly where our .guv wants us to be.

And proove to me otherwise through any amount of anything civil defense promoted. There is none, zip, nada, zero.

& to actually protect ourselves = there is less.

April 18, 2004, 02:16 AM
Define : Crime Syndicate :D

And don't tell me it is folks with big cars and SUV's with tinted windows,with armed security ( even though the "law" says it is a no no for the guy on the street), meeting in clandestine places making deals that puts money in pockets that is never taxed. Tainted with sex, drugs, conspiracy, folks coming up missing and never found or the perp for that matter, only to rise in ranks for more power. Whom just happen to have folks on the payroll that gets things done like a spin on news.

One of these definitions is worse than the other perhaps. At least you knew where you stood with the honesty, don't pay the juice, get a limb broke. One group didn't steal from the gummit funds, instead one group responsible for themselves and thier own people's retirement. Rules were established and adhered to. One at least knew the players, rules, code of conduct.

FWIW we do have a notorius anti figure head whom family made the fortune running whiskey - gave up a "decent" trade and became a family of politicians. ;)

Ironic something is banned and the family made a fortune off Prohibited Whiskey...now they want to ban guns...humm

Andrew Rothman
April 18, 2004, 02:17 AM
There is nothing wrong with allowing intelligence sharing between the CIA and the FBI -- although according to the 9-11 investigation testimony, it wasn't much of a problem before the Patriot Act, either.

The problems lie in the numerous other provisions of the act. The provisions that allow our government to spy on its own citizens with much more ease and with much less oversight.

There's nothing wrong with bugs and wiretaps, searches and intelligence gathering. Sometimes they are necessary.

But getting a search warrant or a subpoena from a judge has worked pretty well for the last couple of hundred years. Why, then, does the Patriot Act allow for federal law enforcement to get our info and enter our homes without either? It's not necessary, and dammit, it's not right.

The act was passed in great haste, before many lawmakers even read it all the way through. This was a cynical ploy by this administration to take great advantage of the confusion and patriotic furor immediately following the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. That's why even some conservative Republicans -- Bush supporters, for Pete's sake -- are now thinking perhaps the act goes too far.

Civil liberties are too darned important to trade away for even the reality of security, let alone the mere appearance, which is all we have seen so far from this act. Oh, yeah, that and prosecuting some call girl ring.

Oh, and rich2u? Your first post was pretty incoherent. And Wqay, you could have found a nicer way to point that out.

Now both of you cool it before the thread gets locked. Mmmmkay? :)

April 18, 2004, 02:30 AM
labgrade said:

The Nazis could only wish for the amount of survelance that our .guv are already doing to us in the name of a non-exitent "security."

Oh, please! If you really believe that you need to brush up on your history.

Yes, we should keep a critical eye on government, but in all honesty you sound like a loon. And if you think intelligence collected by national security and law enforcement agencies doesn't help prevent terroristic attacks, then you must be doing a lot of :banghead:.

Not everything the ".guv" does is a big conspiracy to spy on you.

April 18, 2004, 02:48 AM
wQuay, you do need to chill some. I, myself, with a dyslexia issue have a real problem with some coherense. Not that the message isn't valid. An "attack" on spelling dispels you, not the poster, & rich2U's "--------" adds nothing.

Let's be a bit more adult here, huh?

There is HUGE problem with wiretaps, searches & data-minings = it is none of their busines!!

Quick skim, but it's one of their busib=ness to begine with! None!

If you allow them to access any of your private commications, you allow them to everything you do - NEVER! & it is none of their business,

That I can communicate any terrorist threat is merely part of the private cummunications.


Mr. Clark
April 18, 2004, 03:04 AM
Oh, please! If you really believe that you need to brush up on your history.
Okay. Could you enlighten us as to the number of 24 hour surveillance cameras in Berlin in 1939? The number of possible simultaneous wiretaps on phone lines (remember they used switchboards)? The number of computerized databases with every detail of your life cross referenced and fully searchable by social security (or similar) number, addresses, credit card numbers, etc.? Please comment on their ability to set a huge drift net and scan hundreds of millions if not billions of pieces of mail daily, categorize them by possible threat levels based on key words, and store them for later use (Carnivore). Tell us how that isn’t something a Nazi would dream of.

April 18, 2004, 03:18 AM
USA PATRIOT Act as Passed by Congress - HR 3162 (Oct. 25, 2001)

Repeal the USA Patriot Act

This is the first in a six-part series of articles on the USA Patriot Act: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.”


USA Patriot Act powers prompt second look

Secret court subpoenas, examinations of bookstore records, revised immigration policies and other uses of sweeping new powers have some Senate Democrats taking a new critical look at the USA Patriot Act, enacted in the aftermath of Sept. 11.


… Viet Dinh (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/vietdinh.htm), the former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. He helped draft the Patriot Act …

In May 2001, with the appointment of Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/vietdinh.htm), Attorney General John Ashcroft restored the name of the office as the Office of Legal Policy and confirmed its principal policy role within the Department.

A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'
Feb. 12, 2003

Unlike its hastily passed predecessor, the Justice Department's wide-ranging follow-up to the Patriot Act of 2001 is already facing intense scrutiny, just days after a civil rights group posted a leaked version of the legislation on its website.

The legislation, nicknamed Patriot II, would broadly expand the government's surveillance and detention powers. Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support” to terrorist groups.

Privacy advocates said the bill “gutted the Fourth Amendment,” while prominent Democratic senators, including Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately chastised the administration for its secrecy.


Patriot Act II Resurrected?
Aug. 21, 2003

Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.

The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.

The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.

A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (http://www.senate.gov/~hatch/) (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.


… link to a draft of the Victory Act (http://www.libertythink.com/VICTORYAct.pdf) (89 pages, pdf) …

With a Whisper, not a Bang | Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily

April 18, 2004, 05:05 AM
What! He we don't want that, no he should have done it sooner, no I mean he could have attacked Afghanistan before 911, not enough sharing info, too much invasion of privacy..Ohh I dont know what I am saying..but then again I agree with John Kerry.

All I got was an incoherant mess, and "I agree with John Kerry". I think that about says it all.

What is wrong with the Patriot Act? Well, PA-II gives the government the right to supoena my company's financial records (amoungst other things), withought a warrant. Withought probable cause, and withought notification.

Yes, it is a very broad and very deep violation of illegal search and siezure laws.

The problems in the intellgence communities lie in areas not adressed by the PA.

And yes, one civilian with a gun could have stoped 9/11. (allright, yes, 3 guys on 3 planes. But still.)

April 18, 2004, 10:22 AM
I still think some people are living with there head in a hole in the ground. Should the patriot act be improved, sure. But to believe that the fed should give up all there law enforcement abilities is insane. Thats what the libatarians on this board are saying.
As far as the mob was concerned they do more than simply offer a service or booze. The booze is how they got started. How many pension programs have been ruined because of the mob? H_ll Lasvegas was built using pension money from the unions.
Apparently some people think the right to keep and bear arms is going to solve all are problems. Thats just pure drivell. There's no way in heck I want anyone sitting on a plane being able to have a gun. It might have stopped 9/11, but the death toll from planes falling from the sky due to loons opening up on planes... No thanks
As far as my incoherent post up top. Yeah it was incoherent . So ignore it & go on.

April 18, 2004, 10:40 AM
Well...it's a nice day outside...it's just 0930 and we're fighting among ourselves already...
The government of the people, by the people and for the people...
...Not the same people that can now look into any records you have...without a court order...they can get that after they've recorded everything you do or say or any records available anywhere have been copied...you think they're gonna' destroy those if they find you're not involved with anything illegal...somehow the thought that all my life is an open book to some that are looking for anything they can use to get at someone I may not even know bothers me a little...:uhoh:

...oh well...

I guess my freedom is the price of my security...is that the argument...?
Hard to swallow that one...especially before coffee...

April 18, 2004, 10:51 AM
I see we are in for a lively debate and that is good. PA I was passed in a reprehensible manner such that only a handfull, and I mean a literal handfull, of people actually knew what it contained. Everything wrong with our version of a republican form of government was on display.

That said there were some changes to law that had to be made, period. Some changes were good and reasonable, others were dangerous. It was a good thing to update wiretap laws to reflct the 21st century communications as opposed to early 20th century communications. It was a bad thing to take the judicial branch out of the search warrant business to whatever extent that took place. As it has recently become evident, some of the PA's provisions were designed to get around administrative provisions enacted by previous presidents which prohibited sharing of evidence, a good thing.

Problem is PA I was done while politicians thought they had to do something, a bad thing. Reasonable minds acted an inserted a sunset provision, a good thing. Idiot republican senators (Oren Hatch, IIRC)immediated wanted to amend the just passed bill striking the sunset provision, a bad thing.

Patriots Act was never full debated in public. The attorney general went to congress with a list of goodies he wanted, goodies requested by attorney's general back to the Nixon administration and were never granted. No itemizations of those provisions and justification ever took place. Congress just acted. So now we have highly controversial legislation out there where its contents are being debated out of profound ignorance and rampant suspicion.

A least the PA will be debated during an election. Bush will be forced to lay out what is necessary and explain why it should be enacted. Opponents will be able finally list specific proposals they opposes. I personally have dispised the debate because it is infantile. Supporters say it is necessary for the war on terror (their term, not mine). Opponents say it is a slam against constitutional liberties even though specifics are in preciously short supply. Neither side built a case.

Don Gwinn
April 18, 2004, 10:54 AM
Infighting; the hobby of the true patriot.

We do NOT do personal insults here. We also do NOT do profanity.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush Urges Renewal of Patriot Act" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!