Liberals Obstructing in Favor of Terrorists - Patriot Act II

dlowan wrote:

Walter - I know nothing of your NATO history.

Are you able to elucidate?

Seriously? I belonged
a) to a team observing, photographing, mapping, etc (wars-) ships/boats from Warsaw Pact states
and b)
later - obviously due to some knowledge - the only conscript who got some more 'intelligent work' with this stuff.
(Which obviuosly led to an "unfriendly act" by some staff: I became a member of the 'alarm reserve'. :wink: )

0 Replies

Lusatian, did you happen to catch the excerpts I posted of conservatives who have concerns about the PATRIOT and PATRIOT II acts? You might try following the links; I only pasted in a few of the many comments.

0 Replies

Lusitan wrote:

Quote:

Joe, you entire post bursts at the seams with half formulated arguements, obtuse points, and of course, a healthy dose of whining.

An interesting statement Lusitan considering I felt the exact same thing about your comments at the start of this thread. Allow me to demonstrate.

Lusitan wrote:

Quote:

Take a look at some of the provisions of the Patriot Act that they take such offense to:
Quote:
argued for expanding the bureau's authority to issue administrative subpoenas in terrorism cases, something that would give it access to a wider range of data without having to go to court. The FBI has that authority in cases that include drug trafficking, healthcare fraud and child exploitation, Mueller said. But Democratic lawmakers have rejected previous administration requests for broader subpoena authority.

The last time I checked, expanding the authority would not be an "existing provision". A "well formulated argument" would have provided an instance of what you claimed you were going to do. Instead you stray from the Patriot Act as it exists to talk about proposed expansions of it.

Quote:

On one extreme it could be credibly argued that their obstruction of the renewal is in direct favor to terrorists, drug dealers, and child molesters, and though I don't think that counts in their convoluted (or simplistically naive, if you will), intentions, the outcome will be very much the same. The other extreme is that these are the defenders of the "free", and that together with organizations such as the ACLU and Islamic charities, they work, with the most altruistic intentions to safeguard our rights. Horse excrement!

Wow.. that IS complete horse excrement that isn't even close to being a half formed argument. I would love to see your "credible argument" that it is in "direct favor" of drug dealers, terrorists and child molestors. Provide at least one credible source to back up your allegation.

Quote:

They want a terrorism investigation be forced to comply with what, very likely, will be weeks of bereaucratic paper shuffling and court appearances, obviously tipping off the suspect to the investigation, and thereby rendering any surprise or intelligence obtained invalid. Their excuse ... I'm not sure, as it is inconceivable to me why someone would want to protect terror suspects. Any verbose Democrats care to explain?

Once again it appears you are nowhere near the "horse's mouth" in this statement. It takes weeks to get a normal warrant? I think you need to stop living in your fantasy world. Warrants are signed all the time by judges without warning to the alleged criminal. What is "inconceivable" is your ludicrous statement of the procedure to acquire a warrant. What evidence do you have of terrorists or any other criminals being tipped off based on an attempt to get a warrant?

Quote:

If a terrorist, or murderer for that matter, doesn't know he's being investigated, he won't likely go on a evidence destruction binge, and may lead police to accomplices. Anyone who objects to this law, obviously has no notion of the value of intelligence in the war on terror, how that intelligence is obtained, or even in the case of murderers or child molesters.

Interesting how you keep throwing "child molestors" into your argument. Are you "obtuse?" Notice that Gonzales never uses that term "child molestor." Sneak and peek is only allowed in certain types of cases. Child molestation would NOT be one of them. My guess is this is only an attempt on your part to emotionalize this issue and ignore facts. It certainly isn't part of a "well formulated argument". As for the "evidence destructive binge", that again violates the rules of logic. When a warrant is served the person served doesn't have time to "destroy evidence" at the site being searched. The standard procedure would be to serve warrants on every place at once to prevent any destruction. Are you telling us we need this because the FBI is too stupid to follow standard procedure? What is your argument here?

Quote:

Simply put, if you're not breaking the law you have nothing to fear. If you are not a terrorist, murderer, or child molester, chances are the worst thing that could possibly happen is you may be investigated in error for a little while, but that is possible regardless of the law. Anyone who strongly objects to such a law is either merely a first class obstructionist, who probably raises objection to anything that has "force" in its nomenclature (law enforcement), or they are engaged in activities that they know would come to very bad light if it got out. Either way, they must get over it.

Tsk tsk, again we see you use the term "child molestor." As a simple argument against this, let me cite the main reason against it from the constitution and the 4th amendment.

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Do you understand the words "SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED"?

0 Replies

OO Parados, you certainly have a pair of dos, and you may get a nice hug round the neck at the next A2K meet-up should you and I be in attendance. Beri-beri nice analysis!

Joe(Remember, all we are trying to save is the US Constitution)Nation

0 Replies

Well, well, another ultra-liberal jumps into the fray. And, what does he bring as rebuttals? Question, challenges, bluster, sputtering, and bona fide quoting of the 4th Amendment, in the proverbial simplistic way that many liberals use to oppose anything that may offend their passive sensibilities. Because I'm feeling cheerful at the moment, and, due to operational lull, have some extra time, I will answer each of these questions-instead-of-credible-answers for you.

1.

parados wrote:

The last time I checked, expanding the authority would not be an "existing provision". A "well formulated argument" would have provided an instance of what you claimed you were going to do. Instead you stray from the Patriot Act as it exists to talk about proposed expansions of it.

For starters, my eager Parados, I didn't state that. If you had clicked on the offered link you would see that that was an excerpt from the LA Times article regarding the subject. Therefore that throws out the (in whinny voice) "Instead you stray from the Patriot Act as it exists to talk about proposed expansions of it." Aside from that, further internet research (you are a liberal you must be very good at that), would have revealed that the issue in question was one of application to the Patriot Act. Let me break it down for you - FBI interprets new powers given by Patriot Act as a useful tool in expanding usage to other applicable cases. Democratic lawmakers then whine and complain that the FBI doesn't warrant, and shouldn't get to use these powers in terrorism cases, when it already has such powers in other cases. Rather simple case. (If you had read the article, or god forbid, the act itself.)

2.

parados wrote:

Wow.. that IS complete horse excrement that isn't even close to being a half formed argument. I would love to see your "credible argument" that it is in "direct favor" of drug dealers, terrorists and child molestors. Provide at least one credible source to back up your allegation.

Here is the credible arguement, my blinder-wearing friend: The more restrictions an institution, or agency, has when exercising action against another entity (in this case, a criminal, a terrorist, a terrorist organization, or even a child molestor ... still with me?), the easier it is for said entity to benefit. If you deny this that is like saying that the lower a dam the more water it can hold back. If you wish to argue 4th Amendment rights, you'd still have to conceed my point. Since your liberally-arguementative nature will do nothing of the sort, allow me to make an extreme example: There was very little terrorism in states such as the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Nazi Germany. Simple, though worst-case-senario proof that harsher police powers provides an inhospitable environment for terrorists, drug dealers, and child molestors. (Go ahead and deny it.)

3.

parados wrote:

Once again it appears you are nowhere near the "horse's mouth" in this statement. It takes weeks to get a normal warrant? I think you need to stop living in your fantasy world. Warrants are signed all the time by judges without warning to the alleged criminal. What is "inconceivable" is your ludicrous statement of the procedure to acquire a warrant. What evidence do you have of terrorists or any other criminals being tipped off based on an attempt to get a warrant?

4.

parados wrote:

Interesting how you keep throwing "child molestors" into your argument. Are you "obtuse?" Notice that Gonzales never uses that term "child molestor." Sneak and peek is only allowed in certain types of cases. Child molestation would NOT be one of them. My guess is this is only an attempt on your part to emotionalize this issue and ignore facts. It certainly isn't part of a "well formulated argument". As for the "evidence destructive binge", that again violates the rules of logic. When a warrant is served the person served doesn't have time to "destroy evidence" at the site being searched. The standard procedure would be to serve warrants on every place at once to prevent any destruction. Are you telling us we need this because the FBI is too stupid to follow standard procedure? What is your argument here?

3 and 4 are further evidence of zeal overcoming (or in your case deluging), common sense. Here is an example that quickly negates both your objections, expressed with such soap box fervor:

Quote:

American Civil Liberties Union
Main article: ACLU v. Ashcroft

On April 9, 2004 the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging the national security letter (NSL)[3] provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which allows the FBI to obtain customer records from phone and Internet companies in terrorism investigations. The ACLU successfully argued that phone companies and ISPs should be able to disclose receiving a subpoena from the FBI and it outweighs the FBI's need for secrecy in counter-terrorism investigations.

This was taken from Wikipedia (the short-on-time man's internet recourse). Please don't fly away on the tangent that the Patriot Act isn't directly in the question. The Patriot Act contains many similar provisions and amendments to past federal statutes. Here is the moral of the short story:
On #3, I wasn't only referring to "warrant obtaining". I was referring to all stages of the investigation process, from initial suspicion to the arrest. The more obstacles, legal as opposed to physical (e.g. suspect lives in New Zealand), the more hassle, which equals the longer time before arrest, which increases odds of the perpetrator escaping or being rid of evidence. Don't agree ... NO? Not surprising, the sky is green would be your likely answer if it would deal a blow for your cause.

On #4, please read ACLU quote. You will undoubtedly see, and hopefully understand, that if the FBI is required to notify, or an ISP is allowed to notify, a criminal, terrorist, or even a child molestor (I just heard somewhere that MOST CHILD MOLESTORS OBTAIN CHILD PORN ON THE INTERNET, it may have just been a neo-con rumor), the said individual would MOST LIKELY, destroy any evidence of wrongdoing (e.g. e-mails to Mohammed Rahim Faizula in Pakistan, or the kidnapped 8-year-old). Does that make any sense? No ... sky is green and all that?

5.

parados wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Do you understand the words "SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED"?

Lastly, your quotation from the 4th Amendment - jolly amendment as it may be - is quite the simpleminded, ultra-liberal, position that can be expected from you. Please look at parts highlighted in bold. Unreasonable search and seizure - I feel, and obviously you may disagree, that a known drug cartel head having his San Diego estate searched (possibly under the sneak-and-peak provision of the Patriot Act), constitutes a "reasonable" search. And a sex offender who lives in the immediate area of a recently missing little girl (even if he wasn't seen by a witness), deserves a search of his premises to confirm that he wasn't the abductor. Not reasonable? No?
The probable cause part, in terrorism cases, is elusive, sometimes classified, and extremely time sensitive (issues I'm sure you have no experience with), and therefore should be given the broadest definition, and the law enforcement, the broadest discretion available. I know you will disagree, but perhaps you could submit a rational rebuttal, or alternating opinion, instead of lame critiques of my positions.

Ta ta.

0 Replies

Once again Lusatian ignores the fact that conservatives are worried about PATRIOT and PATRIOT II and blames it all on the liberals. Nice.

0 Replies

April 11, 2005
Why The Patriot Act Must Be Renewed
By Jon Kyl

Last year I introduced legislation that would make permanent all of the major sections of the USA Patriot Act that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged Congress to renew the act and provided a great deal of supportive evidence.

The most critical function of the act, which was passed in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has been to break down the historical wall between traditional criminal and intelligence-related investigations. But it has also provided new and better legal tools to law enforcement agencies for wiretapping, executing search warrants, and in many other areas where previous law was either simply inadequate to begin with, or rendered obsolete by the nature of modern terrorism and technological advances like cell phones, voice mail and the Internet.

FBI Director Robert Mueller has repeatedly testified that the act's provisions have proven extraordinarily beneficial in the war on terrorism and have been directly responsible for many counterterrorism successes. Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno agrees, stating publicly that "everything that's been done in the Patriot Act has been helpful." Still, there has been a considerable amount of criticism of the act from people who wonder whether its provisions might be abused. There is much misinformation about the act, particularly sections 213 and 215.

Section 213 of the Patriot Act codifies judicial common law, allowing investigators to delay giving notice to the target that a search warrant has been executed against his property if a court finds reasonable cause to believe that immediate notice may result in: endangering an individual; flight from prosecution; destruction of evidence; intimidation of potential witnesses; or if such notice would otherwise seriously jeopardize an investigation or unduly delay a trial. Notice must still be provided "within a reasonable period" of the warrant's execution, though this period may be extended by the court for good cause.

The need for such authority is obvious: it allows investigators to uncover specific information about a terror suspect's activities or associates without tipping their hand. There would be no point in conducting a wiretap, for example, if the target had to be immediately informed that his conversations were being monitored. Likewise, if immediate notice were required after every kind of search, many suspects would flee the country, destroy computer files, alert associates, injure or kill witnesses, or simply accelerate a planned attack.

Although critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union have called section 213 "sneak and peek" and decried it as a "sea change" in U.S. law, the reality is that the US Supreme Court established 25 years ago that this procedure is constitutional, and has consistently reaffirmed this view. In fact, in a 1979 case, the Court specifically derided the argument that delayed-notice searches are unconstitutional as "frivolous." Perhaps one reason was that, according to the Justice Department, the most common period of delay of notice authorized has been a mere seven days.

Section 215 relates to subpoena authority for business records, extending to "terrorism" the types of crimes for which so-called business records can be sought. The law has always recognized that book store and library records are included. To obtain such records, a subpoena must be pre-approved by a judge, which means that the frequently-cited fear of "the FBI investigating someone simply because of the books that he borrows from a library" is false. As an added protection against abuse, the Patriot Act requires that the FBI "fully inform" the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on all use of such authority. Again, this authority is not new -- federal investigators have long used the grand jury subpoena to obtain bookstore records. As the Washington Post noted in a September 11, 2003 editorial, investigative authority to review library records "existed prior to the Patriot Act; the law extends it to national security investigations, which isn't unreasonable."

Finding out whether a suspect checked out a book on bomb making is a reasonable investigative technique. Moreover, it has been well established that terrorists and spies - the September 11th hijackers, for example - have used libraries to plan and carry out activities that threaten US national security, among other ways by using their Internet access to communicate by email. Given this reality, it would be foolish to place libraries and bookstores off-limits to investigations.

More broadly, given the demonstrated success of the Patriot Act in making us more secure, and the paucity of actual (as opposed to hypothetical) complaints of abuse, it would surely be unwise to start rescinding its major provisions.

Senator Kyl serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary committees and chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

0 Replies

Lusatian wrote:

There was very little terrorism in states such as the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Nazi Germany. Simple, though worst-case-senario proof that harsher police powers provides an inhospitable environment for terrorists, drug dealers, and child molestors. (Go ahead and deny it.)

I can't say a lot about Soviet Union and Communist China.

But in Nazi Germany terrorists, drug dealers and child molestors were governing this state.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Once again Lusatian ignores the fact that conservatives are worried about PATRIOT and PATRIOT II and blames it all on the liberals. Nice.

Drew, I'm not ignoring that fact. I am well aware that many conservative lawmakers oppose some parts, or interpretations, of the Act. This, minority of the Act's critics (I should add), are as shortsighted and anti-productive as the liberals who rant and rave against it. I forgive no one who wishes to curtail law enforcement, intelligence, or military power, merely due to their pathetic sensibilities of a world last foreseen through the narcotic hazed eyes of 60's hippies. However, in a meager defense of the conservative activists, most could never be accused of being "soft on crime", something their temporary Democratic allies cannot claim. There is a large vein within the Republican party that opposes big government, and federal intervention, and this is perfectly congruent with reluctance to allow more powers to the FBI. That is NO excuse for their blunders, but at least they are not paltry demagogues who play on racial tension when coming to the defense of petty criminals (Jesse Jackson), patrician liberals who think outrageous leniency should be afforded to criminals before locking them where they belong (Ted Kennedy), or long-winded, fickle, and flip-flopping liberals who propose sweeping changes to the forces in the War on Terror, without having an inkling of true operational concept, and then opposing the renewal of the Patriot Act for (failed) political gain (John Kerry).

Walter, I will not defend the rulers of Nazi Germany, and while they may have all been the monsters you alluded, it doesn't change the fact that there was very little criminal terrorism within the Nazi regime. The same can be said of the Soviet Union and China, both about their regimes being monsters, and the lack of terrorism.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Quote:

I forgive no one who wishes to curtail law enforcement, intelligence, or military power, merely due to their pathetic sensibilities of a world last foreseen through the narcotic hazed eyes of 60's hippies.

Hey, pass me the doob, man.... Smile

I can't believe you expect people to take you seriously, man. Would you be happier in a police state? It certainly sounds that way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lusatain and rayban 1 are correct. Steve Chapman, columnist for the Chicago Tribune wrote a column on April 10th, 2005--"The Calm after the Patriot Act Storm.

Mr. Chapman said:

A statement was issued after the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the anti-terrorism law enacted in the wake of the Sept. 11th attacks.

Mr. Chapman quoted: "Most of the voluminous Patriot Act is actually unobjectional from a civil liberties point of view" and that "the law makes important changes that give law enforcement agents the tools they need to protect against terrorist attacks"

end of quote.

Who said that?

Attorney General Gonzalez?

Senator Bill Frist?

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert?

The Washington Times Editorial Page?

None of the above.

The source of the quote above was the defender of the rights of the American People- The American Civil Liberties Union--THE ACLU

0 Replies

several other comments from Mr. Chapman's article must be quoted since they support Lusatain and rayban1's excellent insights.

Mr. Chapman, in the same column from April 10th in the Chicago Tribune noted:

"If sneak and peek searches were a horrible abuse, you'd expect the critics to demand they be abolished. In fact, the ACLU and its allies only want to slightly narrow the conditions under which they are allowed"

and

"Some parts of the law drew intense fire. One was the "sneak and peek" section which allows law enforcement agents to enter a home to inspect papers, computers and the like, without informing the owner in advance. You would never know that the FBI and the police have used such warrants FOR DECADES in cases of criminal cases, such as that of Mafia boss, John Gotti."

and

"...Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said last week that since the Patriot Act was passed, it has never been used to subpoena library records. He still wants to keep this provision if its ever needed. And even the critics are agreeable, although they want to "refine" his section of the law "by requiring some individualized suspicion' as the ACLU explains.

end of quote

Gee Whiz---If you can't trust the ACLU to protect the precious rights of the American people, who can you trust?

0 Replies

Lusatian wrote:

I forgive no one who wishes to curtail law enforcement, intelligence, or military power, merely due to their pathetic sensibilities of a world last foreseen through the narcotic hazed eyes of 60's hippies.

Lol.

Er - was anyone asking for your forgiveness? Seems you have a wee tendency to mistake yourself for god - or a parent or spouse.

Ummmmm - could you defend your apparent assumption that anyone who is concerned about untrammeled rights of law enforcement is an ageing hippy?

0 Replies

chiczaira wrote:

several other comments from Mr. Chapman's article must be quoted since they support Lusatain and rayban1's excellent insights.

Mr. Chapman, in the same column from April 10th in the Chicago Tribune noted:

"If sneak and peek searches were a horrible abuse, you'd expect the critics to demand they be abolished. In fact, the ACLU and its allies only want to slightly narrow the conditions under which they are allowed"
and

"Some parts of the law drew intense fire. One was the "sneak and peek" section which allows law enforcement agents to enter a home to inspect papers, computers and the like, without informing the owner in advance. You would never know that the FBI and the police have used such warrants FOR DECADES in cases of criminal cases, such as that of Mafia boss, John Gotti."

and

"...Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said last week that since the Patriot Act was passed, it has never been used to subpoena library records. He still wants to keep this provision if its ever needed. And even the critics are agreeable, although they want to "refine" his section of the law "by requiring some individualized suspicion' as the ACLU explains.

end of quote

Gee Whiz---If you can't trust the ACLU to protect the precious rights of the American people, who can you trust?

Yuh. But what Lusatain (sic) is whining about is making ANY changes. Apparently due to to some super power he has yet to fully reveal, he can tell the Patriot Act, excuse me, THE PATRIOT ACT has come to us fully formed and infallible, except that perhaps it should go further in increasing police power to say the level in use in the fondly remembered Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and present day Communist China.

God, I wish I was making this up, because the idea trips along the edge of parody, but his words are there before us and there really isn't anything else to say except, dear chiczaira, that if we intend to continue to live under the U.S. Constitution we must be on guard for superheros such as these. They lead us towards BizarroWorld where the opponents of Big Government create the most (and biggest) intrusive police state ever and smile while they tell us we are going to have the lowest level of terrorism ever, all while crossing out the Bill of Rights.

Oh, and they have that plan to strengthen Social Security too.

Joe(What size standard uniform will you wear to the meetings?)Nation

0 Replies

I am not forty yet and I want to change the Patriot Act, starting with it's name.

As for relying on the current democrats to stand up to the right, fat chance, man. (is that a hippy saying? trying to get into character.)

0 Replies

Lusatian wrote:

Walter, I will not defend the rulers of Nazi Germany, and while they may have all been the monsters you alluded, it doesn't change the fact that there was very little criminal terrorism within the Nazi regime. The same can be said of the Soviet Union and China, both about their regimes being monsters, and the lack of terrorism.

If one's only goal is to protect oneself from terrorism and crime, then one might well end up with a totalitarian state.

Thus my discussion earlier of the balance between security and freedom.

You obviously would trade your freedom for security. That is fine. But I am unwilling to do so.

0 Replies

I am very much afraid that I must reiterate. The left wing is looking for a demon. There is no demon.
The ACLU has said so. If some on the left suddenly want to charge that the ACLU has been taken over by the Right Wing Conspiracy, they may so charge, but, I find no evidence of that.

As I quoted from Mr;.Chapman's article, not only is the ACLU basically in accordance with the Patriot Act, but the DREADED "sneak and peek" provisons have beenm used for years by the FBI without being stopped by the courts. Additionally, our precious freedoms in our libraries have not been curtailed by the Patriot Act..Not even once.

I find it curious and amusing that some would criticize the Patriot Act reflexively without knowing exactly what it does and has done.

When Patriot Act II is passed, and it will be passed, the legislators know that they will be held accountable by thier constituents if the Law is viewed as an intolerable curtailment of constitutional rights.

Again, the left wing makes a great deal of meaningless noise for partisan political puposes. Let's examine the Law after it passes.

0 Replies

Quote:

Additionally, our precious freedoms in our libraries have not been curtailed by the Patriot Act..Not even once.

You have no way of knowing if this is true at all; as the libraries themselves are not allowed to tell if they have been visited or not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Additionally, our precious freedoms in our libraries have not been curtailed by the Patriot Act..Not even once.

You miss the point here. It's not whether our liberties have yet to be trampled on by this law but will they be trampled on in the future.

As long as this law is in place it gives any administration the power to use them in any manner they choose.

Can you or anyone guarantee me that no future president, conservative or liberal, will never abuse this law?

As long as this law is on the books it is a threat to our freedom.

0 Replies

Liberals Obstructing in Favor of Terrorists - Patriot Act II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know