TEA Party derails PATRIOT Act fasttrack vote

[Liability]

I'll be the turd in the punch bowl....

Are there any cases of actual rights being violated?


I see the patriot act as a tool for law enforcement to watch potential bad guys. The bad guys have to 1st contact bad guys outside the US or known bad guys in the US.

I have been a bit worried about it being used by a rougue administration though.... not mentioning any names, but their initials are Barak Hussein Obama

The potential for the misuse or the abuse of laws that were already on the books PRIOR to 9/11/2001 existed in the past and will go on existing.

Are there some heightened RISKS associated with the USA PATRIOT Act, as amended? Of course.

Are these RISKS of misuse and abuse reason enough to forgo the prospect of granting our national security infrastructure the tools needed to meet the demands of protecting this Republic against the threat of shitheads like al qaeda? Nope.

Proper mechanisms to put some checks and balances into effect is what's needed, and they already exist.

The claims that the Patriot Act's provisions somehow violate the Constitution are essentially just so much hot air. They are nonsense.

This would be exhibit A of a person with infinite faith in bureacrats using all the power we give them for good and not evil.

Just give them whatever power they need, as surely someone as noble as a US bureacrat would never overstep their bounds and would purely use the power as a means to fight off evil doers and save us americans who could be blown up at any second if we don't give them this power.

Wrong, Dr. Dreck. Disagreeing with you is hardly the hallmark of a person who has infinite faith in our government or its bureaucrats.

If you had the ability to post honestly and think clearly (attributes you have not demonstrated) you would have noted that I spoke of justified concerns and the NEED for checks and balances. None of that indicates any kind of boundless faith.

There are already reporting requirements. CONGRESS already oversees how the PATRIOT Act gets used. And there is a special Court in place already that reviews the uses to which FISA gets put.

The point I am making (and have made on many occasions in the past -- even though thoughtless clowns like you are unable to intelligently address the point) is that BEFORE 9/11/2001, there were already laws on the books that allowed for wiretapping. Yeah, warrants were required. But how were warrants obtained? Usually through the application process requiring that law enforcement swear out the nature of the case and known facts in testimony or in affidavits. Does that mean that the sworn applications couldn't have been false? Few would ever know unless -- on some occasions -- the warrants got used, arrests got made, cases went to trial and the criminal procedure discovery process led to legal challenges and hearings complete with cross examination. In those relatively rare cases, discrepancies might get revealed. But otherwise, the process was ripe for abuse.

DO you imagine that nobody ever got a wiretap without lying? Do you imagine that wiretaps were never secured without complying with the warrant requirement?

Similarly, "law enforcement*" authorities still have to get appropriate permissions and provide adequate records for the review of those cases where the PATRIOT Act has been utilized. And there are, like in the past, mechanism in place to perform some checks and provide some balances. Imperfect? Probably. So? That gets me back to the actual question I posed -- the one you chose to ignore with your propagandistic diatribe. IS THAT sufficient ground to remove this important tool from our national security infrastructure?

If your answer is" YES!" then you surely think that there should be no such thing as even court authorized wiretaps since THAT process can lead to abuse, too. IS that what you "think," Dr. Dreck?

__________________
* And this doesn't even address the concern that sometimes the uses to which we may want to put the USA PATRIOT Act are not related to mere criminal "law enforcement" at all. For some reason, lots of libs like to forget that the 9/11 Commission noted that one of the problems that made 9/11 possible was the idiotic and artificially forced separation of "law enforcement" from national security type "intelligence."

 

[Dr.Drock]

The potential for the misuse or the abuse of laws that were already on the books PRIOR to 9/11/2001 existed in the past and will go on existing.

Are there some heightened RISKS associated with the USA PATRIOT Act, as amended? Of course.

Are these RISKS of misuse and abuse reason enough to forgo the prospect of granting our national security infrastructure the tools needed to meet the demands of protecting this Republic against the threat of shitheads like al qaeda? Nope.

Proper mechanisms to put some checks and balances into effect is what's needed, and they already exist.

The claims that the Patriot Act's provisions somehow violate the Constitution are essentially just so much hot air. They are nonsense.

This would be exhibit A of a person with infinite faith in bureacrats using all the power we give them for good and not evil.

Just give them whatever power they need, as surely someone as noble as a US bureacrat would never overstep their bounds and would purely use the power as a means to fight off evil doers and save us americans who could be blown up at any second if we don't give them this power.

Wrong, Dr. Dreck. Disagreeing with you is hardly the hallmark of a person who has infinite faith in our government or its bureaucrats.

If you had the ability to post honestly and think clearly (attributes you have not demonstrated) you would have noted that I spoke of justified concerns and the NEED for checks and balances. None of that indicates any kind of boundless faith.

There are already reporting requirements. CONGRESS already oversees how the PATRIOT Act gets used. And there is a special Court in place already that reviews the uses to which FISA gets put.

The point I am making (and have made on many occasions in the past -- even though thoughtless clowns like you are unable to intelligently address the point) is that BEFORE 9/11/2001, there were already laws on the books that allowed for wiretapping. Yeah, warrants were required. But how were warrants obtained? Usually through the application process requiring that law enforcement swear out the nature of the case and known facts in testimony or in affidavits. Does that mean that the sworn applications couldn't have been false? Few would ever know unless -- on some occasions -- the warrants got used, arrests got made, cases went to trial and the criminal procedure discovery process led to legal challenges and hearings complete with cross examination. In those relatively rare cases, discrepancies might get revealed. But otherwise, the process was ripe for abuse.

DO you imagine that nobody ever got a wiretap without lying? Do you imagine that wiretaps were never secured without complying with the warrant requirement?

Similarly, "law enforcement*" authorities still have to get appropriate permissions and provide adequate records for the review of those cases where the PATRIOT Act has been utilized. And there are, like in the past, mechanism in place to perform some checks and provide some balances. Imperfect? Probably. So? That gets me back to the actual question I posed -- the one you chose to ignore with your propagandistic diatribe. IS THAT sufficient ground to remove this important tool from our national security infrastructure?

If your answer is" YES!" then you surely think that there should be no such thing as even court authorized wiretaps since THAT process can lead to abuse, too. IS that what you "think," Dr. Dreck?

__________________
* And this doesn't even address the concern that sometimes the uses to which we may want to put the USA PATRIOT Act are not related to mere criminal "law enforcement" at all. For some reason, lots of libs like to forget that the 9/11 Commission noted that one of the problems that made 9/11 possible was the idiotic and artificially forced separation of "law enforcement" from national security type "intelligence."

The Patriot Act eliminates probable cause from search and seizure, takes away your and my right to a speedy trial, monitoring your church without probable cause is now ok, may monitor people's conversations with lawyers or flat out deny a person's right to an attorney, someone can be jailed without being charged and unable to question witnesses against him/her.

So you either are in favor of the Constitution or the Patriot Act, I'm happy with my choice, sadly you sound like you are too.

 

[Liability]

This would be exhibit A of a person with infinite faith in bureacrats using all the power we give them for good and not evil.

Just give them whatever power they need, as surely someone as noble as a US bureacrat would never overstep their bounds and would purely use the power as a means to fight off evil doers and save us americans who could be blown up at any second if we don't give them this power.

Wrong, Dr. Dreck. Disagreeing with you is hardly the hallmark of a person who has infinite faith in our government or its bureaucrats.

If you had the ability to post honestly and think clearly (attributes you have not demonstrated) you would have noted that I spoke of justified concerns and the NEED for checks and balances. None of that indicates any kind of boundless faith.

There are already reporting requirements. CONGRESS already oversees how the PATRIOT Act gets used. And there is a special Court in place already that reviews the uses to which FISA gets put.

The point I am making (and have made on many occasions in the past -- even though thoughtless clowns like you are unable to intelligently address the point) is that BEFORE 9/11/2001, there were already laws on the books that allowed for wiretapping. Yeah, warrants were required. But how were warrants obtained? Usually through the application process requiring that law enforcement swear out the nature of the case and known facts in testimony or in affidavits. Does that mean that the sworn applications couldn't have been false? Few would ever know unless -- on some occasions -- the warrants got used, arrests got made, cases went to trial and the criminal procedure discovery process led to legal challenges and hearings complete with cross examination. In those relatively rare cases, discrepancies might get revealed. But otherwise, the process was ripe for abuse.

DO you imagine that nobody ever got a wiretap without lying? Do you imagine that wiretaps were never secured without complying with the warrant requirement?

Similarly, "law enforcement*" authorities still have to get appropriate permissions and provide adequate records for the review of those cases where the PATRIOT Act has been utilized. And there are, like in the past, mechanism in place to perform some checks and provide some balances. Imperfect? Probably. So? That gets me back to the actual question I posed -- the one you chose to ignore with your propagandistic diatribe. IS THAT sufficient ground to remove this important tool from our national security infrastructure?

If your answer is" YES!" then you surely think that there should be no such thing as even court authorized wiretaps since THAT process can lead to abuse, too. IS that what you "think," Dr. Dreck?

__________________
* And this doesn't even address the concern that sometimes the uses to which we may want to put the USA PATRIOT Act are not related to mere criminal "law enforcement" at all. For some reason, lots of libs like to forget that the 9/11 Commission noted that one of the problems that made 9/11 possible was the idiotic and artificially forced separation of "law enforcement" from national security type "intelligence."

The Patriot Act eliminates probable cause from search and seizure, takes away your and my right to a speedy trial, monitoring your church without probable cause is now ok, may monitor people's conversations with lawyers or flat out deny a person's right to an attorney, someone can be jailed without being charged and unable to question witnesses against him/her.

So you either are in favor of the Constitution or the Patriot Act, I'm happy with my choice, sadly you sound like you are too.

First of all, of course, you're wrong.

Secondly, even to whatever limited extent you could be marginally close to being factually accurate, you STILL PERSIST in conflating unrelated concepts. The WARRANT requirement is designed to make sure the government cannot get you to, in effect, be a witness against yourself. It is required to have a well founded basis to obtain property from you to use against you in a criminal proceeding. This is why they interpose neutral JUDGES between the cops and you.

By contrast, the needs of national security as against some scumbags like al qaeda are NOT designed around the notion of obtaining "evidence" against them to use in a freaking court room. The needs of national security is to PREVENT them from accomplishing the illegal acts of war directed against our people and our interests in the first fucking place.

I am in favor, of course, of our Constitutional protections. And I am in favor of the Patriot Act. There is NO actual contradiction. What tools like you incorrectly perceive as being contradictions simply are not. You are flatly wrong.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Wrong, Dr. Dreck. Disagreeing with you is hardly the hallmark of a person who has infinite faith in our government or its bureaucrats.

If you had the ability to post honestly and think clearly (attributes you have not demonstrated) you would have noted that I spoke of justified concerns and the NEED for checks and balances. None of that indicates any kind of boundless faith.

There are already reporting requirements. CONGRESS already oversees how the PATRIOT Act gets used. And there is a special Court in place already that reviews the uses to which FISA gets put.

The point I am making (and have made on many occasions in the past -- even though thoughtless clowns like you are unable to intelligently address the point) is that BEFORE 9/11/2001, there were already laws on the books that allowed for wiretapping. Yeah, warrants were required. But how were warrants obtained? Usually through the application process requiring that law enforcement swear out the nature of the case and known facts in testimony or in affidavits. Does that mean that the sworn applications couldn't have been false? Few would ever know unless -- on some occasions -- the warrants got used, arrests got made, cases went to trial and the criminal procedure discovery process led to legal challenges and hearings complete with cross examination. In those relatively rare cases, discrepancies might get revealed. But otherwise, the process was ripe for abuse.

DO you imagine that nobody ever got a wiretap without lying? Do you imagine that wiretaps were never secured without complying with the warrant requirement?

Similarly, "law enforcement*" authorities still have to get appropriate permissions and provide adequate records for the review of those cases where the PATRIOT Act has been utilized. And there are, like in the past, mechanism in place to perform some checks and provide some balances. Imperfect? Probably. So? That gets me back to the actual question I posed -- the one you chose to ignore with your propagandistic diatribe. IS THAT sufficient ground to remove this important tool from our national security infrastructure?

If your answer is" YES!" then you surely think that there should be no such thing as even court authorized wiretaps since THAT process can lead to abuse, too. IS that what you "think," Dr. Dreck?

__________________
* And this doesn't even address the concern that sometimes the uses to which we may want to put the USA PATRIOT Act are not related to mere criminal "law enforcement" at all. For some reason, lots of libs like to forget that the 9/11 Commission noted that one of the problems that made 9/11 possible was the idiotic and artificially forced separation of "law enforcement" from national security type "intelligence."

The Patriot Act eliminates probable cause from search and seizure, takes away your and my right to a speedy trial, monitoring your church without probable cause is now ok, may monitor people's conversations with lawyers or flat out deny a person's right to an attorney, someone can be jailed without being charged and unable to question witnesses against him/her.

So you either are in favor of the Constitution or the Patriot Act, I'm happy with my choice, sadly you sound like you are too.

First of all, of course, you're wrong.

Secondly, even to whatever limited extent you could be marginally close to being factually accurate, you STILL PERSIST in conflating unrelated concepts. The WARRANT requirement is designed to make sure the government cannot get you to, in effect, be a witness against yourself. It is required to have a well founded basis to obtain property from you to use against you in a criminal proceeding. This is why they interpose neutral JUDGES between the cops and you.

By contrast, the needs of national security as against some scumbags like al qaeda are NOT designed around the notion of obtaining "evidence" against them to use in a freaking court room. The needs of national security is to PREVENT them from accomplishing the illegal acts of war directed against our people and our interests in the first fucking place.

I am in favor, of course, of our Constitutional protections. And I am in favor of the Patriot Act. There is NO actual contradiction. What tools like you incorrectly perceive as being contradictions simply are not. You are flatly wrong.

Lol I'll try to respond to the mature portions of this message. The part you're missing is it's not like the Patriot Act solely addresses wire taps. Also, it doesn't say you have to be a terrorist to have these unconstitutional methods used against you, it's just as legal for government to use these things against you as it is for them to use these things against Osama. Hence this is where the trust factor comes in, you having unlimited trust of gov't think they'll only use it against the Osamas of the world, my lack of trust and gov't having already proven they'll use this against normal citizens is what causes me to be against it. Along with the obvious constitutional ramifications.

 

[editec]

These people hate government until it comes to the military or giving police more power.


Then they're all over giving government more power because they are clueless enough to imagine that the government will ONLY ever use that power on bad guys.

Yeah, but meanwhile they still hate government and love freedom, right?

Idiots.

 

[kaz]

I like the liberals who have a cow over the Patriot act as an invasion of our privacy, but who don't have a cow over the TSA groping passengers, the IRS not only tracking every dollar we ever earn but forcing us to prove whatever they want at their whim, the drug war and requiring banks to disclose and track our financial transactions, government prohibiting people from taking a job below an arbitrary "minimum" wage, requiring medical insurance to provide only government approved policies and coverages. All that's not only acceptable but desirable. But, OMG, government reading our e-mails or expediting warrants turns us into the Soviet Union...

 

[Dr.Drock]

I like the liberals who have a cow over the Patriot act as an invasion of our privacy, but who don't have a cow over the TSA groping passengers, the IRS not only tracking every dollar we ever earn but forcing us to prove whatever they want at their whim, the drug war and requiring banks to disclose and track our financial transactions, government prohibiting people from taking a job below an arbitrary "minimum" wage, requiring medical insurance to provide only government approved policies and coverages. All that's not only acceptable but desirable. But, OMG, government reading our e-mails or expediting warrants turns us into the Soviet Union...

It's always cute when kids make it sound like being against giving government unlimited power is "liberal."

 

[kaz]

I like the liberals who have a cow over the Patriot act as an invasion of our privacy, but who don't have a cow over the TSA groping passengers, the IRS not only tracking every dollar we ever earn but forcing us to prove whatever they want at their whim, the drug war and requiring banks to disclose and track our financial transactions, government prohibiting people from taking a job below an arbitrary "minimum" wage, requiring medical insurance to provide only government approved policies and coverages. All that's not only acceptable but desirable. But, OMG, government reading our e-mails or expediting warrants turns us into the Soviet Union...

It's always cute when kids make it sound like being against giving government unlimited power is "liberal."

What I wrote: "I like it when liberals..."

What you heard: "Everyone who thinks xxx is a liberal..."

I don't address arguments that are in your head since they are...in your head. I was addressing the liberals who do that. Here's the subtle hint that's what I was doing that. My post started, "I like the liberals who have a cow over the Patriot act as an invasion of our privacy..."

Reading is fundamental. I say what I mean. Address what I said, not what you wanted me to mean and this will be a far more productive conversation.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I like the liberals who have a cow over the Patriot act as an invasion of our privacy, but who don't have a cow over the TSA groping passengers, the IRS not only tracking every dollar we ever earn but forcing us to prove whatever they want at their whim, the drug war and requiring banks to disclose and track our financial transactions, government prohibiting people from taking a job below an arbitrary "minimum" wage, requiring medical insurance to provide only government approved policies and coverages. All that's not only acceptable but desirable. But, OMG, government reading our e-mails or expediting warrants turns us into the Soviet Union...

It's always cute when kids make it sound like being against giving government unlimited power is "liberal."

What I wrote: "I like it when liberals..."

What you heard: "Everyone who thinks xxx is a liberal..."

I don't address arguments that are in your head since they are...in your head. I was addressing the liberals who do that. Here's the subtle hint that's what I was doing that. My post started, "I like the liberals who have a cow over the Patriot act as an invasion of our privacy..."

Reading is fundamental. I say what I mean. Address what I said, not what you wanted me to mean and this will be a far more productive conversation.

Wouldn't me being the one who started the thread be the person "having a cow"?

Wouldn't me being the original poster, speaking out against the Patriot Act make me the "liberal"?

You HAVE to be a liberal to be in favor of the Patriot Act. I don't care what the D or R p-r machines say.

 

[kaz]

It's always cute when kids make it sound like being against giving government unlimited power is "liberal."

What I wrote: "I like it when liberals..."

What you heard: "Everyone who thinks xxx is a liberal..."

I don't address arguments that are in your head since they are...in your head. I was addressing the liberals who do that. Here's the subtle hint that's what I was doing that. My post started, "I like the liberals who have a cow over the Patriot act as an invasion of our privacy..."

Reading is fundamental. I say what I mean. Address what I said, not what you wanted me to mean and this will be a far more productive conversation.

Wouldn't me being the one who started the thread be the person "having a cow"?

Wouldn't me being the original poster, speaking out against the Patriot Act make me the "liberal"?

You HAVE to be a liberal to be in favor of the Patriot Act. I don't care what the D or R p-r machines say.

OK, I think I understand what you're saying now. I admit I missed it the first time. I also oppose the patriot act, but I oppose the reasons we "need" it as well, such as our military's presence in the Middle East. "Conservatives" oddly support government meddling in foreign affairs, government securing oil supplies, government propping up undemocratic governments for "stability." Then when we attract enemies who bring the war to our home, we put up a wall of security over freedom. There's nothing conservative about that entire process.

 

[Liability]

The Patriot Act eliminates probable cause from search and seizure, takes away your and my right to a speedy trial, monitoring your church without probable cause is now ok, may monitor people's conversations with lawyers or flat out deny a person's right to an attorney, someone can be jailed without being charged and unable to question witnesses against him/her.

So you either are in favor of the Constitution or the Patriot Act, I'm happy with my choice, sadly you sound like you are too.

First of all, of course, you're wrong.

Secondly, even to whatever limited extent you could be marginally close to being factually accurate, you STILL PERSIST in conflating unrelated concepts. The WARRANT requirement is designed to make sure the government cannot get you to, in effect, be a witness against yourself. It is required to have a well founded basis to obtain property from you to use against you in a criminal proceeding. This is why they interpose neutral JUDGES between the cops and you.

By contrast, the needs of national security as against some scumbags like al qaeda are NOT designed around the notion of obtaining "evidence" against them to use in a freaking court room. The needs of national security is to PREVENT them from accomplishing the illegal acts of war directed against our people and our interests in the first fucking place.

I am in favor, of course, of our Constitutional protections. And I am in favor of the Patriot Act. There is NO actual contradiction. What tools like you incorrectly perceive as being contradictions simply are not. You are flatly wrong.

Lol I'll try to respond to the mature portions of this message. The part you're missing is it's not like the Patriot Act solely addresses wire taps. Also, it doesn't say you have to be a terrorist to have these unconstitutional methods used against you, it's just as legal for government to use these things against you as it is for them to use these things against Osama. Hence this is where the trust factor comes in, you having unlimited trust of gov't think they'll only use it against the Osamas of the world, my lack of trust and gov't having already proven they'll use this against normal citizens is what causes me to be against it. Along with the obvious constitutional ramifications.

LOL. All of it was mature (except maybe the small change in your username. My effort is more fitting for you, however).

The USA PATRIOT Act is designed for use in investigations which ARE related to terrorism. In fact, it's anti-terrorism objective is required to be set forth as a "significant purpose" of the FISA provisions of the law.

It's not my fault that you don't understand the very purpose of that law.

Moving on:

You have a propensity to state and re-state your desired conclusion as your major and minor premises but nevertheless expect to be taken seriously when your logic then leads you to your startling "conclusion." But, newsflash. YOU stating a thing and that thing being accurate are very different propositions.

I have far FROM an unlimited trust in government. However, YOU appear to have no trust in government (at least in terms of law enforcement and national security) of any kind whatsoever. Thus, you are in no rational position to assess my views. You are wrong.

I do not inherently trust government. I believe, therefore, in checks and balances. That said, my lack of basic trust does not carry so far as to recommend that government be denied the very tools they would need if they were legitimately trying to do JUST their jobs in a properly circumspect fashion.

Depriving them entirely of such tools IS one way of preventing them from committing the type of behaviors you worry about. But your "solution" would also deny that of the ability to do their job at all. My solution permits them the tools they need SUBJECT TO strict and appropriate scrutiny.

Guys like you cannot fathom such distinctions. Your narrow mind prevents you from ever seeing the larger picture.

And you dodged my question. You don't trust government. Check. Got that. But are you okay with government agents being given the right to use wiretaps? I mean, as I said before (when you ducked my question): if they are granted such powers, at all, for their legitimate purposes, those very posers COULD be abused. And they have been. So to prevent the RISK of such abuse, are you opposed to the FBI being given ANY power to engage in wiretaps?

 

[kaz]

And you dodged my question. You don't trust government. Check. Got that. But are you okay with government agents being given the right to use wiretaps? I mean, as I said before (when you ducked my question): if they are granted such powers, at all, for their legitimate purposes, those very posers COULD be abused. And they have been. So to prevent the RISK of such abuse, are you opposed to the FBI being given ANY power to engage in wiretaps?

You're not OK with government being given free power to use wiretaps. I agree. But are you consistent? Are you OK with government being given the power to track every dollar you earn, every dollar you invest, every dollar you give to charity, every dollar you spend on your mortgage. Then not only do that track that but can make you prove what they forced you disclosed at their whim. Does government having that virtually unlimited power over your wallet scare you? Or do you just get scared when they might listen to your phone calls?

 

[Dr.Drock]

First of all, of course, you're wrong.

Secondly, even to whatever limited extent you could be marginally close to being factually accurate, you STILL PERSIST in conflating unrelated concepts. The WARRANT requirement is designed to make sure the government cannot get you to, in effect, be a witness against yourself. It is required to have a well founded basis to obtain property from you to use against you in a criminal proceeding. This is why they interpose neutral JUDGES between the cops and you.

By contrast, the needs of national security as against some scumbags like al qaeda are NOT designed around the notion of obtaining "evidence" against them to use in a freaking court room. The needs of national security is to PREVENT them from accomplishing the illegal acts of war directed against our people and our interests in the first fucking place.

I am in favor, of course, of our Constitutional protections. And I am in favor of the Patriot Act. There is NO actual contradiction. What tools like you incorrectly perceive as being contradictions simply are not. You are flatly wrong.

Lol I'll try to respond to the mature portions of this message. The part you're missing is it's not like the Patriot Act solely addresses wire taps. Also, it doesn't say you have to be a terrorist to have these unconstitutional methods used against you, it's just as legal for government to use these things against you as it is for them to use these things against Osama. Hence this is where the trust factor comes in, you having unlimited trust of gov't think they'll only use it against the Osamas of the world, my lack of trust and gov't having already proven they'll use this against normal citizens is what causes me to be against it. Along with the obvious constitutional ramifications.

LOL. All of it was mature (except maybe the small change in your username. My effort is more fitting for you, however).

The USA PATRIOT Act is designed for use in investigations which ARE related to terrorism. In fact, it's anti-terrorism objective is required to be set forth as a "significant purpose" of the FISA provisions of the law.

It's not my fault that you don't understand the very purpose of that law.

Moving on:

You have a propensity to state and re-state your desired conclusion as your major and minor premises but nevertheless expect to be taken seriously when your logic then leads you to your startling "conclusion." But, newsflash. YOU stating a thing and that thing being accurate are very different propositions.

I have far FROM an unlimited trust in government. However, YOU appear to have no trust in government (at least in terms of law enforcement and national security) of any kind whatsoever. Thus, you are in no rational position to assess my views. You are wrong.

I do not inherently trust government. I believe, therefore, in checks and balances. That said, my lack of basic trust does not carry so far as to recommend that government be denied the very tools they would need if they were legitimately trying to do JUST their jobs in a properly circumspect fashion.

Depriving them entirely of such tools IS one way of preventing them from committing the type of behaviors you worry about. But your "solution" would also deny that of the ability to do their job at all. My solution permits them the tools they need SUBJECT TO strict and appropriate scrutiny.

Guys like you cannot fathom such distinctions. Your narrow mind prevents you from ever seeing the larger picture.

And you dodged my question. You don't trust government. Check. Got that. But are you okay with government agents being given the right to use wiretaps? I mean, as I said before (when you ducked my question): if they are granted such powers, at all, for their legitimate purposes, those very posers COULD be abused. And they have been. So to prevent the RISK of such abuse, are you opposed to the FBI being given ANY power to engage in wiretaps?

Good point, I hear mature adults use name-calling and specifically the word "tool" all the time lol.

You say what it was designed for, yet nowhere in the law does it say you have to be suspected of terrorism (or anything for that matter) in order to have these powers used against you. I don't care what it says the "significant purpose" is, does that mean they can't blindly use it on any american for no reason? Nope.

Yes I have very very limited trust in gov't, who wouldn't? Who gets a letter from the IRS or gets pulled over and says "thank goodness, I know this will turn out perfectly"?

My issue isn't wiretaps, it's whether probable cause is needed for one. Before the Patriot Act it was, after, it wasn't. Probable cause is the key for me because it's what's important in the Constitution and done away with in the Patriot Act.

I never said I was against wiretaps, it's the warrantless, no need for justification wire taps.

One thing I'm certain of, you wouldn't want these things done to you, nor would I, after the fact that this act violates at least 2 amendments is what makes me 100% against it.

 

[Liability]

And you dodged my question. You don't trust government. Check. Got that. But are you okay with government agents being given the right to use wiretaps? I mean, as I said before (when you ducked my question): if they are granted such powers, at all, for their legitimate purposes, those very posers COULD be abused. And they have been. So to prevent the RISK of such abuse, are you opposed to the FBI being given ANY power to engage in wiretaps?

You're not OK with government being given free power to use wiretaps. I agree. But are you consistent? Are you OK with government being given the power to track every dollar you earn, every dollar you invest, every dollar you give to charity, every dollar you spend on your mortgage. Then not only do that track that but can make you prove what they forced you disclosed at their whim. Does government having that virtually unlimited power over your wallet scare you? Or do you just get scared when they might listen to your phone calls?

As to the former, I do maintain that the government should NEVER be given free (by which I presume you mean "unfettered") power to engage in wiretaps. At a minimum, I like the idea that they must apply to a neutral magistrate for PERMISSION to get a wiretap to secure evidence they may want to use against me in a criminal case. No invasion of my privacy for purposes of some criminal prosecution should be granted to the government without at least that much of a preliminary check on it. And then come the subsequent checks.

As to your next set of questions (the ones dealing with tracking my dollars), I see no legitimate reason they should have unfettered power to do that, either, at least for purposes of seeking to secure evidence to use against me in a criminal trial, without getting permission first in a manner akin to a warrant.

Now, that brings us to an intermission. I have tried (carefully) to DISTINGUISH between the PURPOSES for which our government and its agents might be seeking to get such information. If I am Joe Mobster and they want to get evidence to use against me at a criminal trial (somewhere down the road), they damn well better get the Constitutionally required permissions and authorizations first. But, if I am Osama bin Goatfukkah, and the U.S. government is seeking to get information about me and my actions, communications and spending in order to prevent some plot I might be engaged in to commit illegal acts of war against American people or interests, then the "evidence" being sought is not primarily for prosecutorial purposes. It's purpose is to PREVENT terrorism and terrorist acts and slaughter of American civilians, etc.

Should there be different outcomes depending on which interest is being served? You seemingly say "no." I say, "hell yes."

Back to your "questions:"

I am not "scared" that the government might be listening in on my phone calls at all. I rather doubt they are or even THINK that they have any interest in doing so. Joe Mobster might be less secure than I am in that. Fuck him. Deal with it. And if his insecurity is justified, the government had best be able to establish that they didn't mis-use the provisions of the PATRIOT Act or FISA laws and rules to spy on his ass. For otherwise, they may not get to USE the information against him.

But Osama bin Goatfukkah? Fuck him and he can choke on it. If he's been spied upon in this fashion, then either he has been engaged in some plotting to commit another terrorist act (or is an aider of such shit in some way) OR he hasn't been doing any such thing. If he has, the objective of preventing him is good enough to justify the REASONABLE actions taken to get the intel. If he has not, then one of two things will happen. Either he will never learn that he got spied upon OR he will learn of it. IF he doesn't learn of it, nothing comes of the intrusion efforts. But, if he's innocent and he learns that his privacy has been "violated," then perhaps he can sue. In neither case is it a valid conclusion to say "so we must rescind the PATRIOT Act or the FISA provisions" etc.

We NEED the tools. Having such tools is inherently reasonable.

 

[kaz]

As to your next set of questions (the ones dealing with tracking my dollars), I see no legitimate reason they should have unfettered power to do that, either, at least for purposes of seeking to secure evidence to use against me in a criminal trial, without getting permission first in a manner akin to a warrant

So you'd be OK if government wiretapped you as long as they couldn't arrest you without a warrant? That's just bizarre. If you want to try to say that's not what you said, re-read what you said because that's exactly what you said.

And your answer about the IRS, everything you submit, taxes, requests for proof, reporting by your financial services companies are used as proof against you in a tax court and they need no warrant to send you a letter demanding proof of anything they desire. There is no assumption of innocence, you must prove to them every detail you were forced to disclose was true. In theory, though vaguely, you stated some sort of agreement they shouldn't be able to do that. But you had no fire and your statements were not very clear as to an actual position against our intrusive tax system, which is far, far more infringing on our privacy then the Patriot Act which you do oppose enough to rage about it on message boards.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Good point, I hear mature adults use name-calling and specifically the word "tool" all the time lol.

Big deal. Like I said, I granted that one possible exception already. YOU offered a false dichotomy. You said, in effect, "Either you are pro-Constitution or you are Pro-Patriot Act." Do you imagine that makes YOU come across as mature? LOL.

You say what it was designed for, yet nowhere in the law does it say you have to be suspected of terrorism (or anything for that matter) in order to have these powers used against you.

Yes. It does. Why do you post blather when you are actually ignorant of what you are asserting? I mean, just as ONE example:

SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.
Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C.
1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 are each amended by striking ‘‘the purpose’’
and inserting ‘‘a significant purpose’’.

I don't care what it says the "significant purpose" is, does that mean they can't blindly use it on any american for no reason? Nope.

Wrong. It clearly DOES mean that they can't use it for any "blind" purpose. And your question about whether or not they might be permitted to use it on an American is a new point and is also quite beside the point. I AM interested in having our laws prevent an ALIEN terrorist from killing my fellow Americans. But, I am ALSO interested in having our laws prevent an American citizen TERRORIST from killing my fellow citizens. The PATRIOT Act is no less Constitutional if it stops a US citizen from succeeding in committing some terrorist act than it would be if it stops an alien terrorist from from succeeding in committing some terrorist act.

Yes I have very very limited trust in gov't, who wouldn't? Who gets a letter from the IRS or gets pulled over and says "thank goodness, I know this will turn out perfectly"?

Good for you. Irrelevant, actually, to the discussion, but good for you. You know, SOMETIMES when a cop pulls me over for speeding, I actually was speeding. Sometimes, too, when a Federal Agent discovers that some guy is plotting to commit an act of terrorism in the subways of NY City, there really WERE guys plotting to do just that. So, while I'm on board in having a LIMIT to the trust I am willing to place in the people who constitute the government, that does not preclude me from having SOME trust in them and some additional trust in the mechanism we already have to keep them in check (before the fact and even after the fact).

My issue isn't wiretaps, it's whether probable cause is needed for one. Before the Patriot Act it was, after, it wasn't. Probable cause is the key for me because it's what's important in the Constitution and done away with in the Patriot Act.

You persist in ignoring the POINT. The government still needs PROBABLE cause articulated in advance to get a wiretap on a person in all purely criminal investigations. But if a national security operative discovers that some asshole (right here in the continental USA) is likely involved in a plot to commit a violent act of 9/11/2001 style terrorism against any people, then why SHOULD he need to get some "mother may I" permission from some old guy wearing robes in the Judicial Branch of government before he can root out that information? Are none of you guys able to see that TIME may not be on OUR side?*

I never said I was against wiretaps, it's the warrantless, no need for justification wire taps.

Good. And for investigations involving possible (mere) criminality, I agree with you. But for national security matters, where TIME may not be on our side, I am not with you at all. And so far I have seen no sound argument from you -- or from anybody else -- that demonstrates that the Constitution was ever intended to stop the government from acting on such an emergency basis without first getting a judge's imprimatur.

One thing I'm certain of, you wouldn't want these things done to you, nor would I, after the fact that this act violates at least 2 amendments is what makes me 100% against it.

Also irrelevant. I don't want to be spied on even though I have nothing criminal to hide. You may be as innocent as the new driven snow. And so, you, too, might not like being "spied" on. Well, neither would Joe Mobster (with or without probable cause supporting the effort). And neither would Osama bin Goatfukkkah. Thus, we can plainly see that the fact that we "wouldn't like it" is not a rational basis to decide if it can be done or should be permitted.

What DOES constitute a rational basis to prohibit such "searches" is whether or not it is "unreasonable."

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment

* * * *

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

-- FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

It is NOT "unreasonable" to IMMEDIATELY search Osama bin Goatfukkah once the government and its agents discover viable information which makes it apparent that he is (or is probably) engaged in conspiring to commit some violent acts designed to take innocent life. That search can certainly take the form of an electronic intercept or series of electronic intercepts.

There are several well-established exceptions to the general search warrant requirement. Why should THIS scenario not be one of those exceptions?

_________________
* It is a whole 'nother argument, but I might as well send this one out there, now, too. Suppose an agent of the NSA discovers that some assholes in Tonawanda, NY are plotting a new 9/11 style "spectacular" designed to kill lots of civilians somewhere in the lower 48 states. Suppose, also, for grins and shits, that the information he has is fresh and strongly indicates that they are in the very final stages of plotting: the plotted attack could come at ANY time now. This NSA Agent therefore gets his bosses to authorize and immediate wiretap on the plotter's telephones there in upstate New York. ACCORDING to YOU, he should be compelled to go to a mere judge in the Judicial Branch. Why?

And let's get down to it. Suppose the agent DOES go before a judge but the Judge turns out to be a dickhead. Suppose the Judge says "application for wiretap authorization DENIED!" The clock's still ticking and time has already been spent trying to get a JUDICIAL okey-dokey. Would it be responsible of the agent to say, "ok. I tried. Screw it. I won't intercept these telephone calls." or would the agent not have some arguably higher duty to GET the information by doing the wiretaps despite the denial of permission from a guy in the other branch of government?

 

[Liability]

Shit happens.

Along those lines, VIOLATIONS of LAWS, PROCEDURES, RULES, REGULATIONS, Provisions, etc., etc., etc., ALSO happen.

If the government (in the form of law enforcement officers investigating a possible crime, for example) were to violate your rights, there are mechanism in place to seek redress of your legitimate grievance. Can you say "Sue them"? I thought you could.

Can you do that if you are "aggrieved" by some violation of your rights as it pertains to the Patriot Act? You bet:

‘‘§ 2712. Civil actions against the United States
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Any person who is aggrieved by any willful
violation of this chapter or of chapter 119 of this title or of sections
106(a), 305(a), or 405(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may commence an action
in United States District Court against the United States to recover
money damages. In any such action, if a person who is aggrieved
successfully establishes such a violation of this chapter or of chapter
119 of this title or of the above specific provisions of title 50,
the Court may assess as damages—
‘‘(1) actual damages, but not less than $10,000, whichever
amount is greater; and
‘‘(2) litigation costs, reasonably incurred.
* * * *

-- http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the Tea Party scuttled the Patriot Act?

That is so funny on so many levels, I'll be danged if I know where to begin...

 

[BolshevikHunter]

So the Tea Party scuttled the Patriot Act?

That is so funny on so many levels, I'll be danged if I know where to begin...

We know carb, It was most likely your hero Obama and his windy city gangsters who are really behind this Justice because they despise big Government so much and all.

Smoke another one bro!

~BH

 

[Liability]

So the Tea Party scuttled the Patriot Act?

That is so funny on so many levels, I'll be danged if I know where to begin...

Carby you are way too easily amused.

Now for a reality check.

Conservatives are split on the PATRIOT Act. Even those conservatives and libertarians whom I count as friends here at USMB have been known to question the Patriot Act -- or challenge it -- or downright denigrate it. Some of what they object to resonates with lots of you liberals. And although I disagree with their analysis as you and they disagree with my analysis, it cannot be reasonably claimed that their opposition (or yours) is entirely misguided.

As I have said for a long time, there ARE risks associated with the PATRIOT Act. They cannot be cavalierly dismissed. On the other hand, regular criminal-law related wiretap warrants come with similar risks even WITH the reality that they require judicial pre-approval.

Now down to the point.

The TEMPORARY defeat of the re-authorization of some of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act is just temporary. Listen to this:

Political Animal

February 9, 2011

HOUSE GOP COMES UP SHORT ON PATRIOT ACT.... Even the scheduling of the vote came as something of a surprise. We knew the House would take up the reauthorization of the Patriot Act fairly soon, but midday, the Republican leadership announced the vote would come in the late afternoon, presumably to help get it over with before opponents could begin a concerted push against it.

The vote didn't go as GOP leaders had planned.

House Republicans suffered an embarrassing setback Tuesday when they fell seven votes short of extending provisions of the USA Patriot Act, a vote that served as the first small uprising of the party's tea party bloc.

The bill to reauthorize key parts of the counterterrorism surveillance law that expire at the end of the month required a supermajority to pass under special rules reserved for noncontroversial measures.

Right. Because it was on the suspension calendar, it needed a two-thirds majority. The final tally was 277 to 148, with supporters far outnumbering opponents, but that lopsided margin wasn't quite enough -- supporters needed seven more votes to get over two-thirds threshold.

For Patriot Act critics, this was a pleasant surprise, but the satisfaction will very likely be short-lived -- the reauthorization will come back to the floor later this month under regular order, and will need only a simple majority to advance to the Senate.

* * * *

-- The Washington Monthly

A lopsided count in FAVOR of the bill still didn't allow the reathorization to pass THIS TIME AROUND due to a technical requirement now in place temporarily requiring a supermajority.

This aint no thang, therefore.

But, if it makes you happy to enjoy a very brief illusory "win," then I say "congrats," carby!