Senate Rejects the Patriot Act
Can I get an AMEN?!
Maybe the Senate believes we, as American citizens, actually do retain some rights! I certainly hope someone in government still has some sense.
Fink
Can I get a Hell Yeah?!
Senate Rejects the Patriot Act
Can I get an AMEN?!
Maybe the Senate believes we, as American citizens, actually do retain some rights! I certainly hope someone in government still has some sense.
Fink
It's a lovely day in the neighbourhood....
Frankly I've been amazed at how willing the American people have been willing to forego their freedoms, and extremely disappointed in alleged 'conservatives' who believe that the power of the government takes precedence over the freedoms and rights of individuals.
Barry Goldwater would be very displeased with what passes for Conservatism these days.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Amen!!!!!
Chatter? We didn't hear any chatter. Didn't have our "ears on" anymore...
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear brighter before you hear them speak.
Conservativism has a few wings, as you know. The more libertarian vs. the more social conservative vs. the fiscal conservative.Originally Posted by Steve Machol
I don't like increased government control any more than the next guy. But think:
Airport screening by the TSA plus air marshalls vs. terrorist hijacking/explosives
Highway patrol profiling vs. drug smuggling
IRS audits vs. tax fraud
S.E.C. control vs. securities fraud.
We have to decide how we are going to respond to the proven fact that, via our open borders, high technological abilities, and free society, just about anyone can make themselves a weapon of mass destruction.
It used to be criminals that were a threat to the general well-being of the US citizen, but criminals act in their own self interests only, therefore are unwilling to kill themselves, and are loosely organized, at best (notable exception being the underworld, which has been virtually eradicated).
Terrorists are willing to die and take people with them. They are filled with hatred. That is a potent combination.
It's going to come down to "law and order" vs. civil libertarians. If there is no law and order, civil liberties are so much fluff.
Obviously everything is a matter of degree. But I have little sympathy for those who want the right to protest the government in a childishly hippie-trendy fashion, and then claim persecution by the serious people charged with protecting the safety of these people.
Has there been any demonstration of wrongdoing by the government? Or does the concept just offend? Think, people!
Help me understand this. Conservatives like Chip have stated that a reason they want the right to bear arms is to protect themselves from a government run amok. But when the government begins to run amok, (as they have in this situation), it's the conservatives that come to the government's defense!:hammer:
Drk, there certainly has to be a balance between personal liberty and security. But to repress the liberty of our own citizen by treating it as a threat to liberating the Iraqis is hypocritical. And since we live in a country that allows the freedom of speech,
Is still legal, whereasthe right to protest the government in a childishly hippie-trendy fashion, and then claim
is still frowned upon.persecution by the serious people charged with protecting the safety of these people
Sixteen provisions of the USA Patriot Act expire December 31 if not renewed by Congress:
Section 201: Gives federal officials the authority to intercept wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to terrorism.
Section 202: Gives federal officials the authority to intercept wire, spoken and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses.
Subsection 203(b): Permits the sharing of grand jury information that involves foreign intelligence or counterintelligence with federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense or national security officials
Subsection 203(d): Gives foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officers the ability to share foreign intelligence information obtained as part of a criminal investigation with law enforcement.
Section 204: Makes clear that nothing in the law regarding pen registers -- an electronic device which records all numbers dialed from a particular phone line -- stops the government's ability to obtain foreign intelligence information.
Section 206: Allows federal officials to issue roving "John Doe" wiretaps for spy and anti-terrorism investigations.
Section 207: Increases the amount of time that federal officials may watch people they suspect are spies or terrorists.
Section 209: Permits the seizure of voicemail messages under a warrant.
Section 212: Permits Internet service providers and other electronic communication and remote computing service providers to hand over records and e-mails to federal officials in emergency situations.
Section 214: Allows use of a pen register or trap and trace devices -- a device that records the originating phone numbers of all incoming calls on a particular phone line -- in international terrorism or spy investigations.
Section 215: Authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items" like business records, including those from libraries and bookstores, for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.
Section 217: Makes it lawful to intercept the wire or electronic communication of a computer hacker or intruder in certain circumstances.
Section 218: Allows federal officials to wiretap or watch suspects if foreign intelligence gathering is a "significant purpose" for seeking a Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act order. The pre-Patriot Act standard said officials could ask for the surveillance only if it was "the" sole or main purpose.
Section 220: Provides for nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence.
Section 223: Amends the federal criminal code to provide for administrative discipline of federal officers or employees who violate prohibitions against unauthorized disclosures of information gathered under this act.
Section 225: Amends FISA to prohibit lawsuits against people or companies that provide information to federal officials for a terrorism investigation.
Remember that all of these provisions still exist for pursuing drug criminals, which is what the Patriot Act was modeled on, which makes the arguments that any are a 'loss of personal rights' hypocrisy.
I think the Senate just moved the war against terror back to September 10th.
Rep
This has nothing to do with Iraq.
Yes, Iraq has to do with America, but not vice-versa.
You liberals want it all? Protection and every freedom? How do you do that, exactly? Make sure no one "hates us?". Let's get Sally Fields to replace Condoleeza Rice.
I think Arlen Specter needs out, big time.
Iraq is but a fly in the room. The real stink will be evident no matter what happens with Iran.See you in Meggido.
I look at this from another perspective. Has there been any demonstration that spying on citizens' email, phone conversations, library books and other private information stopped a terrorist attack? The burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate a reasonable rationale for invading citizen privacy and rights, and not on the citizens to justify retaining these rights. That would be the true conservative response to increasing goverment powers and surveillance over it's citizens.
Also would any of this stopped 9/11? It's highly doubtful since the terrosits did not check out books like 'How to Become a Terrorist and Fly Hijacked Planes into Buildings' from their local library. Many of the provisions in the misnamed Patriot Act allow increased goverment powers at the expense of personal libery, and do so without any demonstrable evidence that this will do anything to stop terrorism.
And yes, the concept does offend me. Just as the NRA is against any restrictions on gun ownership even though there is no 'demonstration' that their fears are justified.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
(Steve, I will not begin to assume the first thing about your political leanings, so the following is not specifically in response to your statement.)
I'd like to ask liberals why they believe it's OK for the government to involve themselves in our lives to a level that dictates where our money goes (via welfare, Medicare/Aid, IRS, public education, the Great Society works, i.e., to protect us from life's financial or health threats) BUT are unwilling to give the goverment authority to protect us from belligerent people's physical threats?
What is the role of the federal government? Some think to solely make domestic life nice for us. Some think to collectively protect us from external threat.
If you believe in your cause, both sides are apparently willing put up with a certain amount of hardship.
I'm all for the government protecting us against foreign enemies, I'd just like them to do it lawfully.http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....preamble.html
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And it's borderline offensive to lump everyone that doesn't agree with the flouting of the rule of law into one camp of "liberals". I know Rush does it, but it doesn't mean you should, too.
How many of you were affected by any of the provisions of the Patriot Act? I'm guessing none. How many plots, groups, etc think its better that the Patriot Act be suspended so that they can do anything they want? My guess a fair number. Wire tapping, lack of warrants etc isn't hurting anyone truly other than the criminals and terrorists. Does anyone think that getting a warrant is easy? If you have a judge with an ax to grind its like pulling teeth. As for wire tapping what have you got to hide? Your non compliance to Hippa? You guys in the lab not following the disposal rules from OSHA?
The point being I'd rather have wire tapping when needed, without the wait, then another 9/11. Yes I think had we had the Patriot Act things could have been different. Civil Liberties are extremely important, however keeping them is important too.
christina
Wrong, wrong, wrong. And I am stunned by the notion that as long as illegal activity by the government does not directly affect me or anyone I know, well then that's just fine. What????
Case in point, the recent disclosure of Bush authorizing wiretaps all on his own.
Bush has gone way, way beyond the pale. In order to (lawfully) wiretap, he needs to obtain a court order thru normal channels or thru FISA; the latter takes about far less time to do than an actual wiretap set-up, and if I am not mistaken, has NEVER refused a request. So what's the problem? We have checks and balances in this country. The last guy who was all enthralled with "executive privelege" that allowed this kind of dangerous overreaching was Nixon. And we all know how that turned out.
"The last guy who was all enthralled with "executive privelege" that allowed this kind of dangerous overreaching was Nixon. And we all know how that turned out."
Actually, this activity was not discovered by, nor unique to, the Bush administration. I believe “60 Minutes” did a story on a Clinton-era program called Echelon. It was run by the National Security Agency and could “capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.” You can check on Echelon at: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Echelon%2Bnsa
Well shame on all of them. And it appears that the Echelon program was more of a capability than an actual practice up til now from reading your link. Talk about Big Brother.
Privacy is dead, and most people are happy about it (see public nudity, celebrities, reality shows, blogs, people talking on their cell phones in earshot, your credit report, how many cookies are being set everytime you click...). It's not good, but it's the truth.
I would recommend that everyone play by the rules, or you're going to get caught, sooner or later.
Just hope for benevolent governments.
I'd like to ask conservatives why they believe it's OK for the government to involve themselves in our lives to a level that dictates who we can marry, what a woman can do with her body...
It's "protection" from those people who aren't a threat that offends me. When the administration pulls things like the Plame/Wilson outing, I don't trust them to sneak around like Big Brother.
IMHO (and maybe this needs its own thread), government exists to do what individuals can't do, and to protect the rights of individual citizens.
FISA also allows wiretapping to occur before a warrant is issued. If I recall correctly, the government can wait as long as 2 weeks after the deed is done to petition for the warrant.
Absolutely and yet this administration did not go back and seek post authorization.
To an earlier point by FVC, it is easy to get a FISA wiretap, in fact in the 25 (or is it 30 now) odd years of FISA they've only disallowed 2 or 3 (heard the number this morning, it was very low).
Bush stated that his warrentless wiretap program was regularly reviewed by DOJ, why didn't they recommend going to FISA? Do they believe that FISA isn't secure? Sounds either dumb or paranoid. Or perhaps they weren't actually playing by the rules and knew that FISA would disallow the taps. No matter how I look at this it doesn't look good.
It's a bogus question, frankly. The first part of this question has nothing to do with the topc of this thread and is a clear attempt to avoid answering the question by changing the subject. Unfortunately this is a common tactic these days.
Second, please provide proof of your statement - particularly this one:
Is it your contention that the government should be given total power to do whatever it wants in the name of 'protecting' us. What about the true conservatives in Congress you are concerned about the growing power and control of the Federal government over people's lives? Are they now to be subjected to the label - Liberal. Are you so far up Bush's tush (sorry I couldn't resist - no offense intended :) ) that you cannot recognize when someone with a different view may have legitimate concerns about freedoms and Constitutional rights?
I further submit that you and virtually everyone else willing to accept Bush's unconstitutional usurption of powers would be foaming at the mouth and in an uproar if Clintom had done anything like this. You know you would, so there's no use denying it. ;)
You are absolutely correct. In fact Gore was one of the leading proponents of this program, and this was the most important factor in my decision not to vote for him in 2000.
Freedom, Constitutional Rights, and Personal Liberty is something I feel strongly about and frankly I'm saddened to see so many people willing to give up their rights and freedoms for the illusion of 'security'.
This is something that really should concern all of us and transcends the often bogus labels of 'left', 'right', 'conservative' and 'liberal'.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
72 hours, which, while not two weeks, is still plenty of time.
From 1979 to 2002, not a single FISA warrant was refused. In 2003, four were refused. In 2004, none.
Let's look at those numbers again:
Warrants approved, 1979-2004: 18732
Warrants denied, 1979-2004: 4
Pretty close to a rubber stamp, I think.
I'm sure every female CIA "Spy" goes around posing in her pajamas. Except for press releases of course.
http://www.time.com/time/personofthe.../people/5.html
Right.............................
A politician will always tip off his true belief by stating the opposite at the beginning of the sentence. For maximum comprehension, do not start listening until the first clause is concluded. Begin instead at the word "but" which begins the second, or active, clause. This is the way to tell a liberal from a conservative -- before they tell you.
Thus: "I have always believed in a strong national defense, second to none, but ... " (a liberal, about to propose a $20 billion defense cut).
Frank Mankiewicz
From The Quotations Page
Rep
Last edited by rep; 12-19-2005 at 11:47 PM.
What bearing does this have on the discussion? Does a photo shown now detract from the administration's disgusting behavior?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks