You Were Warned...Pat. Act

[IlarMeilyr]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not now and never was the problem.

Lack of proper oversight (think "checks and balances") remains the problem.

If you think we'd have been better off without the NSA Surveillance program and The Patriot Act even if that resulted in our inability to have intercepted the plot to take out the NYC Subsays, then I think you have another think coming.

The Patriot Act did away with the 4th amendment.

You don't consider that a problem?

No it did not. So, of course I don't view your fantasy contention as a "problem."

You are simply wrong.

In fact, part of the REASON you are wrong is that YOU seem to imagine that the purpose of the 4th Amendment has any applicability to matters of national security and war. That was the kind of stultified "thinking" that helped us be so lax that 9/11 could happen.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'm not willing to give up 1 civil right to fight this bullshit war on terror!

A lot of people who didn't die in the NY City Subways might think your narrow minded and actually selfish "thinking" is pretty stupid.

What ******* civil right are you giving up in order for the Patriot Act to investigate the plots and plans of scumbag terrorists?

And don't give me this bullshit about the Verizon subpoena. That might very well be overly broad. Take it up with the judge who authorized it. But even so, it doesn't involve your ******* civil rights. It involves some business records of the damn telephone companies. Your civil rights have not even been touched by that one.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I've heard it all now.

"We told you that we would ABUSE the power that you gave us. I mean, you passed the Patriot Act so that we could use it to keep it safe and the Republicans used it to prevent any attacks on Americans for seven years. But when we came into power, it was so tempting to abuse the authority, we told you that we would.

So it's your fault!

My God... Welcome to the other side of the looking glass...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let's assume (since we can't prove it) that the tools provided by the PATRIOT Act and similar laws DID help prevent the NY City Subway attack(s).

Let us further take it as a given that the tools provided by the PATRIOT Act and similar laws failed to prevent the Boston Marathon bombings.

(A) Are we better off without the PATRIOT Act and similar laws?

(B) Identify -- with specificity -- which of our so-called "civil rights" have actually been taken by the government by virtue of their resort to the powers inherent in PATRIOT Act and similar laws.

 

[dblack]

What ******* civil right are you giving up in order for the Patriot Act to investigate the plots and plans of scumbag terrorists?

Due process.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What ******* civil right are you giving up in order for the Patriot Act to investigate the plots and plans of scumbag terrorists?

Due process.

Nice words.

Now try to be meaningful.

Be specific.

Tell the class in what way the PATRIOT Act has supposedly taken away "due process."

For whom?

Under what circumstances?

 

[koshergrl]

"Due process" is meaningless.

Due process OF THE LAW actually means something.

I hate ignorami who just sputter out incomplete phrases as if they can fool us into thinking they know what they are talking about.

 

[Oddball]

What ******* civil right are you giving up in order for the Patriot Act to investigate the plots and plans of scumbag terrorists?

Due process.

Nice words.

Now try to be meaningful.

Be specific.

Tell the class in what way the PATRIOT Act has supposedly taken away "due process."

For whom?

Under what circumstances?

Unconstitutional "sneak and peek" warrantless search that results in the warrant being issued...On evidence that couldn't have been gathered without evading due process.

 

[Oddball]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not now and never was the problem.

Lack of proper oversight (think "checks and balances") remains the problem.

If you think we'd have been better off without the NSA Surveillance program and The Patriot Act even if that resulted in our inability to have intercepted the plot to take out the NYC Subsays, then I think you have another think coming.

You sound just like a liberoidal trying to rationalize and justify socialistic central control.

If only we had the right thugs and despots in charge of it all!

BTW, you did notice that all of this snoopery didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombing, didn't you?

Ah bullshit. I never made any such claim and it's not a coherent reading of anything I ever have said. You imagine that the fact that we didn't prevent the Boston Marathon bombings means we should toss up our hands on even trying? That sure doesn't seem even marginally intelligent. THAT, in fact, is the kind of crap that the libs argued when Booosh was the guy in the Oval Office.

I have noticed that The USA PATRIOT Act calls for oversight.

I have noticed that it has been claimed (I of course cannot verify) that the so-called "snoopery" prevented the shitbirds who were bent on bombing the NY City Subways from succeeding.

As you know, I have (unlike you, to be sure) always been a proponent of the Patriot Act.
It does not come as a shock or a surprise that it can be misused.

The question is NOT, however, contrary to your contention, simply to prefer that somebody else be at the helm. I don't give a shit if it's a filthy liberal Democratic at the helm at the time of the abuse of the law or if it's some asshole Republican doing it.

The FACT is, they cannot be trusted on their own. This is why I have always called for oversight. I believe firmly in checks and balances.

That said, it does bother me a LOT that the folks who should be providing close scrutiny are evidently sitting with their thumbs up their asses. If we take checks and balances out of the equation (i.e., no valid oversight), then any law can be misused or abused. It's not just the Patriot Act. Even a simple eavesdropping statute can be abused if the judges who review the applications fail to scrutinize them or if the agents who swear them out commit perjury and never get subjected to the kind of scrutiny that would show what they are doing.

Ah, bullshit nothing....Followed by exactly the kind of rationalizing text brick that liberoidals use to defend their foolhardiness.

Same bullshit, different topic.

You met the enemy, Bluto, and he is ye.

 

[dblack]

What ******* civil right are you giving up in order for the Patriot Act to investigate the plots and plans of scumbag terrorists?

Due process.

Nice words.

Now try to be meaningful.

Be specific.

Tell the class in what way the PATRIOT Act has supposedly taken away "due process."

For whom?

For all of us.

Under what circumstances?

Whenever someone is suspected of terrorism.

Constitutional protections, like due process, don't protect terrorists or criminals. They protect all of us up until the point we're proven to be terrorists or criminals. After that we forfeit our rights and can, and should, be punished as fits the crime (fined, imprisoned, killed, etc...).

The irrational core of your position is this idea that, in our efforts to investigate terrorist activities, we should disregard the civil rights of terrorists. Taken at face value, that makes sense. Terrorists don't deserve any rights at all. Who would argue with that?

What you're skipping right past is that during such an investigation, we don't yet know who is a criminal and who is an innocent bystander. That's the whole point of investigation in the first place. If we're already sure who the terrorists are we should just sentence them and get it over with. But we're not sure until we discover and judge the relevant facts. In order to protect the innocent, we have very specific rules in place to prevent the wrongly accused from being falsely imprisoned or killed. We call those rules 'due process'.

The PATRIOT ACT makes the claim that for certain accusations (namely 'terrorist related activities') the government can radically alter the rules of due process. They aren't subject to public oversight and aren't required to provide evidence that specific individuals have committed a crime. All they have to do is secretly convince a judge that the extra-constitutional actions they want to take are part of an 'ongoing investigation of terrorist activities'.

As the policies and actions of the Obama administration painfully illustrate, that means the can violate the usual Constitutional rights of all of us, merely by claiming it's part of the 'War on Terror'. By the letter of the law, I'm not sure the Obama administration has done anything illegal. The PATRIOT Act authorizes exactly the kind of broad violations of privacy that they've been engaging in. That's why so many of us were warning about it when Congress rubber stamped it, and why we continued to oppose it when Obama took over.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So you're saying that to Obama, his job and his power were more important to him than doing the right thing and you agree with that? Wow....

On this particular issue, Obama is worse than Bush.

During his campaign, he talked about transperancy in government. However, once he became President, he's done the complete opposite.

But good luck getting any of the Obamaniacs to admit it. As far as they know or care, he is still The Messiah.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not now and never was the problem.

Lack of proper oversight (think "checks and balances") remains the problem.

If you think we'd have been better off without the NSA Surveillance program and The Patriot Act even if that resulted in our inability to have intercepted the plot to take out the NYC Subsays, then I think you have another think coming.

The Patriot Act did away with the 4th amendment.

You don't consider that a problem?

No. He's an authoritarian.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Due process.

Nice words.

Now try to be meaningful.

Be specific.

Tell the class in what way the PATRIOT Act has supposedly taken away "due process."

For whom?

Under what circumstances?

Unconstitutional "sneak and peek" warrantless search that results in the warrant being issued...On evidence that couldn't have been gathered without evading due process.

Nope.

The peeking at the VERIZON business records are not something over which the 4th Amendment has any power. Well, at least not based on the complaints of the Verizon customers.

If you have some other sneak peek that has led to a warrant being issued, then what your post is missing is any hint of a fact or citation or link.

I mean, let's look at an analogy. It's true that you have a RIGHT (an actual by-God recognized and fully legitimate "right") to confidential communications with your lawyer. Now, let's say that you are silly enough (and your lawyer is ignorant enough) to have a "confidential, privileged" chat with you about the facts of your case while sitting with OTHER people in the very same room at the very same time. Guess what? In lots of cases, the lawyer-client privilege has just been waived.

Similarly, if Verizon keeps logs of your incoming and outgoing telephone calls, which numbers have been called or which numbers have called your phone, and the duration of those calls, YOU have already agreed to them doing so. They kind of need it to conduct their business. Billing. Whose "records" are they? Not yours. They are the business property of Verizon.

Now say the US Government tells Verizon, "we want them." Right or wrong, Verizon complies. The US Government might not even have a valid method under the PATRIOT Act or similar laws to "demand" those records from Verizon. Who does NOT have any actual legal "standing" to complain about the US Government "demand" for the business records of Verizon? You guessed it. The customers. It's not their property.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The USA PATRIOT Act is not now and never was the problem.

Lack of proper oversight (think "checks and balances") remains the problem.

If you think we'd have been better off without the NSA Surveillance program and The Patriot Act even if that resulted in our inability to have intercepted the plot to take out the NYC Subsays, then I think you have another think coming.

The Patriot Act did away with the 4th amendment.

You don't consider that a problem?

No. He's an authoritarian.

No. You are an idiot.

I am anything but an authoritarian.

It is, in fact, quite simple. I think billo's "premise" is flatly false.

The USA PATRIOT Act absolutely did NOT "do away" with the 4th Amendment. The claim is ignorant and incorrect. No wonder a twit like you laps that bullshit right up.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Due process.

Nice words.

Now try to be meaningful.

Be specific.

Tell the class in what way the PATRIOT Act has supposedly taken away "due process."

For whom?

For all of us.

Nope. That's not an answer. It's just a broad empty claim. You are repeating yourself, but you are not supporting your claim by repeating it.

Under what circumstances?

Whenever someone is suspected of terrorism.

Nope. The problem you persist in having is your tendency to conflate mere criminality with acts of war/terrorism.

Constitutional protections, like due process, don't protect terrorists or criminals.

Wrong. Constitutional protections protect individuals. We are all beneficiaries of that. But the actual protections are individual rights, and they sure as hell DO protect criminals. However, inadvertently, you are partially right. They do not and are not inteded to protect individuals in acts of war/terrorism.

They protect all of us up until the point we're proven to be terrorists or criminals. After that we forfeit our rights and can, and should, be punished as fits the crime (fined, imprisoned, killed, etc...).

Your sophomoric analysis is misguided. Constitutional protections protect all individuals even past the time they are proved guilty of a crime in a Court of LAW. It is true that rights can be forfeited as a consequence of a criminal conviction. But the PROCESS by which those rights have been protected and which then continue is the method by which the rights are given effect.

The irrational core of your position is this idea that, in our efforts to investigate terrorist activities, we should disregard the civil rights of terrorists. Taken at face value, that makes sense. Terrorists don't deserve any rights at all. Who would argue with that?

You, not I, have the irrational core position. YOU are the one that imagines that the Constitution is somehow a ******* suicide pact. It isn't. It never was and was never supposed to be.

What you're skipping right past is that during such an investigation, we don't yet know who is a criminal and who is an innocent bystander. That's the whole point of investigation in the first place. If we're already sure who the terrorists are we should just sentence them and get it over with. But we're not sure until we discover and judge the relevant facts. In order to protect the innocent, we have very specific rules in place to prevent the wrongly accused from being falsely imprisoned or killed. We call those rules 'due process'.

The PATRIOT ACT makes the claim that for certain accusations (namely 'terrorist related activities') the government can radically alter the rules of due process. They aren't subject to public oversight and aren't required to provide evidence that specific individuals have committed a crime. All they have to do is secretly convince a judge that the extra-constitutional actions they want to take are part of an 'ongoing investigation of terrorist activities'.

As the policies and actions of the Obama administration painfully illustrate, that means the can violate the usual Constitutional rights of all of us, merely by claiming it's part of the 'War on Terror'. By the letter of the law, I'm not sure the Obama administration has done anything illegal. The PATRIOT Act authorizes exactly the kind of broad violations of privacy that they've been engaging in. That's why so many of us were warning about it when Congress rubber stamped it, and why we continued to oppose it when Obama took over.

I wish you weren't quite so verbose. But "the investigation" of terrorists and terrorism and terrorists' plots are NOT even mildly associated with ANY of the rights protected by the Constitution.

You keep repeating your theme, your thesis. But you are wrong. And you somehow magically derive your premise AS your "conclusion." What a surprise. But it's all a matter of GIGO. Garbage in, Garbage out.

I have a news flash for you. The Constitutional rights we each, individually, enjoy include the PRECEPT that the government cannot investigate us for an alleged crime without some probable cause. Some folks insist that the Constitution includes a right to "privacy." It doesn't, of course. Instead, the claimed right to privacy is actually just a corollary of some of the other rights which ARE protected by the Constitutional guarantees.

Yet despite the alleged "right to privacy" it is still absolutely undeniably true that the government can legally (upon certain conditions) eavesdrop on your telephone calls. How can that be? Well, it's called the warrant requirement. Your right is NOT an absolute even under the explicit terms of the Constitution.

Let's take your notions out for a spin. We can start off slowly. Try to be concise in your answer here:

What SPECIFIC Constitutional "rights" do Achmed and Mahmood, the terrorists, have to plot a bombing in complete privacy?

 

[Oddball]

Nice words.

Now try to be meaningful.

Be specific.

Tell the class in what way the PATRIOT Act has supposedly taken away "due process."

For whom?

Under what circumstances?

Unconstitutional "sneak and peek" warrantless search that results in the warrant being issued...On evidence that couldn't have been gathered without evading due process.

Nope.

The peeking at the VERIZON business records are not something over which the 4th Amendment has any power. Well, at least not based on the complaints of the Verizon customers.

If you have some other sneak peek that has led to a warrant being issued, then what your post is missing is any hint of a fact or citation or link.

I mean, let's look at an analogy. It's true that you have a RIGHT (an actual by-God recognized and fully legitimate "right") to confidential communications with your lawyer. Now, let's say that you are silly enough (and your lawyer is ignorant enough) to have a "confidential, privileged" chat with you about the facts of your case while sitting with OTHER people in the very same room at the very same time. Guess what? In lots of cases, the lawyer-client privilege has just been waived.

Similarly, if Verizon keeps logs of your incoming and outgoing telephone calls, which numbers have been called or which numbers have called your phone, and the duration of those calls, YOU have already agreed to them doing so. They kind of need it to conduct their business. Billing. Whose "records" are they? Not yours. They are the business property of Verizon.

Now say the US Government tells Verizon, "we want them." Right or wrong, Verizon complies. The US Government might not even have a valid method under the PATRIOT Act or similar laws to "demand" those records from Verizon. Who does NOT have any actual legal "standing" to complain about the US Government "demand" for the business records of Verizon? You guessed it. The customers. It's not their property.

Uh-huh....They "comply" just like any other serf does.

Someday, we'll get the "right" commies to run it all and everything will be sunshine, peace and love beads.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Unconstitutional "sneak and peek" warrantless search that results in the warrant being issued...On evidence that couldn't have been gathered without evading due process.

Nope.

The peeking at the VERIZON business records are not something over which the 4th Amendment has any power. Well, at least not based on the complaints of the Verizon customers.

If you have some other sneak peek that has led to a warrant being issued, then what your post is missing is any hint of a fact or citation or link.

I mean, let's look at an analogy. It's true that you have a RIGHT (an actual by-God recognized and fully legitimate "right") to confidential communications with your lawyer. Now, let's say that you are silly enough (and your lawyer is ignorant enough) to have a "confidential, privileged" chat with you about the facts of your case while sitting with OTHER people in the very same room at the very same time. Guess what? In lots of cases, the lawyer-client privilege has just been waived.

Similarly, if Verizon keeps logs of your incoming and outgoing telephone calls, which numbers have been called or which numbers have called your phone, and the duration of those calls, YOU have already agreed to them doing so. They kind of need it to conduct their business. Billing. Whose "records" are they? Not yours. They are the business property of Verizon.

Now say the US Government tells Verizon, "we want them." Right or wrong, Verizon complies. The US Government might not even have a valid method under the PATRIOT Act or similar laws to "demand" those records from Verizon. Who does NOT have any actual legal "standing" to complain about the US Government "demand" for the business records of Verizon? You guessed it. The customers. It's not their property.

Uh-huh....They "comply" just like any other serf does.

Someday, we'll get the "right" commies to run it all and everything will be sunshine, peace and love beads.

I am guessing you think you just made a telling point. And that the rolling eyes smileycon really helped cinch it.

But you are wrong.

Verizon initially fought with the government which is not what "serfs" do.

They lost. That's ok. Sometimes Verizon can be wrong, too.

Complying with such a demand after the Courts have said it's legit is actually kind of a hallmark of a nation predicated on the rule of law.

And once again, the issue has nothing whatsoever to do with your red herring argument about how it will be ok when the "right" guys are the ones holding the reins. That's not a claim I have ever made and thus your "debate" point is really just a straw man argument.

 

[dblack]

The problem you persist in having is your tendency to conflate mere criminality with acts of war/terrorism.

Yeah, I figured you'd go to 'plan b'. When neo-con policies are outed as blatantly unconstitutional, you start banging the war drums. If we're really at war, civil rights take a back seat - agreed. But we're not fighting a war. That's the lie you're clinging to and it's destroying our nation.

The Constitutional rights we each, individually, enjoy include the PRECEPT that the government cannot investigate us for an alleged crime without some probable cause.

Which is exactly what they're doing. And they're doing it in secret, with no public accountability or oversight. Good for Snowden for bringing this into the light.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The problem you persist in having is your tendency to conflate mere criminality with acts of war/terrorism.

Yeah, I figured you'd go to 'plan b'. When neo-con policies are outed as blatantly unconstitutional, you start banging the war drums. If we're really at war, civil rights take a back seat - agreed. But we're not fighting a war. That's the lie you're clinging to and it's destroying our nation.

The Constitutional rights we each, individually, enjoy include the PRECEPT that the government cannot investigate us for an alleged crime without some probable cause.

Which is exactly what they're doing. And they're doing it in secret, with no public accountability or oversight. Good for Snowden for bringing this into the light.

Oh shut up you trite *****.

You are again just blindly playing the dutiful role of liberal lemming. At best, you remain a blind sheep.

I am not using any "plan b." I am trying to get a point through your thick impervious ignorant and misguided skull.

The 4th Amendment is applicable to the thing to which it was intended to apply. It is NOT applicable to ALL things just because your abject pitiable ignorance tells you that it is or that it "should be."

**** Snowden. I hope he gets captured and brought back to stand trial. He violated his oath and the law. He committed a felony. He took upon himself powers and authority none of us ever granted to him, and which we specifically prohibited him from exercising. He is a felon. With rare exceptions -- and Snowden is not on the short list of exceptions -- felons belong in prison.

And just to clear something else up for you (although you are plainly too stupid to admit reality): you are also wrong about something pretty basic. We are absolutely at war, you chump.

 

[dblack]

Oh shut up you trite *****.

There ya go! Own it!