Duncan Idaho
member
Seems like someone arrested under the PA might not have that option.
ACLU files lawsuit against Patriot Act
- Thread starter Mark Tyson
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
Dog
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?
Since a lawyer representatives the person, I doubt that is true.
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.
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?
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?
Since a lawyer representatives the person, I doubt that is true.
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.
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?
alan
Member
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?
__________________
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?
__________________
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.
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:
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.
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".
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.
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:
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
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
Member
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...
And how long will it be before another "Patriot Act" changes a "few little words" to cover other "crimes" and "investigations"?...
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Senior Member
*snicker*
Would that be the same "system" that wants to take your guns away?
Oh, yeah, I trust them all right...
Giant
Member
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
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
Member
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.
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
Member
Calmwater:
Very interesting, perhaps prophetic article that you posted, or so it seemed to me.
Very interesting, perhaps prophetic article that you posted, or so it seemed to me.
Duncan Idaho
member
That would most likely be construed as an act of terrorism.
Glock Glockler
Member
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.
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
Member
I REALLY should keep my mouth shut & stop giving people ideas...
Dog
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.
You are taking it wee bit too literal. A lawyer represents the individual.
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.
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.
Even with the Patriot Act law enforcement needs to get a search warrant.
If I recall correctly there is a procedure of which judge they would have to go to.
Which is true for just about any legislation. Changing little words can mean much. That's why words are chosen to carefully.
I think some liberal congressmen would love the opportunity to have more ammo to use against Pres. Bush.
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.
You are taking it wee bit too literal. A lawyer represents the individual.
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.
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.
Even with the Patriot Act law enforcement needs to get a search warrant.
If I recall correctly there is a procedure of which judge they would have to go to.
Which is true for just about any legislation. Changing little words can mean much. That's why words are chosen to carefully.
I think some liberal congressmen would love the opportunity to have more ammo to use against Pres. Bush.
Glock Glockler
Member
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
Last edited:
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.
Glock that is not accurate. When it comes to issuing warrants it's a judge that makes the determination.
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.
Glock that is not accurate. When it comes to issuing warrants it's a judge that makes the determination.
"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.
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
Member
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.
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.
- Status