[sm]

Okay folks, I want to discuss this Patriot Act Renewal - again.

I am not a moderator or anyone special here at THR, but this thread topic was closed previously, and for a good reason. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=77232
You have a problem with it being closed, and don't know why - take it off forum and PM or email the moderator, or a staff member. Read the Rules of Conduct in the upper right hand corner. This is how we at THR take care of our own laundry.

Why do I want to continue discussion of a closed topic?

-I'm being selfish and want to know more about the PAI and PAII. What remains in force even if not renewed.

-Being selfish again, I want to hear what the more educated and political savvy have to share. We have some very sharp folks here on THR.

-We have lurkers on THR that come here to learn, Those against our freedoms whom come here to verify we are a bunch of uncivil folks stirring stuff up, We have folks for freedoms that need information to educate themselves and others further.

-Responsible Firearm Ownership involves more than guns folks.

-We have an election coming up, and folks need to be informed no matter what party they are affliated with. Perhaps education will get folks to really push for another Party they believe in and not vote for lesser of two evils.

NO offense, but if you can't play nice , be civil, do not post to this thread - one never knows whom is watching and learning, I don't want to sour someone who may be sitting on the fence in regard to 2A.

Okay anyone have a link handy for Patriot Act I and II ? Some folks have never read these. Just part of that Responsible Firearm Ownership folks.

Thanks

Steve.

[rich2u]

We need some mechanism to deal with international terrorism. You can call it what ever you want, but we need to have the ability of the CIA & the FBI to be able to communicate with each other & investigate potential terrorists.
Now if you believe any police powers given to the feds or the state goverments to "spy" on a potential bad guy is an infringement on our liberties then you are consigning are country to oblivion at the hands of the jihadists.

[sm]

We already had in place measures of intelligence gathering through what I call " proper channels". Legal ,as set out by the Constitution. We already had proper protocol as per the Constitution to obtain wiretaps, searches and the like.

All this before the Patriot Acts.

Like gun control, which I'm totally against any form of btw, we already had in place measures to deal with crime, with or without the use of firearms.

Instead of using existing laws, we enact more laws. Hey the BGs ain't wired like normal folks, that is why we call them criminals. Criminals did not obey the previous laws...they sure as shooting are not going to obey the new ones. The new laws DO infringe on the rights and abilities of the honest responsible citizen.

IMO these PAs give to much control to the gummit. WE are a Republic, that is the way this country was set up because of lessons learned from where WE left.

Take a look at the UK and other countries using Surveillance to catch terrorists, the banning of all firearms...etc. To the best of my knowledge (TTBOMK) a terrorist has never been prevented from committing a bombing, a shooting, a terrorist act, nor has one been caught afterwards.

Just because guns are banned, does not mean the BGs have not stopped the use of firearms in commiting terror.

These infringments on a persons rights only give a few folks a touchy feely feel good feeling. They never feel the rubber stamp with "Easy Prey" applied to forehead.

History has shown that gummits fear its people that have the firearms, and the rights to keep gummits in check. In order to turn people into subjects these things must be removed. History shows the easiest way is via the pretense of giving in to less Liberty for more feeling of safety.

George Orwell , John Ross, Matthew Bracken ..,etc., have written works that uses these themes, History has proven it.

[rich2u]

I wasn't aware the constitution spelled out are intelligence service's, where was that at? & according to your way of thinking all wire taps etc would be, should be illegal. The constitution has nothing on it that deals with wire taps. TRhats why people will take certain parts of a new law dealing with certain police powers & take it to court to see if it passes constitional muster. Of course with the judges we have today:banghead:

[JoeSF]

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.

The IRS can look at your financial records right now. It's what they call an audit. Just in case you have never experienced one, they are not pleasant even when there isn't anything to hide.

If you want to fight terrorism and even a plain vanilla war aren't you going to have to sacrifice something to win? How about your life?

In WW2 men were drafted. Hows being dropped on Omaha beach compare to your "they might look at my books " complaint? Americans of Japaneses descent were put in camps their property confiscated and their young men still volunteered for combat and fought and died courageously. Those guys are patriots.

Everyones got an opinion. I am sure there are people who complained about the austere steps taken during WW2. If Roosevelt went to far then it was only because it looked like we were going to lose that war.

If we can really stay safe without the patriot act that's great. Then again I am not responsible for the consequences, I just have to accept them. In the meantime I support the Patriot Act. That's my opinion.

[Chris Rhines]

You can call it what ever you want, but we need to have the ability of the CIA & the FBI to be able to communicate with each other & investigate potential terrorists. The CIA and FBI have had that capability since their respective dates of inception. They simply never make use of it, due both to mutual dislike and irreconcilable differences of mission. The Patriot Act is not and was never about inter-agency communications.

Now if you believe any police powers given to the feds or the state goverments to "spy" on a potential bad guy is an infringement on our liberties... If we insist on having government police, then I'm all for having said police investigate crimes. However, the government has no business running domestic intelligence operations on people not accused of crimes. If that somehow handicaps the government's (limited) ability to prevent terrorist attacks, well, I can live with the tradeoff.

But then, I tend to be a bit sensitive about my liberties. Especally when other people are asking be to sacrifice them for no good reason.

...then you are consigning are country to oblivion at the hands of the jihadists. If you really, truly believe that a few Muslim terrorists pose a serious risk to the United States, then you are not in touch with reality.

- Chris

[Art Eatman]

There was a lot of discussion this past week about "The Wall" between the FBI and the information garnered by the CIA, insofar as bringing charges against those in violation of the various laws already in place before PA #1. That is, a criminal trial's evidence must have been acquired in a specified, constitutional fashion. The CIA can acquire information or evidence without worrying about constitutionality, thus creating a legal problem for use of that info in court.

It seems to me that PA #2 is in part a clumsy attempt to rectify this problem. The aim is to have a legal structure within which to deal with terrorists when the ususal methods of gathering information just flatout can't work.

As for constitutionality of information gathering and suchlike, I note that the Constitution does not prohibit defense of the nation, and information-gathering is certainly a part of that defense. Would that we'd had an Allen Dulles and an OSS in the early 1930s; Pearl Harbor might have been averted.

IMO, a larger problem with such as PA #s 1 & 2 is the issue of accountability for misuse of the laws. An innocent person wrongly accused of terrorism is in serious difficulty, with little or no redress possible...

Do I approve of what seem to be unwarranted intrusions upon privacy? No. Unfortunately, I don't see any options, given what I've read are the methods of communication and movements of monies within the terrorist organizations. I wish I did, sez I, but wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which fills up first.

Art

[rich2u]

Hmmm 20 of them nocked a trillion dollars off of are GDP in less than 2 hours on 9/11. What happens when the get their slimy hands on a nuke? take out manhattan. a couple more cities like L.A. or Washington. Today its way to easy for a small well funded group of fanatics with the under th table backing of a few rogue nations to be able to do massive damage to are country. Look at what the post office went through with the anthrax scare. What do you think would happen if tommorrow morning we woke up to the news that 20 embedded terrorists had strapped on sucide bombs & took out 6 or more oil refinerys. yep lets see our economy function with an 90% reduction in gas. I think i'm all to well in touch with reality.
As far as the FBI & the CIA talking, no for the most part they could NOT exchange information. As a matter of fact the federal prosecutor who prosecuted the twin towers bombers had major problems with this very issue.

[labgrade]

sm, you've nailed it again.

"Responsible Firearm Ownership involves more than guns folks."

Indeed! It entails an ideal that holds true to so many things honorable.

I can't begin to list them all.

[DTLoken]

We need some mechanism to deal with international terrorism. You can call it what ever you want, but we need to have the ability of the CIA & the FBI to be able to communicate with each other & investigate potential terrorists.
Now if you believe any police powers given to the feds or the state goverments to "spy" on a potential bad guy is an infringement on our liberties then you are consigning are country to oblivion at the hands of the jihadists.

I hate to be the grammar Nazi here, but it's not "are" it's "our".



That said, we don't need the Patriot act to deal with terrorism. The CIA, FBI, NSA, and military can all work together just fine without some sort of civil right's erroding law. Give them the proper funding that they need to accomplish this, they don't need anything else. Looking at the 9/11 comission, it appears that there were some warnings of what was to come, they just ended up being ignored.

I saved an article from my local newspaper the other day talking about how the Justice Department is completely overburdened with new secret search warrants (Wiretaps, etc) because the issuance has gone up 85% or so in the last three years. If this isn't alarming to you, well.



They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

I believe your view falls under this quote.

[rich2u]

Don't get me wrong I in no way want the goverment trampling on us innocent citizens. The problem is Joe arab american is an innocent citizen right up to the day he decides to break the law. Today it's very easy to do a heck of a lot of damage with modern technology. Dick Clark was in charge of cyber security. Just think if a virus or series of cyber attacks shut down the internet for a week. The damage to "our":p economy would be enormous.
I'm just saying that there has to be a balance between the freedoms which make us the economic & democratic power house we are & preventing the terrorists from using those freedoms to screw us. A reasonable balance. Not a police state or a totally free society.

[w4rma]

Okay anyone have a link handy for Patriot Act I and II ? Some folks have never read these. Just part of that Responsible Firearm Ownership folks.USA PATRIOT Act as Passed by Congress - HR 3162 (Oct. 25, 2001)
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html

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.”
…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.02A.JVB.Patriot.htm

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.
…
http://www.hillnews.com/050102/patriot.shtm

… 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 …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec03/patriot_8-19.html
…
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.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/history.htm

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.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html

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.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html

… link to a draft of the Victory Act (http://www.libertythink.com/VICTORYAct.pdf) (89 pages, pdf) …
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/003693.html

With a Whisper, not a Bang | Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56630

[JitsuGuy]

Just an FYI...

I believe there are some 400 plus cities in the US who's city councils have ruled they will not abide by the rules/laws outlined in the US (anti)Patriot Acts. Kansas City is one of the most recent ones I can think of as they ruled against it around a month ago.

J

[Lord Grey Boots]

So, um, where's the violation of my rights bit in the Patriot act?

[Penforhire]

Lord Grey, I'm no expert and I don't even play one on TV. With that disclaimer out of the way --

The danger I see in this legislation is the elimination of probable cause and the on-going lack of habeus corpus (detention without trial). It violates the foundation of our system of law (innocent until proven guilty).

You might say, as a law-abiding citizen, that you have nothing to fear. You may be right but I am on the fence myself. Should a police officer be allowed to search my car, home, or business without cause (in the name of national security)? I say that goes too far.

Heaven forbid you were "detained" in a case of mistaken identity. Wouldn't you want due process of law to review your case in front of a judge swiftly, with legal representation? I would want it.

I'm no softy. Our enemies should all be wiped from the face of the Earth. There should be no lengthy appeals or life sentence. I wouldn't mind "cruel and inhumane" televised executions by slow suffocation or similar. But we have to be sure they are our enemies. Therefore due process of law.

[FedDC]

If anyone is actually interested in the FACTS of what the PA does, feel free to PM me. I am a Federal Agent and use it daily. I am just plain sick and tired of arguing with the arm chair legal "experts" that know all about the PA and yet have never read it. It is an outstanding law that is very difficult for us as LEOs to use. It has been used to do many great things that you will never hear about. Arguing with someone on the internet is like winning the Special Olympics, even the winners are retarded so I just don't do it anymore.

And just FYI, it did NOT eliminate Probable Cause in any way. It had nothing to do with Probable Cause. The warrant requirements have not changed, just how the information is presented and to whom it is made available (OpSec and Nat'l Security).

[rich2u]

Allright FedDC. Some people think they can strap a gun on there hip & thats gonna keep them safe from some lunatic with a nuke or anthrax.

Even the evil errr I mean honorable senator Feinstein admits that the attacks on the patriot act were over blown.

[labgrade]

So, FedDC,

what is now illegal that wasn't before?

Care to 'splain what the PA does that wasn't covered before?

[Penforhire]

Okay. One example from http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf --

"permits “roving” surveillance (court orders omitting the identification of
the particular instrument, facilities, or place where the surveillance is to
occur when the court finds the target is likely to thwart identification with
particularity)"

You can't tell me that is not ripe for abuse. Gee, a terrorist suspect MIGHT show up at my home or your home so both are fair game for surveillance without specific approval. Also known as LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE.

From http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew40.htm :
"...extends the roving wiretap authority to intelligence wiretaps, which are authorized secretly and are not based on probable cause. The authorization may be nation-wide. Once additional telephones that a target uses (perhaps in someone else’s home) are being monitored, other users of that telephone will also be subject to continuing surveillance."

Later on the same page -
"In addition, it seems that if a target uses a computer in a cyber café or the public library to check E mail or visit a website, surveillance of that computer may simply continue, giving the government access to the E mail and Internet activities of a multitude of non-targets."

"...also further increases the authority of the Attorney General to detain and deport non-citizens with little or no judicial review. The Attorney General may certify that he has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a non-citizen endangers national security."

Oh yeah, we all trust the AG to be that wise. I happen to like most of our system of checks and balances. How about you?

[greyhound]

Personally, I am in favor of giving the CIA all the tools they need to develop intelligence in other countries (i.e. more agents and such) but think the FBI and other agencies had too much power over domestic issues even before PA 1 & 2.

At the same time, I would like to see the govt. recognize that citizens are responsible to a good extent for helping with the WOT. The only time I was really upset with the Preisident in the post 9/11 months was when he said "keep shopping".

Seems to me a good dose of commom sense and a scaling back on the belief that an individual must rely on the govt. for security would help, though I think things are too far gone for that.

[rich2u]

So once the bad guys get into the US legally were screwed? I mean for the most part the 19 highjackers were just normal people as far as the private citizen was concerned. How are observant citizens supposed to find out who put the anthrax in the mail? You can't have it both ways. Your going to have to give up some privacy for security or expect to be whacked over the head by any whacko terrorist organization once they get into the US. We Have millions of arabs living in the US. If only a few are bad guys there going to make our lives miserable without the FBI

[Penforhire]

Well, I don't actually agree that we have to give up our rights to achieve security. There is nothing wrong with better (and legalized) interagency communication. You'll notice I don't gripe about that.

In hindsight we knew enough about the hijackers to know they shouldn't have been here, right?

What is so wrong about keeping due process of law? If you can't convince a judge then maybe you don't have jack shxx. Some provisions of T.P.A. are an incremental loss of rights, not much different than some well-meaning gun control legislation. I don't see a lot of people here at THR saying incremental loss of RKBA is okay. Don't lump me in with the ACLU but I don't see much difference. Any loss of rights is unacceptable.

I do not agree that if you're not a US citizen you can be held without ANY CHANCE of judicial review for as long as the government wants. That sort of behavior should only be expected of our enemies (essentially gov't kidnapping).

[rich2u]

Couldn't agree more Penforhire

[Ben Shepherd]

The problem once again boils down to personal accountability, folks.

While I detest most of this law, it has done much good for our nation(as in no further attacks on our soil). In the hands of a law enforcing meachanism that is in line with our basic constitutional principals, it's not a problem.

The problem with it is: In the wrong hands this thing is a pandoras box.


And no folks, I don't advocate giving up personal liberty for safety. The potential cost is just to great.

FedDC, thanks for the offer to discuss, and glad you are on board. But we have a differing point of view on this. You see it as helping us fight enemies, you watch it work every day. I won't argue that, as I have no basis. However it has too much potential for abuse in my opinion.

[FedDC]

Ok, I swore that I was going to stay out of another PA discussion because it is just so frustrating to try and explain away all of the rumors surrounding the PA...Plus, I am obviously a Fed, so my credibility on this is obviously going to be viewed with some suspicion...but here goes.

I will try to address some of the issues brought up in this thread, if I fail to address your question, feel free to post again and I will do my best to answer it to the best of my ability.

First, the PA was basically about communication. It is a simple fact that the CIA and FBI were flat out forbidden from communicating terrorist information to one another. There were laws in place that made it a federal crime for the CIA to pass information gleaned overseas on a terrorist suspect to the FBI. This was further strengthened under the Clinton Administration along with their provision that did not allow the CIA to work with any foreign gov that abused human rights (Like as in all of the terrorist producing nations). This emasculated large parts of the CIA and made it almost impossible for them to communicate info on terrorist that they might know were on US Soil. The PA made it legal for the CIA and FBI to share this information.

Second, on the subject of wiretaps. This is a sore subject for me because I have seen the application process and it is just plain ludicrous. It almost takes an act of Congress to get a wiretap, much less one under the PA. First the Agent must PROOVE to the judge that ALL other methods have been exhausted and that they will not be able to get the info in any other way. Then they must specify the line they wish to tap and this is often very very limited as in just the home and maaaaybe work phone. Cell Taps are a whole other issue. The Bad Guys know you may be tapping their home and work phone, so they use things like...their wife's cell phone which would be almost impossible to get a tap on bc in the eyes of the law, she is as innocent as anyone else that is uninvolved with the crime. The law also states that if you are taping a call and you listen to the first minute or two and it is not a call in relation to the crime, you must quit listening, so what the criminals do is have their wives call someone, talk about BS soap opera stuff for a couple of minutes until the feds quit listening and then the suspects start talking...they know their way around the law.

The PA did great things in this area because it allowed us to keep track of people that are constantly changing cell phones, going from motel to motel...etc. In the past, just the application process would have been too slow to keep pace with someone that changed locations regularly. What good is a wiretap if you are listening to a phone that has already been discarded or if by the time you get the tap, they have already passed the info and you missed it?

As far as folks being arrested and held at GTMO, the PA has nothing to do with that. This is an entirely separate issue. The PA does not allow anyone to be arrested and held without trial. This is only a Rumor associated with the PA, not the reality.

I hope I have explained a little more of the reality from the PA. The Rumor mill is ripe on this issue and everything from the Gov reading your brain waves to them implanting microchips in babies is being associated with it, but in reality it has done some great things. The Gov is communication in ways never seen and it is making a big difference in the war on terror. IMHO, the PA was just common sense legislation and it was all stuff that had slowly been working its way through Congress anyway. This act just bundled it all in one package.

If anyone still has questions, feel free to post them.

[TamThompson]

This is the classic argument over which is more important: safety or freedom.

My choice is freedom.

Sheep are safe. I am no sheep. I would rather die on my feet in a terrorist attack than live on my knees in a heavy-handed police state.

Patriot Acts 1 & 2 are the biggest mis-nomers I've ever seen--they are the tools of a police state in the making.

Nothing personal, FedDC--you sound like a good guy and I'm sure you're one of the good cops who don't misuse PA tools. But not all cops are good, as I'm sure you know. In general, I am not in favor of giving the government and/or LE any more powers than they already have.

[FedDC]

Tam- Is there a specific part of the PA you have issues with? The rhetoric you posted is agreeable, nobody wants to live life as a sheep, but at the same time I fail to see how the PA causes that. It is certainly not going to create a "Police State"...

[labgrade]

I'll reiterate:

"So, FedDC,

what is now illegal that wasn't before?

Care to 'splain what the PA does that wasn't covered before?"

[FedDC]

No problem, The PA was not about making things more or less illegal. It is a law to facilitate the enforcement of current laws. It was and continues to be (although less so with the PA) difficult to track and arrest terrorists. They know the law and they know how to get around it in ways that I will not discuss on an open forum. The law works like a bureaucracy and it takes time. That time lag and the inability to share information has been somewhat corrected by the PA.

For those that may not understand what I am talking about when I refer to communication, prior to the PA, it was ILLEGAL for the CIA to share most of the info it gleaned with the FBI or other LE organizations. It took a law like the PA to correct that problem.

[Penforhire]

FedDC, the following is not my personal analysis of the PA II but perhaps you can help publicly refute the claims. Note the original PA II text can be found at: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/patriot2-hi.pdf

Strips native-born Americans of all of the rights of United States citizenship if they provide support to unpopular organizations labeled as terrorist by our government, even if they support only the lawful activities of such organizations, allowing them to be indefinitely imprisoned in their own country as undocumented aliens. (Section 501)

Completely abolishes fair hearings for lawful permanent residents convicted of even minor criminal offenses through a retroactive “expedited removal” procedure, and preventing any court from questioning the government’s unlawful actions by explicitly exempting these cases from habeas corpus review. Congress has not exempted any person from habeas corpus -- a protection guaranteed by the Constitution -- since the Civil War. (Section 504)

Provides for summary deportations without evidence of crime, criminal intent or terrorism, even of lawful permanent residents, whom the Attorney General says are a threat to national security. (Section 503)

Shelters federal agents engaged in illegal surveillance without a court order from criminal prosecution if they are following orders of high Executive Branch officials. (Section 106)

These are a few scary points!

[sch40]

Penforhire, I was wondering about those parts, too. FedDC, thanks for your patient and intellegent answers. I hope this thread stays as civil.

--sch40

[Art Eatman]

Exercising subtlety in a mild warning, I'll only say that I expect this thread to remain civil.

Or :cuss: else! :fire:

:D, Art

[FedDC]

Penforhire-

Those are all good points. I am not entirely familiar with the PA 2 because it has not been passed yet, so we obviously are not using it. I can say that I know for a fact that Congress can not pass any law that is unconstitutional, or it will be ruled as such when we try to use it thereby nullifying the law.

The points you posted are valid, but I did notice a bit of a slant in their editorialized writing style. The verbiage indicates a source that is not in favor of the law which is their right, but I hesitate to judge its constitutionality based solely on the oppositions point of view.


Here is what I do know for sure:

We do have a very serious problem with Terrorist Orgs operating here in the US. They raise mountains of cash and do a good bit of training under the guise of their religion and this problem must be addressed. Right now today, major terrorist orgs are here in the US and they would love nothing more than to have a repeat of 9/11 or something bigger if they can come up with the men, equipment, and opportunity. While I realize that we all have a right to assemble and speak our minds, it does bother me for Hamas to meet and plot to kill me and my family...even more so when they have that meeting in Virginia...

As far as the INS (or Customs/Border Protection or ICE or whatever they are now) issues, this is a tough call. We have a HUGE problem with our immigration system. Just look around at the numbers of illegal immigrants and then try to figure out how hard it would be for one of the "Undocumented" immigrants to be a terrorist with no record or his birth, entry, not so much as a fingerprint on file. These folks are almost invisible, changing names and locations randomly and leaving behind the Gov wondering where they went. It would be all too easy for a terrorist to take advantage of this hole in our defenses.

One of these days we are going to need to sit down and take a hard look at our overall policy on immigration from Visa issuance to becoming a citizen. There are a lot of truly dedicated hard working men and women that are trying to address these problems and ensure our safety. I suspect that in the PA 2 there will be provisions to this regard.

[dadman]

I see that my original PA/Bush renawal topic got locked.
FedDC, thanks for your input to this subject.
My concerns with PA1 and a PA2 are the invasions of privacy, Acts used as stepping stones for further intrusions, Acts being used in the future by an anti-freedom administration, renewals of Act(s) and them not going away, etc.
Why don't 'they' just work on any info exchange barriers between FBI and CIA, and do taps/survelliance the good 'ole fashion way with warants?

[Penforhire]

FedDC, very observant. That's why I preface that analysis with "not mine." It still pays to visit the enemy camp (ACLU in this case) and see what they're stewing over.

I agree 100% with your last three paragraphs. In large measure I blame immigration issues on lax enforcement of existing laws. I do not see the need for special new laws to modify behavior that is already illegal. I have this same problem with "hate crime" laws. Vandalism and assault are legitimate crimes all by themselves.

You're also right that most people will not read the entire PA. Pretty dry stuff. So most rely on analysis and counter-analysis. The source of the statement is less important to me than whether the statement is valid. Do you or anyone else here know of a site or link to counter-analysis that examines the ACLU complaints and dismantles them? I myself want those complaints to be untrue. But I read a couple of the referenced sections and I can't see the rebuttals.

Art, why wouldn't this thread stay civil? THR people have a much better average civility than any other board I know of. Not only that but I suspect our average slant here is far toward anti-terrorism, as it should be.

[FedDC]

dadman


I hear you about the privacy issues. We have to give up the majority of our privacy when we get our badge, so I know the feeling. As to the warrant issue, traditional warrants for surveilance such as wiretaps are very very restrictive and take lots of time to get. They expire every few weeks and have to be renewed. The biggest problem is that wiretaps are almost impossible to get on other phones that the suspects may be using such as friends and wives because in the traditional sense, they are as innocent as any other non involved person. The realities of terrorism dictate that we be able to follow the terrorists wherever they go and whatever means of communication they use. They know the law and take advantage of the holes like the ones I just described.

As far as info exchange, it was illegal for the CIA and FBI to communicate certain threat info prior to the PA, so they could not just communicate or they would be going to jail. There are still a few burdens to communication, but they are far fewer with the PA.