0
   

The Patriot Act: Boon or Boondoggle?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 08:57 am
Numerous provisions of The Patriot Act are due to expire in September unless Congress renews it. The debate is hot and furious. Renew or not renew? That is the question.

As renewal date nears, experts debate Patriot Act
By Kari Petrie


With several of its key provisions up for renewal next year, activists and officials continue to debate the USA Patriot Act's effect on First Amendment rights.

Quote:
Expirations of Surveillance
USA patriot act Provisions set to expire in 2005

Section 206: Roving wiretaps: With court approval, allows wiretaps or intercepts any phone or computer that may be used by the target of an investigation.

Section 213: Sneak and peek searches: Allows delayed notice of execution of search warrant.

Section 214: Pen registers "trap and trace:" With court approval, allows government to trace outgoing telephone calls or incoming calls relevant to a terrorist investigation.

Section 215: "Angry Librarians" provision: Government can obtain library, booksellers and other business' records. No one can disclose that the FBI sought or obtained records.

Section 218: Business records: Allows physical searches, wiretaps and subpoenas of business records.

Section 411: Government could deport any non-American for any unknown association with terrorist.

Section 412: Government can briefly put an alien in detention without any proof that the person is dangerous.

Section 505: Requires the government to write a national security letter to target of investigation stating that person is target. Government does not have to send letter.

Section 802: Allows government to obtain information from domestic dissident groups.





Passed in October 2001, the act grants federal investigators new powers to combat terrorism.

Paul McMasters, ombudsman at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., said the Patriot Act allows the government to track Web site visits, obtain business records and listen in on conversations between attorneys and clients.

"(Government officials) greatly expand the possibilities … that First Amendment activities will be chilled," he said.

Recent past events, such as when the White House warned citizens to watch what they say and celebrities were ostracized for speaking out against the war in Iraq, have hurt First Amendment rights, McMasters said.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said most concerns are unproven and that the Patriot Act has worked in combating terrorism.

"What Sept. 11 has shown us is that there are folks who would kill and destroy us," he said.

Coleman said since the act was passed, intelligence agencies have identified and dismantled 36 organizations financing terrorists.

In his January State of the Union address, President George W. Bush urged Congress to renew the act's provisions within the next year.

"The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule," he said. "Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens."

Coleman said he thinks Congress will renew the provisions.

Paul McCabe, FBI private investigator, said the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to communicate possible terrorist threats.

"It makes it much easier to share information," he said.

Tom Vellenga, international outreach and public affairs programs director at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, said this communication is positive. But, he said the act goes too far in allowing enforcement agencies to work without warrants in some situations.

"The Patriot Act hampers our ability to remain the type of democracy we want to be," Vellenga said.

The secrecy surrounding terrorist investigations is also a concern, he said.

"There's a great silence in the Justice Department," he said.

Charles Samuelson, Minnesota Civil Liberties Union director, said there is no oversight for how terrorist investigations are conducted.

"Nobody knows the ramifications and nobody knows how far (the act) will go," he said. "This thing needs to be thrown out."

Samuelson said he is concerned about the different relationship the act creates between citizens and the government. He said the government has arrested and held 3,000 people without court justification.

"What used to be a joke about the government is now reality and it's not so funny anymore," he said.

But Coleman said these concerns are unsubstantiated because there are no instances supporting them.

"(Government officials) need specific instances other than general complaint," he said.

Coleman said Congress is sensitive to the civil liberties concern.

"We would lose the war on terrorism if the result of that war is that we all had to give up our rights and liberties," Coleman said. "Then what would we be fighting for?"
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2004/03/10/8739
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,082 • Replies: 45
No top replies

 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 10:06 am
This is a very timely question and it should stir a healthy debate. I personally agree with the comments of Norm Coleman as I believe the Patriot act is essential for our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to complete their responsibilities and duties to locate and capture those who would try to kill citizens of this country, which is their stated goal.

Democrats Feinstein and Biden have found "zero" instances of abuse and I think they would be the first to sound the alarm if abuse truly existed. Abuse of the PA has not been proven but yet hysteria persists among the paranoid conspiracy theorists who abound on this forum and elsewhere on the left and unfortunately some exist on the right which accomplishes nothing except undermining the efforts of law enforcement officials.

One of the provisions of the Patriot Act eliminates the "Wall" erected by Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general under Clinton, which in my mind is a glaring example of the zealotry displayed by the "supposed" protectors of the 1st amendment. The "wall" prevented the FBI and CIA from sharing information which was the single most damning failure exposed by the 9/11 commission but......they glossed over the fact that Gorelick was a member of said commission and she would not "fess up" when she was exposed by testimony given by Ashcroft.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 10:43 am
Re: The Patriot Act: Boon or Boondoggle?
Foxfyre wrote:
The debate is hot and furious.



I think we all got a lesson about this the other day:

GOP House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner abruptly adjourned a Committee hearing on the Patriot Act Friday, leaving Democrats objecting into dead air after their microphones had been turned off. The hearing had been called at the request of Democrats, who had also invited the witnesses, including James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute and Chip Pitts, Chair of the Board of Amnesty International USA.

Sensenbrenner said that the testimony, much of which ended up turning on treatment of US terror detainees as Guantanamo Bay, was irrelevant, ended the proceeding and walked out with fellow Republicans in tow.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement afterwards saying that "Chairman Sensenbrenner proved again today that he is afraid of ideas, and that Republicans will stop at nothing to silence Democrats. It is quite ironic that at a hearing on the impact of the Patriot Act on civil liberties, the Republicans attempted to suppress free speech."

GOP Chairman Walks off, Bringing Patriot Act Hearing to an Abrupt End

Video clip of the end of the hearing [WMP].
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 10:53 am
Yes, the Democrats call for hearing after hearing after hearing with the same ground being covered at each. The Republicans defend measures taken under protection of the Patriot Act as necessary to prosecute the war on terrorism. As Rayban stated, however, several Democrats have not been able to find any violations of law or abuses that have been committed under The Patriot Act.

Is it enough that abuses COULD occur under The Patriot Act to scrap it? Or are actions taken via authority of the act necessary to the common welfare and the national defense? Is it possible to set aside partisanship and focus on what is necessary and beneficial for all Americans when we make decisions like this?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 11:34 am
Foxfyre wrote:

Or are actions taken via authority of the act necessary to the common welfare and the national defense? Is it possible to set aside partisanship and focus on what is necessary and beneficial for all Americans when we make decisions like this?


No. It is not possible to set aside partisanship when it comes to the Patriot act. The Patriot Act is partisan. Come on! Even the name smacks of partisanship.

The Patriot Act is neither necessary or beneficial for Americans-- except for partisan politicians and red-state law and order types who would gladly trade liberty for security.

Civil Rights are both necessary and benficial. The Patriot Act was a bad idea and should be scrapped as soon as possible in the name of liberty and justice.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jun, 2005 11:51 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Civil Rights are both necessary and benficial. The Patriot Act was a bad idea and should be scrapped as soon as possible in the name of liberty and justice.


I agree with you 100% ebrown. Further I am of the opinion that the Patriot Act has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the kind of dissent we saw in the 60's. It is designed to insure that such dissent will not happen again.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 09:25 am
Acquiunk writes
Quote:
I agree with you 100% ebrown. Further I am of the opinion that the Patriot Act has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the kind of dissent we saw in the 60's. It is designed to insure that such dissent will not happen again.


Could you elaborate on this a bit more A? How does the Patriot Act affect dissent?
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2005 10:09 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Could you elaborate on this a bit more A? How does the Patriot Act affect dissent?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jun, 2005 08:01 pm
Well Congress deep sixed the library perusal section of the Patriot Act.

washingtonpost.com
House Votes to Limit Patriot Act Rules

By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; 8:19 PM

WASHINGTON -- In a slap at President Bush, lawmakers voted Wednesday to block the Justice Department and the FBI from using the Patriot Act to peek at library records and bookstore sales slips.

The House voted 238-187 despite a veto threat from Bush to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that allows the government to investigate the reading habits of terror suspects.

The vote reversed a narrow loss last year by lawmakers concerned about the potential invasion of privacy of innocent library users. They narrowed the proposal this year to permit the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries.

The vote came as the House debated a $57.5 billion bill covering the departments of Commerce, Justice and State. The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and GOP leaders often drop provisions offensive to Bush during final negotiations.

"This is a tremendous victory that restores important constitutional rights to the American people," said Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., the sponsor of the measure. He said the vote would help "rein in an administration intent on chipping away at the very civil liberties that define us as a nation."

Congress is preparing to extend the Patriot Act, which was passed quickly in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Then, Congress included a sunset provision under which 15 of the law's provisions are to expire at the end of this year.

Supporters of rolling back the library and bookstore provision said that the law gives the FBI too much leeway to go on fishing expeditions on people's reading habits and that innocent people could get tagged as potential terrorists based on what they check out from a library.

"If the government suspects someone is looking up how to make atom bombs, go to a court and get a search warrant," said Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Supporters of the Patriot Act countered that the rules on reading records are a potentially useful tool in finding terrorists and argued that the House was voting to make libraries safe havens for them.

"If there are terrorists in libraries studying how to fly planes, how to put together biological weapons, how to put together chemical weapons, nuclear weapons ... we have to have an avenue through the federal court system so that we can stop the attack before it occurs," said Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla.

Last year, a similar provision was derailed by a 210-210 tie after several Republicans were pressured to switch votes.

In the meantime, a number of libraries have begun disposing of patrons' records quickly so they won't be available if sought under the law.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Congress in April that the government has never used the provision to obtain library, bookstore, medical or gun sale records.

But when asked whether the administration would agree to exclude library and medical records from the law, Gonzales demurred. "It should not be held against us that we have exercised restraint," he said.

Authorities have gained access to records through voluntary cooperation from librarians, Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/15/AR2005061501953_pf.html
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jun, 2005 09:45 am
Finally, a show of good sense by the House.

Foxfyre wrote:
Is it enough that abuses COULD occur under The Patriot Act to scrap it?

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." ---George Santayana

History teaches us that public power used beneath a veil of secrecy is public power abused. When we allow those we've entrusted with our power to operate without oversight, our power is used against us. Remember COINTELPRO?

rayban1 wrote:
One of the provisions of the Patriot Act eliminates the "Wall" erected by Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general under Clinton...

There was no law preventing the FBI and CIA from sharing terrorist related intelligence, and turf jealousy was a far more important factor preventing the two agencies from cooperating than any "wall" erected by Gorelick.

Perhaps the Patriot Act should have included a section making the president responsible for reading and paying attention to his intelligence reports, even when he's on one of his many vacations.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 06:49 am
Patriot Act renewal comes up for final debate and vote today in Congress.

Congressman Coble (R-NC) was on the radio this morning talking about it. He is in favor of renewal. When asked about the affect on liberties, he said he had heard that and one of his constituents had tried to tell him to vote against it, but then he asked that constituent how it had affected him personally and the guy couldn't come up with anything. Then, Coble claims he asked the same guy if he knew anyone that it had affected. The guy said no. So, Coble says it's okay.

Gee, isn't most of this done in secret? So how would we know? I don't know if there is a file being kept on me or not, and I wouldn't have a clue how to go about finding out in any real way that would assure me there isn't.

Meanwhile, the ACLU and others are aware of thousands of pages in files on them. This seems to be the use for Section 802: Allows government to obtain information from domestic dissident groups.

FBI Keeping Lengthy Files on Groups Opposed to Bush's Policies

That's stifling enough, just knowing if I contribute to or join such a group on a Saturday morning walk, I might become a target.

I also like this: Washington Post

Quote:
Bush said the law, enacted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, gives law enforcement and intelligence agencies new authority to share vital information.

He also credited the measure with helping authorities break up potential terrorist cells in several states.


POTENTIAL terrorist cells? Really? How do we know this is true?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 07:26 am
Patriot Act = Success of Terrorism
Throughout the last century, when losing forces wanted to cause winning forces to change their tactics to something more favorable for them, they initiated a radical attack on the enemy's homeland. Generally, the attacks did some damage, but nothing significant in the overall picture. But, each time, the attack made the winning forces go off on a self destructive path. A couple of examples that come to mind are the Berlin and Tokyo bombings early in WWII. But the all time, best example is the 9/11 attacks, and the Patriot Act is one example of how the terrorists prompted us to start self-destructing.

I do not believe the features in the Patriot Act don't help us track down terrorists. They do sacrifice some of our civil rights to help law enforcement, but I think law enforcement had a reasonable stable of tools to combat illegal activities before the Patriot Act. I feel the impact of the Patriot Act on our image as a free country has been massive, far out of proportion with the reality of the Act. The thought of the US as a country where personal liberty is valued and personal rights are protected has been tarnished, especially with those people we are most interested in winning over. If we separate ourselves from the rest of the world, the terrorists have won and the Patriot Act is a large brick in the wall we are building around ourselves.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 08:27 am
I think it was obvious to just about everybody that U.S. law enforcement at all levels did not have the necessary tools to use in the unique threat of terrorist attacks. Nobody can know for sure whether among thousands upon thousands of potential 'warnings' the particular ones signaling 9/11 could have been recognized and checked out in time to forestall that tragic event, but it is obvious there would have been a better chance of that had the Patriot Act been in effect prior to 9/11.

And we have not had any further attacks which I think most law enforcement personnel attribute in part to the Patriot Act.

The following includes some additional thoughts:

Posted 7/20/2005 9:13 PM
Reality vs. myths
By Michael Battle

Since the USA Patriot Act passed with wide, bipartisan support, it has been the target of a campaign of misinformation. The truth is that it preserves civil liberties while helping us keep America safe from terror.
As a federal prosecutor, I have used the act to prosecute a terrorism case in my hometown. In summer 2001, as a U.S. attorney for New York State, I began investigating what turned out to be an active terrorist cell within the USA. Before the law passed, the investigation was hamstrung by a legal "wall" that prevented law enforcement and intelligence officials from sharing information. We had to set up two investigations, and agents from one side could not talk with the other. As a result, we couldn't connect the dots.

Following 9/11, President Bush and Congress recognized that prosecutors and law enforcement didn't have the counterterrorism tools needed to keep the country safe. Congress passed the Patriot Act, and it has been critical in helping us dismantle terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots and capture terrorists before they have been able to strike.

One of the most important things the act did was to break down that wall. In my case, our two teams were able to share information and discover that the suspects had attended an al-Qaeda training camp. They had studied firearms, explosives and tactical training, and learned how to detonate hand grenades, Molotov cocktails and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Then, they came back to America and were living among us. Thanks to this law, the terrorists known as the "Lackawanna Six" are behind bars instead of living in my hometown.

This is only one of many examples of how this law has helped us detect and bring to justice those who would abuse the freedoms that make our nation great. It also strengthened and updated our criminal laws to address new technology. We can now use against terrorists the tools we were already using in drug and violent-crime cases.

Judges and Congress have carefully reviewed our use of these tools, and to date there are no verified civil liberties violations. In fact, the act contains several safeguards specifically designed to protect civil liberties.

This December, 16 key provisions of this law will expire. As Congress debates, I hope it remembers the Lackawanna Six. The threat of terrorism will not expire in December; neither should the tools that keep us safe.

Michael Battle is director of the Justice Department's Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 08:36 am
The ability to share information between agencies seems pretty basic. Why the heck that wasn't in place all along seems to be a good question. Safeguards for citizens and sharing that would have been tantamount to spying on citizens could have been in place to counter that one argument against sharing that I have heard.

However, the rest of the patriot act seems to overreach countering terrorism, and is open to abuse of citizens. The argument that we haven't heard of any wide spread abuse seems silly. It's secret, so of course we wouldn't know.
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 09:24 am
squinney: FYI--the FBI has been keeping files on public figures, dissident groups and individuals since its inception. The Patriot Act makes it easier to get information and take steps against dissident groups and individuals. If you want to know if there's a file on you and what it says, you can get it through a Freedom of Information Act request (unless you're an activist, public figure or are in more than casual contact with known or suspected foreign agents, there probably isn't a file on you).

Foxfyre: Well, after 9/11 it was certainly obvious that our law enforcement and intelligence communities were unprepared or inept, but having a commander-in-chief who actually read his intelligence briefings would have been a far more effective preventitive of the 9/11 attacks than anything proffered by the Patriot Act. One of the myths that, rather than being dispelled, is actually perpetuated by the article you present is this notion of a "wall" blocking the exchange of information between intelligence and law enforcement--the "wall" was created by turf jealousy and overly rigid interpretation of the law; there was absolutely nothing legally keeping the intelligence and law enforcement communities from sharing information on terrorists before the Patriot Act (Source: The Center for Democracy and Technology, "Opposing Viewpoint," in Congressional Digest, volume 83, Nov 2004). But fine, since there was nothing preventing the sharing of information before, than there's no harm leaving that in the Patriot Act. And nobody's liberties are threatened by the relief of victims of terrorism provided in the Act, and they're probably not threatened by the increased funding to enhance and train law enforcement personnel to more effectively respond to terrorist activity and attacks (the Patriot Act is, after all, several hundred pages long; the threat to civil liberties comes from only a few sections of it). However, government agencies must not be trusted with a rubber stamp to do pretty much as they please. They must have oversight ensuring their respect for the constitutional rights of public. The Patriot Act does not provide the intelligence and law enforcement communities with new tools, just new freedoms to violate our rights.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 09:56 am
The patriot act was written in large part before 9/11. That should tell ya everything you need to know about it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 11:31 am
Not so obvious to me
Quote:
I think it was obvious to just about everybody that U.S. law enforcement at all levels did not have the necessary tools to use in the unique threat of terrorist attacks. Nobody can know for sure whether among thousands upon thousands of potential 'warnings' the particular ones signaling 9/11 could have been recognized and checked out in time to forestall that tragic event, but it is obvious there would have been a better chance of that had the Patriot Act been in effect prior to 9/11.

And we have not had any further attacks which I think most law enforcement personnel attribute in part to the Patriot Act.


I don't think that the Patriot Act has added any tools to impact terrorism. We certainly have not heard about the 50 attacks that were broken up in the planning phase because we had the Patriot Act and if they existed, we would be hearing about them every day. When we do hear about the benefits of the Patriot Act, we hear that law enforcement is using it to go after standard criminal activity.

Law enforcement personnel might attribute the lack of further attacks to the Patriot Act, but I think they would be self-serving. Ask the White House and it is because of the war in Iraq. (Unless they are defending the Patriot Act, then that's the reason.) I have yet to hear where the use of Patriot Act tools resulted in a terrorism arrest that would not have happened without those rules.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 11:57 am
The most complete and comprehensive body of information available on the Patriot Act appears to be HERE

The section on recent testimony before Congress is especially interesting.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 12:08 pm
Reality vs. myths
By Michael Battle

Since the USA Patriot Act passed with wide, bipartisan support, it has been the target of a campaign of misinformation. The truth is that it preserves civil liberties while helping us keep America safe from terror.

As a federal prosecutor, I have used the act to prosecute a terrorism case in my hometown. In summer 2001, as a U.S. attorney for New York State, I began investigating what turned out to be an active terrorist cell within the USA. Before the law passed, the investigation was hamstrung by a legal "wall" that prevented law enforcement and intelligence officials from sharing information. We had to set up two investigations, and agents from one side could not talk with the other. As a result, we couldn't connect the dots.

Following 9/11, President Bush and Congress recognized that prosecutors and law enforcement didn't have the counterterrorism tools needed to keep the country safe. Congress passed the Patriot Act, and it has been critical in helping us dismantle terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots and capture terrorists before they have been able to strike.

One of the most important things the act did was to break down that wall. In my case, our two teams were able to share information and discover that the suspects had attended an al-Qaeda training camp. They had studied firearms, explosives and tactical training, and learned how to detonate hand grenades, Molotov cocktails and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Then, they came back to America and were living among us. Thanks to this law, the terrorists known as the "Lackawanna Six" are behind bars instead of living in my hometown.

This is only one of many examples of how this law has helped us detect and bring to justice those who would abuse the freedoms that make our nation great. It also strengthened and updated our criminal laws to address new technology. We can now use against terrorists the tools we were already using in drug and violent-crime cases.

Judges and Congress have carefully reviewed our use of these tools, and to date there are no verified civil liberties violations. In fact, the act contains several safeguards specifically designed to protect civil liberties.

This December, 16 key provisions of this law will expire. As Congress debates, I hope it remembers the Lackawanna Six. The threat of terrorism will not expire in December; neither should the tools that keep us safe.

Source
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 12:12 pm
Quote:
Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended "to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

The PATRIOT Act waters down the Fourth Amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
conservative republican congresman from Texas Ron Paul
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Patriot Act: Boon or Boondoggle?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 03:28:00