I told you so...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><a href=http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/09/security.letters/index.html><b>Audit: FBI's Patriot Act snooping broke rules</b></a></center>

History has shown us, repeatedly, that when the government gives itself powers exceeding those enumerated by law, custom or constitution, those powers WILL be abused. And that is the case here.

And should Congress repeal, or at least limit the most offensive elements of, the PATRIOT Act, it will make it that much easier for future lawmakers to pass similar or even more draconian measures.

Hate to say it, but I told you so.

 

[Gunny]

<center><a href=http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/09/security.letters/index.html><b>Audit: FBI's Patriot Act snooping broke rules</b></a></center>

History has shown us, repeatedly, that when the government gives itself powers exceeding those enumerated by law, custom or constitution, those powers WILL be abused. And that is the case here.

And should Congress repeal, or at least limit the most offensive elements of, the PATRIOT Act, it will make it that much easier for future lawmakers to pass similar or even more draconian measures.

Hate to say it, but I told you so.

What did you tell? That some of those in positions of power will abuse it? Hardly a novel idea on your part.

 

[jasendorf]

Just more proof that the neocons who stole Americans' freedoms with the "Patriot" Act are perhaps the most real danger to our personal liberties in our day and age.

 

[dilloduck]

Just more proof that the neocons who stole Americans' freedoms with the "Patriot" Act are perhaps the most real danger to our personal liberties in our day and age.

Help Help !

 

[Gunny]

Just more proof that the neocons who stole Americans' freedoms with the "Patriot" Act are perhaps the most real danger to our personal liberties in our day and age.

Blind fools like you who can't even recognize a threat and unwilling to do anything to defend your liberties are the biggest threat to them. You can't violate liberties that cease to exist, Einstein.

 

[maineman]

Blind fools like you who can't even recognize a threat and unwilling to do anything to defend your liberties are the biggest threat to them. You can't violate liberties that cease to exist, Einstein.

I am fully supportive of actions taken to address real threats to America. Islamic extremism is just such a threat - and that was made crystal clear to everyone on 9/11/01. It is my assertion that the war in Iraq is counterproductive to our efforts to deal with the threat of Islamic extremism. If this president had kept his eye on the ball, I would still be as supportive of him as I was in the weeks and months after 9/11.

I am in complete agreement that we are at war against Islamic extremism. I disagree with the propostion that Iraq was a wisely chosen offensive in that war. I think it hurts our broader efforts in the greater war we ought to be fighting.

 

[Gunny]

I am fully supportive of actions taken to address real threats to America. Islamic extremism is just such a threat - and that was made crystal clear to everyone on 9/11/01. It is my assertion that the war in Iraq is counterproductive to our efforts to deal with the threat of Islamic extremism. If this president had kept his eye on the ball, I would still be as supportive of him as I was in the weeks and months after 9/11.

I am in complete agreement that we are at war against Islamic extremism. I disagree with the propostion that Iraq was a wisely chosen offensive in that war. I think it hurts our broader efforts in the greater war we ought to be fighting.

As stated, I agree. Although I STILL believe there was reason to remove Saddam from power, I think invading Iraq when we did distracted focus from the more serious threat of Islamic extremism.

 

[maineman]

As stated, I agree. Although I STILL believe there was reason to remove Saddam from power, I think invading Iraq when we did distracted focus from the more serious threat of Islamic extremism.

distracted the focus, wasted years of time, cost 26K dead and wounded, and flushed a trillion dollars that could have been used in an infinite number of more productive endeavors that starting a civil war in Iraq that threatens to engulf the region.

There may have been reasons to remove Saddam, but there were many more good reasons not to. His ability to keep islamic extremists out, his ability to keep sunnis and shiites from slaughering one another, and his ability to keep Iranian hegemony somewhat in check are all things that we would be much better off today having HIM be successful doing rather than ourselves tying up 150K troops being relatively unsuccessful doing.

 

[jasendorf]

Blind fools like you who can't even recognize a threat and unwilling to do anything to defend your liberties are the biggest threat to them. You can't violate liberties that cease to exist, Einstein.

Typical neocon reactionary response... "we must give up our liberties before someone takes them from us!"

You know, I'm too goddamn close to my twenty-year letter to have anyone, particularly some loudmouth on a message board, accuse me of being "unwilling to do anything to defend your liberties." I recognize threats all around me... and I see the systematic degradation of our rights by the neocon "give them away before someone takes them" group as pretty friggin' big.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Blind fools like you who can't even recognize a threat and unwilling to do anything to defend your liberties are the biggest threat to them. You can't violate liberties that cease to exist, Einstein.

Those liberties cease to exist when the government passes laws to undermine them.

And I did say, repeatedly and in numerous ways, that the powers passed under the guise of the PATRIOT Act would be abused.

 

[dilloduck]

Help==the FBI is on my roof !

 

[Gunny]

distracted the focus, wasted years of time, cost 26K dead and wounded, and flushed a trillion dollars that could have been used in an infinite number of more productive endeavors that starting a civil war in Iraq that threatens to engulf the region.

There may have been reasons to remove Saddam, but there were many more good reasons not to. His ability to keep islamic extremists out, his ability to keep sunnis and shiites from slaughering one another, and his ability to keep Iranian hegemony somewhat in check are all things that we would be much better off today having HIM be successful doing rather than ourselves tying up 150K troops being relatively unsuccessful doing.

Which of course would have been the deciding factors in my decision to not invade.

Don't confuse the fact that I support a win because we ARE there now with my ever having thought invading Iraq was a wise decision. The fact is, Saddam's ruthless control kept a thumb on sectarian violence. We can't because we can't employ the same tactics he did.

 

[Gunny]

Typical neocon reactionary response... "we must give up our liberties before someone takes them from us!"

You know, I'm too goddamn close to my twenty-year letter to have anyone, particularly some loudmouth on a message board, accuse me of being "unwilling to do anything to defend your liberties." I recognize threats all around me... and I see the systematic degradation of our rights by the neocon "give them away before someone takes them" group as pretty friggin' big.

I'm not a neocon, Einstein. And I ALREADY HAVE my 20 years letter, boot. So you can take your loudmouth on a message board bullshit and shove it where the sun don't shine.

If you think your individual rights supercede a threat to the very existence of those individual rights, then no, you DON'T recognize jack shit.

 

[Gunny]

Those liberties cease to exist when the government passes laws to undermine them.

And I did say, repeatedly and in numerous ways, that the powers passed under the guise of the PATRIOT Act would be abused.

Those liberties cease to exist if they are stolen just as effectively as if they are undermined. You're so busy looking for the enemy within, you're ignoring the enemy from without.

Well, I suppose I could have come to the same conclusion if I was willing to convict before the fact. Since it involves government agencies and bureaucracy, I'd say you made a pretty safe bet.

 

[Annie]

Those liberties cease to exist if they are stolen just as effectively as if they are undermined. You're so busy looking for the enemy within, you're ignoring the enemy from without.

Well, I suppose I could have come to the same conclusion if I was willing to convict before the fact. Since it involves government agencies and bureaucracy, I'd say you made a pretty safe bet.

I think I may steal that line!

 

[Avatar4321]

History has shown us, repeatedly, that when the government gives itself powers exceeding those enumerated by law, custom or constitution, those powers WILL be abused.

Welcome to the conservative movement. That is exactly the point we've been trying to get across for the last 50 years.

This is exactly why we are against big government. This is exactly why we want moral people involved in government. It's why character matters.

With that said, it's absolutely no surprise that professional government officials would try to take more authority. Of course, it's one thing to say government is trying to exceed it's given authority and a completely other thing to say that somehow people's rights have been violated.

Bush was "relieved to learn the inspector general found no instances of intentional misconduct," Perino said, but expressed "significant concern over the seriousness of the issues

So there is no intentional midconduct. Neglect to mention that didn't you? You act as though the administration is intentionally abusing the law.

The inspector general's review identified "26 possible intelligence violations" between 2003 and 2005, 19 of which the FBI reported to the president's Intelligence Oversight Board, the audit said.

Of the 26, "22 were the result of FBI errors, while four were caused by mistakes made by recipients'' of the letters, it said.

Oh wow you forgot to mention that these are only possible violations. You also neglected to mention that not all of the violations were because of the FBI, but rather because those responding to the letters gave the FBI the incorrect information.

Mueller said Friday the FBI stopped using exigent letters in May 2006 after the practice was revealed.

Wait you mean they've already fixed the problem when they learned about it. That is very important information you neglected to mention. I wonder why.

Of course the ACLU calls for repeal of the "Dangerous parts" of the Patriot act. never mind the fact that they don't really mention what parts of it may be dangerous.

I guess it's dangerous that the government might have more effective intelligence to fight terrorism with. The only people that would be protected by the repealing the law are those who want to destroy us.

 

[Tarantulas]

A careful reading of this article reveals that this is a paperwork problem. Someone forgot to put the date on a form, or checked the wrong box, or had the wrong person sign the form. And what was the result?

The FBI director said no one has suffered harm from the errors made in use of the letters.

That's right, no one was hurt. So predictions of abuse of USA PATRIOT are still wrong, and they have been wrong ever since lefties started complaining about it.

One of the few powers given to the US government in our Constitution is to protect US citizens from harm. USA PATRIOT is mostly a law enforcement tool that removes unreasonable barriers that were preventing the federal government from protecting my tender butt from terrorist bullets and bombs. I expect and require my government to continue to use USA PATRIOT to protect me and my family and friends, to resist the ACLU's attempt to weaken it, and to add to it where necessary to protect us further. Send the FBI employees to training to make sure they fill out the forms correctly in the future, and call this problem solved.

And by all means we should continue to monitor our government to make sure it doesn't engage in misconduct with USA PATRIOT. So far, including this article, I haven't seen any.

 

[Gunny]

A careful reading of this article reveals that this is a paperwork problem. Someone forgot to put the date on a form, or checked the wrong box, or had the wrong person sign the form. And what was the result?


That's right, no one was hurt. So predictions of abuse of USA PATRIOT are still wrong, and they have been wrong ever since lefties started complaining about it.

One of the few powers given to the US government in our Constitution is to protect US citizens from harm. USA PATRIOT is mostly a law enforcement tool that removes unreasonable barriers that were preventing the federal government from protecting my tender butt from terrorist bullets and bombs. I expect and require my government to continue to use USA PATRIOT to protect me and my family and friends, to resist the ACLU's attempt to weaken it, and to add to it where necessary to protect us further. Send the FBI employees to training to make sure they fill out the forms correctly in the future, and call this problem solved.

And by all means we should continue to monitor our government to make sure it doesn't engage in misconduct with USA PATRIOT. So far, including this article, I haven't seen any.

I can agree with you to a point. Since it has already been established that paperwork is a biggie with the left, IMO, it would behoove government agencies to cover their asses. Some bureaucrats are being paid damned-good tax dollars to ensure that paperwork is correct and there is no excuse for their negligence.

 

[Annie]

I think I may steal that line!

Yeah, royalties will be made.