TEA Party derails PATRIOT Act fasttrack vote

[BenNatuf]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

There is nothing remotely unconstitutional about it.

 

[BenNatuf]

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...

It most definately is tea party politics that helped to defeat it inh this vote. Sad though, because the one thing nobody should be playing politics with is national security. The PA is a good tool and it should be kept in force so long as this war goes on.

 

[BenNatuf]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

I don't find it to be THE MOST unconstitutional piece of legislation, but it is a GREAT thing that this was blocked, even temporarily.

Battle lines were drawn today.

US Constitution vs. The Patriot Act

This website breaks it down pretty well, not saying you're wrong there may be worse, but the Patriot Act essentially shreds the 1st and 6th amendments.

The claim Confuses a criminal investigation with gathering intelligence. Gathering intelligence is an inherrant power of the CinC as the CinC. And the canard of detention is way overplayed. Criminals have a right to habeus corpus enemies do not. being an enemy is not illegal, it is a status (unless it involves war crimes or treason), enemies are detained, not tried.

 

[BenNatuf]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

Its about time too. I've been wanting this thing to go away since the day after it was introduced.

"Patriot" act meh.

If it wasn't for those tea party republicans this thing would have passed again.

It takes a lot of faith in government bureacrats to think they won't abuse the powers given to them in the Patriot Act.

The onlky way the government can "abuse" authority is to use authority it does not have, and for that we have courts. Using the power it does have is just using it. Should they use it? Thats another question, but if they have it, using it by definition is not an "abuse".

 

[BenNatuf]

Everyone's rights were violated when it got passed, your rights given in the 1st and 6th amendments have been stripped.
If you're worried about what particular bureacrats will do with it than you shouldn't want it on the books.

Please explain

The link in post #5 explains it perfectly by lining up the documents side by side, you can't support both, it's one or the other. Make your choice.

That strawman has already been shown to have no brain

 

[BenNatuf]

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,

That is false, through the TSP the government data mines calls made to places or people who they have some good reason to believe are involved in terrorism, if a computer program identifies certain words then a live intelligence agent listens in (which they could do with or without the patriot act, as gathering intelligence is not gathering evedence), then IF there is reason to continue survailance they apply to a FISA court for a warrant, if not they destroy all record of the call.

takes away your and my right to a speedy trial,

Enemies in war have no right to trial, in fact, unless it's for war crimes or crimes committed while in captivity the GC's FORBID trying them. For good reason, the reason being that having the status of "enemy" is not and cannot be deemed "illegal"

monitoring your church without probable cause is now ok,

Where do you get this tripe? It most certainly is NOT. In order to continue monitoring a subject the government MUST obtain a FISA warrant

may monitor people's conversations with lawyers or flat out deny a person's right to an attorney,

Again a canard almost not worth correcting. Enemies have no right to a lawyer in the first place. Criminals as always do, and their privledge cannot be violated.

someone can be jailed without being charged and unable to question witnesses against him/her.

witnesses are what the government brings in to try someone for a crime, enemies are NOT jailed, they are detained, just as they ALWAYS have been.

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.

since none of your other contentions have merit this one also does not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I find this worrisome, Quantum Windbag. I am not sure why the provisions they voted down were not approved. If it is some free-floating "anti-Big Government" attitude, I will feel less safe if they proceed to strip away all the extraordinary powers of the Patriot Act.

But then you knew I wouldn't approve, didn't you?

This happens every single time.

There are provisions of the PATRIOT Act that everyone claims to hate, yet they never really debate them. They keep putting off the debate, and then passing the whole bill off as an emergency measure. How many emergencies last 10 years?

 

[Madeline]

I find this worrisome, Quantum Windbag. I am not sure why the provisions they voted down were not approved. If it is some free-floating "anti-Big Government" attitude, I will feel less safe if they proceed to strip away all the extraordinary powers of the Patriot Act.

But then you knew I wouldn't approve, didn't you?

This happens every single time.

There are provisions of the PATRIOT Act that everyone claims to hate, yet they never really debate them. They keep putting off the debate, and then passing the whole bill off as an emergency measure. How many emergencies last 10 years?

I can live with dismantling the DHS, Quantum Windbag. It's the investigative tools the Act contains that I am worried about losing. Are you gonna say, with all seriousness, no such tool has aided in the prevention of any tragedy on US soil?

I am MORE afraid of terrorists than I am of governmental abuse.

 

[Madeline]

I find this worrisome, Quantum Windbag. I am not sure why the provisions they voted down were not approved. If it is some free-floating "anti-Big Government" attitude, I will feel less safe if they proceed to strip away all the extraordinary powers of the Patriot Act.

But then you knew I wouldn't approve, didn't you?

I feel safer with them gone, the DHS dissolved, and our troops home from overseas bases in nations that haven't seen war in decades, personally. It's the libertarian leaning side of me.

I would like to see our troops come home too, uptownlivin.

 

[Article 15]

I find this worrisome, Quantum Windbag. I am not sure why the provisions they voted down were not approved. If it is some free-floating "anti-Big Government" attitude, I will feel less safe if they proceed to strip away all the extraordinary powers of the Patriot Act.

But then you knew I wouldn't approve, didn't you?

This happens every single time.

There are provisions of the PATRIOT Act that everyone claims to hate, yet they never really debate them. They keep putting off the debate, and then passing the whole bill off as an emergency measure. How many emergencies last 10 years?

I can live with dismantling the DHS, Quantum Windbag. It's the investigative tools the Act contains that I am worried about losing. Are you gonna say, with all seriousness, no such tool has aided in the prevention of any tragedy on US soil?

I am MORE afraid of terrorists than I am of governmental abuse.

You are more likely to be killed by a cop than you are a terrorist.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Abusing the Patriot Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09iht-fbi.4863162.html

Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

(this was in 2007, use of the patriot act's new rules have increased wildly since then)

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

(like i said, being a terrorist or not isn't important)

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.

(thank god I'm being taxed in order to pay for close monitoring of libraries)

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]

FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16][17][18]

The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request. [19][20]

(to hell with freedom of speech)

 

[Liability]

Abusing the Patriot Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09iht-fbi.4863162.html

Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

(this was in 2007, use of the patriot act's new rules have increased wildly since then)

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

(like i said, being a terrorist or not isn't important)

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.

(thank god I'm being taxed in order to pay for close monitoring of libraries)

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]

FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16][17][18]

The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request. [19][20]

(to hell with freedom of speech)

What is or is not related to the investigation of terrorist threats is not always easily identified.

In any event, figure something out for yourself. Ok. I'll give you a little assist, a hint as it were:

HOW did you come to know of that array of alleged abuses?

 

[kaz]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

I am like you in that I oppose it. But the "most unconstitutional" and you'd become a democrat just shows a pathetic lack of perspective. Just a few things that blow it away in both unconstitutionality of the Patriot act and it's threat to our liberty include the IRS (collection tactics and requirements), the war on drugs (no constitutional authority), social security/medicare (no constitutional authority), Obamacare (no constitutional authority), Congress regulating and restricting political speech (so called campaign reform), regulation and banning guns, and...the unconstitutional wars in the Middle East itself (undeclared). And to declare even in jest your solution would be to join the Democrats

This is my point on how clueless you are. You are a sheep. Both parties prefer to focus on what is clearly not the largest transgression by government against the rights of the American people, and you buy it hook line and sinker. And again, to declare you would go with the largest most malignant attackers of our rights is just laughable. Good luck with that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Abusing the Patriot Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09iht-fbi.4863162.html

Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

(this was in 2007, use of the patriot act's new rules have increased wildly since then)

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

(like i said, being a terrorist or not isn't important)

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.

(thank god I'm being taxed in order to pay for close monitoring of libraries)

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]

FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16][17][18]

The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request. [19][20]

(to hell with freedom of speech)

What is or is not related to the investigation of terrorist threats is not always easily identified.

In any event, figure something out for yourself. Ok. I'll give you a little assist, a hint as it were:

HOW did you come to know of that array of alleged abuses?

I'm providing links to back my opinion, standard message board procedure.

You understand it is humanly possible for someone to have an opinion other than yours that they thought of themselves right? It'd be a lot easier to support the Patriot Act from the trumpeting of media, both parties have loved it for the most part, and the media loves the 2 party system arrangement.

 

[Dr.Drock]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

I am like you in that I oppose it. But the "most unconstitutional" and you'd become a democrat just shows a pathetic lack of perspective. Just a few things that blow it away in both unconstitutionality of the Patriot act and it's threat to our liberty include the IRS (collection tactics and requirements), the war on drugs (no constitutional authority), social security/medicare (no constitutional authority), Obamacare (no constitutional authority), Congress regulating and restricting political speech (so called campaign reform), regulation and banning guns, and...the unconstitutional wars in the Middle East itself (undeclared). And to declare even in jest your solution would be to join the Democrats

This is my point on how clueless you are. You are a sheep. Both parties prefer to focus on what is clearly not the largest transgression by government against the rights of the American people, and you buy it hook line and sinker. And again, to declare you would go with the largest most malignant attackers of our rights is just laughable. Good luck with that.

I may have been exaggerating, I was just stunned that even for a procedural reason it got voted down. I'm not going to become a democrat, never you worry.

 

[signelect]

There is one thing we can take to the bank, if it can be abused by the party in power, notice I did not same D or R, it will be. I have been voting since Goldwater and continue to be disappointed that we little people are never listened to. We are going to be hit again you can bet on it. I am not sure eves dropping on anybody you deem a terrorist will prevent it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

There is one thing we can take to the bank, if it can be abused by the party in power, notice I did not same D or R, it will be. I have been voting since Goldwater and continue to be disappointed that we little people are never listened to. We are going to be hit again you can bet on it. I am not sure eves dropping on anybody you deem a terrorist will prevent it.

That's kind of the wording people are using that isn't necessary, you don't have to be a terrorist or even suspected of terrorism.

That's why I cut and pasted the instances in which the Patriot Act was used by government when terrorism wasn't even a part of the investigation.

You think in 30 years it'll be crazy for government to use parts of the Patriot Act against the people for small silly things like taxes and small violations? Not me, I don't have that kind of faith in government like the defenders do.

 

[Liability]

Abusing the Patriot Act

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09iht-fbi.4863162.html

Controversial invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

(this was in 2007, use of the patriot act's new rules have increased wildly since then)

On June 15, 2007, following an internal audit finding that FBI agents abused the USA PATRIOT Act power more than 1000 times, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates ordered the agency to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency's national security letters program.[2]

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

(like i said, being a terrorist or not isn't important)

In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts. [12]

Public libraries have been asked to turn over their records for specific terminals. A few have filed suit, because the National Security Letters that they were presented with were very sweeping, demanding information not just on the individual under investigation, but on everyone who had used specific terminals at the libraries during given time windows. Since many of the users in one case were minor children, one library felt that it had an obligation to notify the parents. The FBI has disagreed and the case is now working its way through the court system.

(thank god I'm being taxed in order to pay for close monitoring of libraries)

In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act—a law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faced 20 years in jail before the charges were dropped. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]

FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16][17][18]

The FBI used the USA PATRIOT Act 13 times to request journalists that had interviewed computer intruder Adrian Lamo to preserve their notes and other information while they petitioned the Department of Justice for a subpoena to force the reporters to hand over the information. Journalists involved included newspaper writers, wire service reporters, and MSNBC writers. The Department of Justice did not authorize the subpoena requests because the language of the subpoena violated the Department's guidelines for a subpoena request, rather than recognition of any reporter/source privilege. The requests to preserve information were dropped. In some cases, the FBI apologized for the language of the request. [19][20]

(to hell with freedom of speech)

What is or is not related to the investigation of terrorist threats is not always easily identified.

In any event, figure something out for yourself. Ok. I'll give you a little assist, a hint as it were:

HOW did you come to know of that array of alleged abuses?

I'm providing links to back my opinion, standard message board procedure.

You understand it is humanly possible for someone to have an opinion other than yours that they thought of themselves right? It'd be a lot easier to support the Patriot Act from the trumpeting of media, both parties have loved it for the most part, and the media loves the 2 party system arrangement.

Once again, you miss the point. So, dig deeper. Here we go.

The "links" you provided came by THE INFORMATION REPORTED IN THE LINKS from somewhere.

How did THEY come by that information?

Do you know? Can you figure this out on your own? It's not difficult. But if you need an assist, I shall be more than happy to point you in the right direction.

Another free hint. It was not an anonymous "source."

You understand (or perhaps you really don't) that I don't give a crap that you came to a different conclusion. I'm not challenging your right to question the wisdom and legitimacy of the USA PATRIOT Act. Have a blast. I AM challenging you to support what you're arguing. And to the extent that you have provided information to the effect that it has been used in some instances in a manner that you find alarming, that's a good start. I'm not criticizing that, either. What I AM doing is asking you some ADDITIONAL questions.

This is going somewhere.

So let's recap:

YOU: object to the USA PATRIOT Act.
Me: support it.

YOU: it can be abused.
Me: true, but so can wiretaps coming via Court authorization.

YOU: provided factual support for your contention that it can be abused.
Me: questioned whether the alleged abuses ARE actually abuses. AND, I challenge you to dig. WHERE did the information that YOU rely on and cite and link to come from? No need to get defensive. It's a simple question. From WHERE (what sources) did your pals at The New York Times get their alleged Stats, figures and factual-type claims?

 

[kaz]

in my lifetime.

I'm not holding my breath about it staying out of government but if the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in US history stays off the books I'll sign up to become a democrat this year.

I am like you in that I oppose it. But the "most unconstitutional" and you'd become a democrat just shows a pathetic lack of perspective. Just a few things that blow it away in both unconstitutionality of the Patriot act and it's threat to our liberty include the IRS (collection tactics and requirements), the war on drugs (no constitutional authority), social security/medicare (no constitutional authority), Obamacare (no constitutional authority), Congress regulating and restricting political speech (so called campaign reform), regulation and banning guns, and...the unconstitutional wars in the Middle East itself (undeclared). And to declare even in jest your solution would be to join the Democrats

This is my point on how clueless you are. You are a sheep. Both parties prefer to focus on what is clearly not the largest transgression by government against the rights of the American people, and you buy it hook line and sinker. And again, to declare you would go with the largest most malignant attackers of our rights is just laughable. Good luck with that.

I may have been exaggerating, I was just stunned that even for a procedural reason it got voted down. I'm not going to become a democrat, never you worry.

Is that all you got out of it?

 

[Dr.Drock]

What is or is not related to the investigation of terrorist threats is not always easily identified.

In any event, figure something out for yourself. Ok. I'll give you a little assist, a hint as it were:

HOW did you come to know of that array of alleged abuses?

I'm providing links to back my opinion, standard message board procedure.

You understand it is humanly possible for someone to have an opinion other than yours that they thought of themselves right? It'd be a lot easier to support the Patriot Act from the trumpeting of media, both parties have loved it for the most part, and the media loves the 2 party system arrangement.

Once again, you miss the point. So, dig deeper. Here we go.

The "links" you provided came by THE INFORMATION REPORTED IN THE LINKS from somewhere.

How did THEY come by that information?

Do you know? Can you figure this out on your own? It's not difficult. But if you need an assist, I shall be more than happy to point you in the right direction.

Another free hint. It was not an anonymous "source."

You understand (or perhaps you really don't) that I don't give a crap that you came to a different conclusion. I'm not challenging your right to question the wisdom and legitimacy of the USA PATRIOT Act. Have a blast. I AM challenging you to support what you're arguing. And to the extent that you have provided information to the effect that it has been used in some instances in a manner that you find alarming, that's a good start. I'm not criticizing that, either. What I AM doing is asking you some ADDITIONAL questions.

This is going somewhere.

So let's recap:

YOU: object to the USA PATRIOT Act.
Me: support it.

YOU: it can be abused.
Me: true, but so can wiretaps coming via Court authorization.

YOU: provided factual support for your contention that it can be abused.
Me: questioned whether the alleged abuses ARE actually abuses. AND, I challenge you to dig. WHERE did the information that YOU rely on and cite and link to come from? No need to get defensive. It's a simple question. From WHERE (what sources) did your pals at The New York Times get their alleged Stats, figures and factual-type claims?

I see, so you want me to interview writers at a newspaper.

You can click on the link to the newspaper, if you find it invalid so be it. I'm not going to convince you to not have unquestioned faith in government, that conclusion should've already been brought about by the world you live in. Certainly the words I put on your computer screen won't change it.

I'm not going to give a biography on the writer of the New York Times article, a breakdown on the people he interviewed or provide court documents on the cases he's referencing. If this is that important to you than by all means have at it.

These judges you're referencing only enforce he law, the law is what I have a problem with. So the judges you claim to be the "checks and balances" are just enforcing a law I don't agree with.