Did the Patriot act stop 42 attacks?

[Avorysuds]

Seems like the answer is no...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YygDHy6rccg]Reality Check - Has the Patriot Act thwarted 42 terror attacks? - YouTube[/ame]

What do you think?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Ed Meese is a hack and the Heritage Foundation hasd no crediobility.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Wow what a great report. Ron Paul is right again.

 

[Avorysuds]

Yup.

 

[Political Junky]

Nope

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you think?

That a majority of Americans will continue to support the PA, out of fear and ignorance. We’re likely stuck with it for quite some time.

 

[waltky]

Judge rules secret nat'l. security letters violate the First Amendment...

Judge rules secret FBI letters unconstitutional
Mar 15,`13 -- A federal judge has ruled that the FBI's practice of issuing so-called national security letters to banks, phone companies and other businesses is unconstitutional, saying the secretive demands for customer data violate the First Amendment.

The FBI almost always bars recipients of the letters from disclosing to anyone - including customers - that they have even received the demands, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said in the ruling released Friday. The government has failed to show that the letters and the blanket non-disclosure policy "serve the compelling need of national security," and the gag order creates "too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted," the San Francisco-based Illston wrote. FBI counter-terrorism agents began issuing the letters, which don't require a judge's approval, after Congress passed the USA Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The case arises from a lawsuit that lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed in 2011 on behalf of an unnamed telecommunications company that received an FBI demand for customer information. "We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute," EFF lawyer Matt Zimmerman said. "The government's gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience." Illston wrote that she was also troubled by the limited powers judges have to lift the gag orders.

Judges can eliminate the gag order only if they have "no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with a criminal counter-terrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person." That provision also violated the Constitution because it blocks meaningful judicial review. Illston ordered the FBI to cease issuing the letters, but put her order on hold for 90 days so the U.S. Department of Justice can appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

MORE

 

[OKTexas]

I clicked on the video and got a message that it does not exist. Ya might want to check your link.

 

[yidnar]

i would guess that the PA prevented more than 42 acts ....i could be wrong .

 

[Sallow]

i would guess that the PA prevented more than 42 acts ....i could be wrong .

Actually..you are probably right.

The question becomes do we want to give up liberties for security.

In my opinion, we don't.