Bush demands expansion of Patriot Act

. . . would give law enforcement the authority to request certain types of “time-sensitive records†without getting prior approval from a judge or grand jury.

Click to expand...

Subpoenas issued by judges are hardly "requests" . . . "demands" would be a better word.

If an administrative subpoena is only a request, the answer should always be "no."

What concerns me most about the Patriot Act, not to mention all of the recent homeland anti-terrorism efforts, is that although those resources are now being directed towards the enemy they could one day be used against our own people just as easily. The test for all new government powers should be this simple question; would I feel comfortable with this technology/authority/law in the hands of a dictator or tyrant? If the answer is no, then it should be hastily abandoned.

Intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks have been a main focus of the Sept. 11 commission, and Bush used his remarks in Hershey — and an event planned Tuesday in Buffalo, N.Y. — to maintain that he has taken measures to ensure terrorists cannot operate freely in America.

Click to expand...

Of course terrorists can't operate freely in this country. Honest citizens can't anymore!

He said Congress should also approve using “administrative subpoenas†— which he said would give law enforcement the authority to request certain types of “time-sensitive records†without getting prior approval from a judge or grand jury.

Click to expand...

It sounds like we need more judges to determine if a subpoenas should be issued, so it doesn't take so long when there's a time-sensitive issue.

The proper checks and ballances should not be torn down just because it's not conveinent, or all our rights will soon become past inconveineces for "law enforcement".

It's disingenuous of this Administration to talk about renewing/expanding the Patriot Act when our country is so unbelievably porous in so many ways. I still don't see our immigration problems, both illegal entry and abuse of visas, being thrust into the debate.

longeyes,

Amen.

Honest citizens can't anymore!

Click to expand...

How do we know they are honest...

Maybe they just want us to think they are honest.


The legal system has always been this way. You are guilty if they say so. What is your alibi buddy? We will assume you were there unless you can prove you weren't. Guilty until proven innocent.

Judges are bad enough, we don't need administrative subpoenas.

Work on the problem (speed up the judicial process), not around the problem.

Before you hand someone a loaded gun (the Patriot Act), you had better be DAMN sure on where they intend to point it (use it ethically).

Imho.

Watch the war on terror turn out just like the war on drugs.

Q: Why do they have to sneak in theses check-and-balance attacks along with improved interagency communication?

A: Because they know they would NEVER fly on their own.

We need to take these changes seriously. As others here point out, the scope is not limited to terrorist surveillance.

There are some here who suggest we haven't read the Patriot Act and it does nothing to due process of law. I respectfully submit that those people may have looked at it without actually reading it. It is also laughable to suggest you know the PA because you use it. That'd be like saying LE's are gun experts and that ALWAYS gets a chuckle in these parts.

Bush demands expansion of Patriot Act

Click to expand...

Aww, #$%&!

Seriously, though, I would like to see someone file charges that say that their fourth amendment rights have been disregarded. Sure, it probably wouldn't succeed, but someone needs to speak out and say 'hey, this is immoral'.

What concerns me most about the Patriot Act, not to mention all of the recent homeland anti-terrorism efforts, is that although those resources are now being directed towards the enemy they could one day be used against our own people just as easily.

Click to expand...

And we have already seen it done in our recent memories where an arrogsnt president used all tricks at his disposal against "the enemy". Nixon used the IRS as an "audit punishment" for people who opposed his views, he had his ex-CIA hit teams doing their dirty work, even knowing what they did was 100% illegal.

People honestly amaze me because they just don't get it. There is something called the law of inherent power. Every president inherits the powers of the previous president plus whatever he can grab beyond that. Even if you can delude yourelf into believeing Bush would never "improperly" use the powers he now has which abrogate our constitutional rights against his "enemies" (which include every Democrat and anybody who opposes the war)... the fact that these powers have now been given to the president is a danger to liberty beyond anything we have ever seen. because here is the secret: once presidents grab a power, THEY NEVER GIVE IT BACK unless forced to by the supreme court.... and Bush will have that packed with "Scalia" clones in short order and our rights will be history.

Never forget the story of the rabbit and the fox caught in a forest fire standing near the edge of a river. The fox told the rabbit to climb on his back and he would swim them both across the river. The rabbit said: "You just want to eat me.", but the fox said: "No, really I don't. besides the danger from the fire is great. You'll die if you don't let me save you."

So the fox got in the water and the rabbit jumped onto his back. Once they were far from shore, the fox let himself slip deeper into the water which forced the rabbit to climb higher up his back to keep from drwning. Gradually, the fox had forced the rabbit all the way up to his shoulder. Just then the fox said: look, see all the flames? You are so lucky I saved you." And then he clamped his fangs around the rabbit and swallowed him.

Well, guess what rabbits: there may be a fire burning whose name is Al Qaeda, but that is not the demon who is your greatest threat.... .

If Justice Scalia is trying so hard to enslave you, why does he strongly support your right to arm yourself?

I honestly don't know where Scalia stands on alot if issues, but if you can determine how much a man advocates general freedoms based on what weapons he would allow his countrymen to own, then Saddam Hussein would be some sort of libertarian.

If Justice Scalia is trying so hard to enslave you, why does he strongly support your right to arm yourself?

Click to expand...

Because you won't be allowed to bring your gun into federal prison, so it's a moot point.