TEA Party derails PATRIOT Act fasttrack vote

[Dr.Drock]

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?

I agree with you on all the crap about democrats, it's all true and I've long been aware of it. It's a garbage party, I'll never join it, don't worry.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Liability is still not over his Bush-worship.

 

[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...

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

lol, why don't you tell that to all the big government Patriot act loving conservatives around here. Especially the ones who are now born again Tea Party 'liberty' freaks.

 

[Synthaholic]

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...

Where are you getting this crap? Are you just pulling it out of your ass?

 

[kaz]

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?

I agree with you on all the crap about democrats, it's all true and I've long been aware of it. It's a garbage party, I'll never join it, don't worry.

Hmm...OK...Dude...Democrats are worse, that was part of my point, but not the main one. The Republicans drive the war on drugs and unconstitutional wars and they do nothing to help us with the rest. My point was that you're foaming at the mouth over an issue that frankly isn't the biggest violation of your privacy or threat to your freedom and the Democrats while being the largest threat aren't the only one. That doesn't mean you can't discuss any other issue, like this one. However...

Like in the environment, ANWAR is a minor environmental point, but both parties treat it as the environmental Armageddon. Republicans propose government growth that is hundredths of a percent smaller then Democrats and they fight it like small government freedom versus socialism. Republicans propose tiny cuts in Social Security, same thing.

My main point, focus, is...perspective....

You have none, the politicians of both parties are leading you by the ring in your nose. They love you, both of them, because you are willing to go bat shit over small issues and ignore the big ones. You ignore their real crimes, the real threat they present. That...is my point.

 

[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...

Where are you getting this crap? Are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Not one to follow the news? Here's one

http://i.imgur.com/F8K6m.jpg

 

[Liability]

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.

Clearly you DON'T "see" at all. No. I do not want you to interview reporters. (A) that shouldn't be needed. News reports should provide attribution, thus making any kind of interviewing of the reporter unnecessary. (B) you persist in missing the point. So, I'll save you more headaches. (We tend to learn best that which we discover on our own. I had a small glimmer of hope that you might prove to be open-minded enough to go that route. I have lost faith that it is likely. So, to save some time, I'll provide you with an answer.) The information is PUBLIC.

Why is that important? Well, for ONE THING, it means that what's going on is not "Star Chamber" stuff. Now, WHY is the information PUBLIC? Answer: because that is what the PATRIOT Act itself REQUIRES. There are a variety of mechanism built in to the PATRIOT Act which compel record-keeping. Congressional oversight is MANDATED and it is conducted. Even the so-called "secret" courts are not really secret. Obviously SOME information related to national security or the integrity of ongoing investigations cannot be revealed. This is not unfamiliar in our judicial system even with regard to mere criminal investigations, by the way. It is common sense.

Yet DESPITE the need for SOME secrecy, the Congressional Oversight committees and sub-committees GET the information. Sometimes, too, they issue "Congressional reports" revealing so much of the reporting they get (including testimony under oath) as can be publicly disseminated.

And THAT'S how YOU came to be able to "read" the snippets and excerpts a news organization like The New York Times chose to report.

The POINT is that all of your doom and gloom pronouncements about the alleged unconstitutionality of the PATRIOT Act are fanciful. It comes with built in checks and balances and those checks and balances ARE obviously working. Perfectly? No; probably not. But then again, the "system" in place to get a court authorized search warrant in a mere criminal cases does not always work perfectly, either. On that basis, I ask you again: are you in favor of abolishing Search Warrants?

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.

All irrelevant. You simply missed the point.

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.

Your personal disagreement or objection to a law is of no significance to the discussion. We all already "get" the fact that you object to the PATRIOT Act. Similarly, I support it. Repeating that a few more times still doesn't move the discussion forward.

If a law is Constitutional, your disagreement is irrelevant. If it is unConstitutional, my support of the law is irrelevant. The fact that the law comes with a variety of checks and balances is not proof-positive that it is Constitutional, perhaps. But it does tend to support my side of the debate.

You, by contrast, have CLAIMED (for example) that the law allegedly dispenses with the need for probable cause. Your CLAIM is unsupported. It has also been refuted on two levels.

(A) Your claim is not true, in and of itself. "Reasonable" is still the touchstone of 4th Amendment analysis. And there is no indication that the law, as designed, dispenses with the need for a proper demonstration of "reasonableness."

(B) The "warrant" requirement is not the same thing as the requirement for "reasonableness." WHERE a warrant is required (such as is the basic thrust of the 4th amendment -- in criminal investigations), the reasonableness of the proposed search MUST be demonstrated -- before the fact -- to a neutral magistrate or judge. But that does not mean that a wiretap must ALWAYS -- in all circumstances -- get prior judicial branch approval. Criminal law enforcement is not the same as national security and defense.

So, putting your "disagreement" with the law on the back burner, what else do you have?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Is that all you got out of it?

I agree with you on all the crap about democrats, it's all true and I've long been aware of it. It's a garbage party, I'll never join it, don't worry.

Hmm...OK...Dude...Democrats are worse, that was part of my point, but not the main one. The Republicans drive the war on drugs and unconstitutional wars and they do nothing to help us with the rest. My point was that you're foaming at the mouth over an issue that frankly isn't the biggest violation of your privacy or threat to your freedom and the Democrats while being the largest threat aren't the only one. That doesn't mean you can't discuss any other issue, like this one. However...

Like in the environment, ANWAR is a minor environmental point, but both parties treat it as the environmental Armageddon. Republicans propose government growth that is hundredths of a percent smaller then Democrats and they fight it like small government freedom versus socialism. Republicans propose tiny cuts in Social Security, same thing.

My main point, focus, is...perspective....

You have none, the politicians of both parties are leading you by the ring in your nose. They love you, both of them, because you are willing to go bat shit over small issues and ignore the big ones. You ignore their real crimes, the real threat they present. That...is my point.

I see, so since I started this one thread on this one subject you assume I ignore all the others?

I hate both parties, you're directing your rant at the wrong person. Both parties are trash, our government is trash, I can't think of any program our government has that isn't.

What else do you want to hear?

 

[kaz]

I agree with you on all the crap about democrats, it's all true and I've long been aware of it. It's a garbage party, I'll never join it, don't worry.

Hmm...OK...Dude...Democrats are worse, that was part of my point, but not the main one. The Republicans drive the war on drugs and unconstitutional wars and they do nothing to help us with the rest. My point was that you're foaming at the mouth over an issue that frankly isn't the biggest violation of your privacy or threat to your freedom and the Democrats while being the largest threat aren't the only one. That doesn't mean you can't discuss any other issue, like this one. However...

Like in the environment, ANWAR is a minor environmental point, but both parties treat it as the environmental Armageddon. Republicans propose government growth that is hundredths of a percent smaller then Democrats and they fight it like small government freedom versus socialism. Republicans propose tiny cuts in Social Security, same thing.

My main point, focus, is...perspective....

You have none, the politicians of both parties are leading you by the ring in your nose. They love you, both of them, because you are willing to go bat shit over small issues and ignore the big ones. You ignore their real crimes, the real threat they present. That...is my point.

I see, so since I started this one thread on this one subject you assume I ignore all the others?

I hate both parties, you're directing your rant at the wrong person. Both parties are trash, our government is trash, I can't think of any program our government has that isn't.

What else do you want to hear?

So you think perspective means you focus only on one thing and "ignore" everything else? Hmm...

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

Clearly you DON'T "see" at all. No. I do not want you to interview reporters. (A) that shouldn't be needed. News reports should provide attribution, thus making any kind of interviewing of the reporter unnecessary. (B) you persist in missing the point. So, I'll save you more headaches. (We tend to learn best that which we discover on our own. I had a small glimmer of hope that you might prove to be open-minded enough to go that route. I have lost faith that it is likely. So, to save some time, I'll provide you with an answer.) The information is PUBLIC.

Why is that important? Well, for ONE THING, it means that what's going on is not "Star Chamber" stuff. Now, WHY is the information PUBLIC? Answer: because that is what the PATRIOT Act itself REQUIRES. There are a variety of mechanism built in to the PATRIOT Act which compel record-keeping. Congressional oversight is MANDATED and it is conducted. Even the so-called "secret" courts are not really secret. Obviously SOME information related to national security or the integrity of ongoing investigations cannot be revealed. This is not unfamiliar in our judicial system even with regard to mere criminal investigations, by the way. It is common sense.

Yet DESPITE the need for SOME secrecy, the Congressional Oversight committees and sub-committees GET the information. Sometimes, too, they issue "Congressional reports" revealing so much of the reporting they get (including testimony under oath) as can be publicly disseminated.

And THAT'S how YOU came to be able to "read" the snippets and excerpts a news organization like The New York Times chose to report.

The POINT is that all of your doom and gloom pronouncements about the alleged unconstitutionality of the PATRIOT Act are fanciful. It comes with built in checks and balances and those checks and balances ARE obviously working. Perfectly? No; probably not. But then again, the "system" in place to get a court authorized search warrant in a mere criminal cases does not always work perfectly, either. On that basis, I ask you again: are you in favor of abolishing Search Warrants?

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.

All irrelevant. You simply missed the point.

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.

Your personal disagreement or objection to a law is of no significance to the discussion. We all already "get" the fact that you object to the PATRIOT Act. Similarly, I support it. Repeating that a few more times still doesn't move the discussion forward.

If a law is Constitutional, your disagreement is irrelevant. If it is unConstitutional, my support of the law is irrelevant. The fact that the law comes with a variety of checks and balances is not proof-positive that it is Constitutional, perhaps. But it does tend to support my side of the debate.

You, by contrast, have CLAIMED (for example) that the law allegedly dispenses with the need for probable cause. Your CLAIM is unsupported. It has also been refuted on two levels.

(A) Your claim is not true, in and of itself. "Reasonable" is still the touchstone of 4th Amendment analysis. And there is no indication that the law, as designed, dispenses with the need for a proper demonstration of "reasonableness."

(B) The "warrant" requirement is not the same thing as the requirement for "reasonableness." WHERE a warrant is required (such as is the basic thrust of the 4th amendment -- in criminal investigations), the reasonableness of the proposed search MUST be demonstrated -- before the fact -- to a neutral magistrate or judge. But that does not mean that a wiretap must ALWAYS -- in all circumstances -- get prior judicial branch approval. Criminal law enforcement is not the same as national security and defense.

So, putting your "disagreement" with the law on the back burner, what else do you have?

A.) My claim is true, government doesn't need probable cause. They just need to ask a judge, if he says go for it than they can. Not only do they not need probable cause they don't even need evidence. They go to a judge and say they suspect something "terroristy" could be going on and if he approves it than they're good. No evidence, no probable cause necessary.

B.) I've provided plenty of instances in which this law was used against people when the situation had nothing to do with terrorism. As the stipulations (or lack there of) involved in the Patriot Act continue to be used the more these issues will come up.

 

[Synthaholic]

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."

In fact, Liberals have been against the Patriot Act since it's beginning. The fake conservatives are the ones who have championed it, calling it necessary for our protection.

I'll take the Constitution. 'Protection' comes with too many assaults on our freedom.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Hmm...OK...Dude...Democrats are worse, that was part of my point, but not the main one. The Republicans drive the war on drugs and unconstitutional wars and they do nothing to help us with the rest. My point was that you're foaming at the mouth over an issue that frankly isn't the biggest violation of your privacy or threat to your freedom and the Democrats while being the largest threat aren't the only one. That doesn't mean you can't discuss any other issue, like this one. However...

Like in the environment, ANWAR is a minor environmental point, but both parties treat it as the environmental Armageddon. Republicans propose government growth that is hundredths of a percent smaller then Democrats and they fight it like small government freedom versus socialism. Republicans propose tiny cuts in Social Security, same thing.

My main point, focus, is...perspective....

You have none, the politicians of both parties are leading you by the ring in your nose. They love you, both of them, because you are willing to go bat shit over small issues and ignore the big ones. You ignore their real crimes, the real threat they present. That...is my point.

I see, so since I started this one thread on this one subject you assume I ignore all the others?

I hate both parties, you're directing your rant at the wrong person. Both parties are trash, our government is trash, I can't think of any program our government has that isn't.

What else do you want to hear?

So you think perspective means you focus only on one thing and "ignore" everything else? Hmm...

What perspective are you trying to show me? You provide instances of both parties doing something stupid/unconstitutional and go on about other terrible things they do. These are things I already know and agree with you on.

What else do you want to hear? Tell me, I'm lost.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

That's total bullshit. It's a Republican legislation, put forth by a Republican president. Liberals have been THE biggest critics of the Patriot Act.

Please show conservative opposition to the Patriot Act back when it was being introduced and rammed down our throats. Use your Google machine!

 

[Synthaholic]

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...

Where are you getting this crap? Are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Not one to follow the news? Here's one

http://i.imgur.com/F8K6m.jpg

How does that screen grab demonstrate that Liberals have no problems with TSA agents groping passengers?

Here it is again:

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Which war? Afghanistan, or the endless, so-called "War On Terror"®?

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

That's total bullshit. It's a Republican legislation, put forth by a Republican president. Liberals have been THE biggest critics of the Patriot Act.

Please show conservative opposition to the Patriot Act back when it was being introduced and rammed down our throats. Use your Google machine!

I don't live in the fantasy world of Republican=Conservative and Democrat=Liberal.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

It's not national security, it's false security. It's the sense of security . . . the feeling of security where none exists.

As long as people can walk across the Canadian and Mexican borders and shipping cargo is not secure, this is all just a very expensive, budget-busting illusion of security.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

Is it 'Attack The Messenger' time already?!?

It seems to come earlier and earlier in Wingnut World.

 

[kaz]

Where are you getting this crap? Are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Not one to follow the news? Here's one

http://i.imgur.com/F8K6m.jpg

How does that screen grab demonstrate that Liberals have no problems with TSA agents groping passengers?

Here it is again:

[/Q
The photo doesn't. The left defending the policy of a Liberal president does. Can you show me anyone on the Left attacking the policy? If you're paying any attention to the news at all you know lots of liberals are defending it as necessary.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

It's not national security, it's false security. It's the sense of security . . . the feeling of security where none exists.

As long as people can walk across the Canadian and Mexican borders and shipping cargo is not secure, this is all just a very expensive, budget-busting illusion of security.

Perfectly said