PATRIOT ACT: The Dhimmicrats Kill One of The Single Most Effective Weapons Against Terror, SEE RINO VIDEO HERE
George W is a victim of his
own success. The spineless little girls that call themselves Democrats
have not renewed key provisions the Patriot Act due to expire at the end of this month.. They are aligning themselves with CAIR (the
Council of Islamic Relations). Imagine that. You couldn't write fiction like
this! President Bush has done such an extraordinary job of protecting Americans,
that the Dhemmis have the gall, the utter hubris to tempt fate. FOOLS! Just
because we haven't had an attack since 9/11, do these asshats believe "it's
safe"? Can you see the barbarians laughing their
asses off in their airless caves? The Vote 52 to 47.
One of our most effective weapons on the
War on Radical Islamofascism is also under attack again from the largest muslim
group in America. CAIR Launches Patriot Act Blog. CAIR is a dangerous organization.
CAIR's blog, located at CAIRPatriotAct, offers information about the unsupervised domestic surveillance
powers contained in the legislation and suggests ways in which voters can
express their concerns to elected officials. It will be updated daily with new
information. (Automatic updates can be sent to newsreader software using the
Atom URL: CAIRPatriotAct ATOM. For newsreader information, go to: www.AtomEnabled.org) [they are certainly using all
the up-to-the-minute state of the art technology - American ingenuity at its
very best - Atlas]
The 52-47 roll call by which the Senate voted to reject reauthorization of
several provisions of the USA Patriot Act. Sixty votes were needed to overcome a
filibuster of the bill.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to end the
filibuster and a "no" vote was a vote to continue a filibuster.
Voting "yes" were 2 Democrats and 50 Republicans. Voting "no" were
41 Democrats, 5 Republicans and one independent.
"There has been
not been one single case in America............Diane Feinstein testified before
the Senate committee that she had received 20,000 letters complaining about
everything from soup to nuts and Feinstein had her staff go through every one of
those letters. And not one , not one even simple case of abuse. Not one. And
Feinstien called the ACLU and asked them for a specific example and she said
they couldn't name one."
"The Patriot Act was very helpful to us in
the Lackawanna case. in the Cortland [the 2003 trial charging subjects with
material support to Al Queda in Portland, Oregon. This exceptional investigation
by the FBI and other agencies is described on the FBI Portland Field office web site hat tip MarcH] it's helpful in lowering the barrier between law
enforcement and intelligence and allows for the prosecution of individuals
charged in the murder of American citizens in Israel in buses that were blown up
in Israel...................."
Pulling down the "firewall" dividing law
enforcement and intelligence agencies. This may sound technical, but it
greatly enhanced American capabilities. For years, legal investigators
pursued information that their colleagues in the intelligence agencies already
had. It was like "having your best football players sitting on the bench when
you are having your butts beat," notes Barry Carmody, an FBI agent who worked on
the Sami Al-Arian terrorism case. Then the Patriot Act was passed and
"Everything changed." More
here
Morehere on the architect of the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft,
Photoon (artistnot in residence) Pete iHillary. Check this video out of RINO John Sununu with Sean Hannity, who btw takes him on and finishes him off.
INTERVIEW CONTINUED (and yeah that's me catwallin in the background)
UPDATE: From JAHPDQ "Next cooked up story that begins with a true premise and goes south real fast. Check out this quote from the linked article:
____________________________________________________
Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former NSA general counsel, said it was troubling that such a change would have been made by executive order, even if it turns out to be within the law.
Parker, who has no direct knowledge of the program, said the effect could be corrosive. "There are programs that do push the edge, and would be appropriate, but will be thrown out," she said.
_______________________________________________
One needn't look far to find out who Ms. Parker is:
As a lawyer, I can tell you, that when a lawyer that you know is on the opposite side of an issue says something like, "even if it turns out to have been within the law. . .", that attorney is pretty damn sure what was done WAS within the law.
So, what's the message from Ms. Parker? The Bush administration has done something, "legal; but corrosive."
Now, this is a very direct statement. If I had to guess, I'd guess that Bush is
angry — livid, chair-throwing angry — about this revelation, especially since
the Times said in so many words that they withheld publication for a year
because publication could harm national security. This raises the interesting
question, what changed? If it would harm national security on 1 December, what
made it publishable on 16 December?
It would appear that the Times
is admitting that they released this information, knowing it would damage
national security.
Everyone is so effing ON today. I love it! And this from Dave in Seattle who sent this this morning to NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday host Scott
Simon:
Scott, please tell Dan Schorr that "analysis" is more than saying
"This reminds me of when President Nixon..."! Everything reminds Dan of President Nixon. I find it shocking that he compares NSA eavesdropping on selected phone numbers that were found on terrorist cellphones with Nixon's "enemies list". He has lost it, and NPR has lost any credible claim to
provide analysis of the news.
And Scott, when you asked Dan for his
analysis of the impact non-extension of the Patriot Act, you should have
said "impact on the security of America" because Dan of course only thinks
about politcal impact. Dan has precious little interest in US security,
unless it is right after an attack when he can fatuously ask why nobody
"connected the dots".
I do not enjoy listening to NPR hosts asking
relevant questions of Mr. Schorr, only to have him respond in terms of
over-the-top analogies that dodge the question. The information content of
this morning's commentary was a flat zero.
He shoots! He scores!
UPDATE: December 19th And a word from the man;
Taking Liberties With the Nation's
Security
By RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI NY Times
YESTERDAY the
Senate failed to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, as a Democratic-led filibuster
prevented a vote. This action - which leaves the act, key elements of which are
due to expire on Dec. 31, in limbo - represents a grave potential threat to the
nation's security. I support the extension of the Patriot Act for one simple
reason: Americans must use every legal and constitutional tool in their arsenal
to fight terrorism and protect their lives and liberties.
The attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001, made clear that the old rules no longer work. The terrorists who
attacked us seek to kill innocent men, women and children of all races and
creeds. They seek to destroy our liberties. They willingly kill themselves in
their effort to bring death and suffering to as many innocents as they can, here
in this country or anywhere in the world where freedom has a foothold.
I am spreading the word to as many blogs as possible.
The defeat of the Patriot Act was due to the Democratic Party in the United States of America aligning themselves with the Council of Islamic Relations. (CAIR)
Senator Frist's "no" vote was a procedural one, so he can bring it up for a vote again.
Twice today, Democrats aligned themselves with defeat and the undercutting of our intelligence capability. Actually three times with the paper with a criminal record, the New York Times, undercutting our intelligence capabilities.
Good job that I wasn't capturing the interview; my comments could not be used...girly man Colmes makes me want to throw things at the TV..and Hannity is a hero, who cleaned Sununu's (who is just like his dear old dad) clock.
Thanks for the info on Sen. Frist. Leave it to Shrillery and Schumer to do this. Joe Lieberman was a surprise..I guess they are doing a circle jerk in the dhummicrat kindergarten.
I do believe that the Patriot Act is working and that it is an effective measure to counter terrorism. But it is such a strong package of government powers that I do not think it should be made permanent. A rolling two year scheme is better. That way each Congress will have the ultimate opportunity to evaluate and renew it. This would allow our legislators to make it virtually permanent. However, it can also be revoked if the executive power falls into the hands of the wrong people.
I trust this administration with it, but imagine Hillary Clinton stretching the Patriot Act to its limits to go after her political adversaries.
Great post Atlas...
It’s time to vote with our wallets... remotes... and 2006 WITH our VOTES!!!!
Had enough of the Left and the MSM??????
I sure the HECK HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AubreyJ.........
I was posting on this today http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/senatorial-patriot-act-debate.html
Nearly all the legal tools on the Patriot Act had been used in crime investigations in the country well before 9/11 but had not been applied in terrorism-related investigations, since a legal wall prevented law enforcement agencies from sharing information with the intelligence community. That wall cost thousands of lives.
These self centered liberals just don't get the big picture. This isn't about finding out what escort service you use or who your dealer is just to score political points. They think that because that's how they would use it, that's how this administration want's to use it.
It's about trying to save American lives! Get with the f*cking program.
I hope President Bush hits them right between the eyes in Sunday's speech...or kicks them right in the balls, including Pelosi, H. Clinton, and B. Boxer.
Thankfully Bush stood fast and firm on this one today. Now we need to put some leakers in jail, even (especially) if they happen also to be elected representatives.
I'm with Jeff Goldstein in hoping that bloggers push hard for full investigation and prosecution of NY Times intel leakers.
Failure to renew the Patriot Act will delay and obstruct legitimate investigations in numerous ways. One example is loss of the terrorism investigation related administrative subpoena/National Security Letter.
Normally, investigators must obtain and serve a federal grand jury (FGJ) subpoena to acquire records from banks, cell-phone providers, credit card companies, etc. which might aid an investigation. Information obtained through a FGJ subpoena comes with numerous restrictions on its dissemination. For example, if an FBI agent investigating a possible terrorism related matter utilizes a FGJ subpoena to obtain long distance telephone records he is subject criminal penalties if he discloses that information to another party, unless a federal judge authorizes the disclosure. So, for example, if the FBI agent thinks there could be an IRS aspect to the case, he must spend a significant amount of time arranging for an IRS agent to receive authority to review the documents. So it goes for every other agency or law enforcement officer who may, perhaps, need to review the records.
One can see how this can bog down all but the most high priority investigations. The Patriot Act solves this problem by empowering the FBI to issue its own administrative subpoenas/National Security Letters and share information received with any agency with a need to know to assist in the investigation.
The ACLU and its political allies oppose this and other provisions of the Patriot Act. I haven’t seen these characters present alternate methods for law enforcement officers to efficiently conduct such investigations.
Readers may want to visit the ACLU site on the Patriot Act and read their silly objections(http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/).
I hope that President Bush doesn’t agree to a watered down, impotent version of the Patriot Act. He should demand “all or nothing at all” from Congress. Half a loaf doesn’t appeal to me.
OK, fine, so it is alleged that the Patriot Act has not been abused.
Yet.
I, for one, have a healthy distrust of agencies like the FBI who are little more than dirt-diggers for the administration-do-jour.
How many of you will sing the Act's praises when the Democrats are running the show again and find YOU are the targets? I mean, you MUST be a terrorist because you attend church, were overheard "dissing" Nancy Pellosi, or whatever.
On the flipside, we elect someone with the Buchanan/Farah/Savage mindset, and it's homosexual groups targeted, including Log Cabin.
I'm a small-"l" libertarian, so I'm perceived as a danger to either side.
Friendly Grizzly - To follow you argument to its logical conclusion, why give police any greater powers than those of the average citizen in the conduct of investigations? The police might abuse those powers, right?
I think your argument would have the chance to be more persuasive if you would point out one or more specific PA provisions and then explain exactly how you think that provision erodes a specific constitutional protection.
From the thread, "We shoot, We score..." MarcH issued the following challenge:
*****
Atheist,
I don't think this site is explicitly conservative (even if Atlas likes Rand). It's a site for freedom lovers and freedom fighters (for example the socialist/atheist Christopher Hitchens) and VP Dick Cheney are both admired.
On the other hand, all effective freedom fighters, including true conservatives, share a tragic-realist view that freedom faces dire threats in our era and we have to take prudent steps to defend it. The Patriot Act is one of those steps.
I have a request for you. Could you please review the proposed Patriot Act and identify for the readers of this site exactly which freedoms it gives up. Please post it to a more recent thread so that we can all see and be awed, impressed and enlightened by your familiarity with Constitutional and Criminal Law.
I intend to post your last question and this response by me on a recent thread above so that readers can have the benefit of your concern for their freedoms.
*****
Thanks for the unwarranted sarcastic edge to your challenge, MarcH, but I do not pretend to be a constitutional scholar, nor do I presume that anything I am going to say will blow the mind of anyone here; you can all read as well as I can, I hope. The Patriot Act, despite the fact it makes more legal amendments than new provisions, is a long document, and my problems with it are similarly long. But I'll make a short list:
1. Right to privacy and security from unreasonable search and seizure: The Patriot Act allows the government increasingly broad and increasingly unchecked access to personal, medical, and financial records (as well as the books you check out from the library), provides for phone, wire, and email taps and other forms of electronic monitoring, and allows sneak-and-peak searches without consent, knowledge, or display of a warrant.
2. Right to free speech: The Patriot Act creates the notion of "domestic terrorism" and defines it and general "terrorism" so broadly that the investigation and surveillance of individuals or organizations could be justified on the grounds that they "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government
by intimidation or coercion." It does not take a stretch of the imagination to see how this could be used against those of dissenting political views.
3. Right to public/jury/speedy/any trial: The Patriot Act gives the executive branch broad authority to declare people "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" at which point they can be detained for virtually any length of time without charges or trial (or guarantee of humane treatment), at which point you've generally lost all the rights you ever thought you had.
(A longer and more detailed examination can be found here http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/USA_PATRIOT_ACT.pdf)
As I said I don't expect that will blow anyone's mind; I expect some people to love the hell out of the above things that unnerve me. It's just a matter of what you will or won't allow your government to do. You might be say "well, the government is only going to use it's power on the bad guys, and I'm not a bad guy." Well, I'm your average, not-so-swarthy white male, but the government that has the power to strip other people of their liberty can do that to me as well, and I don't like that. I'd rather not trust my personal liberties to those whose jobs become easier if my liberties are compromised. I agree with Ben Franklin.
MarcH said: "Friendly Grizzly - To follow you argument to its logical conclusion, why give police any greater powers than those of the average citizen in the conduct of investigations? The police might abuse those powers, right?"
The police DO NOT have greater powers than those of average citizens in the conduct of investigations...so long as they do not have a warrant issued by a judge. It's a check on the power of the police. The Patriot Act allows the federal government (and particularly the executive branch) to exercise powers without checks, essentially undermining the Constitution itself. I provided a short list above of the ways I see the Patriot Act undermining the Constitution. And then there are these:
We "Dhimmocrats"(ooh, we're SOOOO insulted!) are the ones fighting for America by defeating a completely McCarthyist, UnAmerican piece of legislation that opens the way for fascism in the U.S. It figures you Republicunts and Yellow Elephants would whine about a totally ineffective, useless law that advocates taking away the freedoms that set America apart in order to protect them, because that is the very reverse logic that Fox Ooze regurgitates to you every night as you play with yourselves. In the immortal words of the great McCarthy slayer, Edgar R. Murrow: "How can we defend freedom abroad when we are destroying it at home?!" Oh, and I find it ironic that the above article features a cartoon fascist crying "The Patriot Act is dead. Man your battle stations!", because it's exactly what you armchair patriots and Yellow Elephant Republicunts AREN'T doing! Recruitment levels are so low, recruiters are having to lower their standards to meet quotas. So, put your money where your mouths are and sign up for the wars that you support. I did my time, it's time for the right wing "patriots" to do theirs. Oh, and by the way MX james( is that a reference to the MX missle? You're sooo tough!), your comment just sounds way too rational, advocating violence against fellow Americans. Kinda sounds like you're the terrorist there. I'll tell the FBI to investigate YOU! See ya'll later armchair patriots!
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Well, I read Atlas Shrugs, Power Line, National Review blogs ...... ... Ambassador John Bolton
I'm a fan! - Mark Steyn
Fearless, intelligent, beautiful -- Pamela Geller wears her Supergirl
costume well.
Pamela Geller is a dynamo of energy and
a paragon of courage and fearlessness.
-- Robert Spencer, JihadWatch in his book Stealth Jihad
You do great work with your blog. -- Geert Wilders
"Courageous insights from a pulchritudinous pundit!!" Dr. Andrew Bostom, Leading Scholar on Islam
"Great site," Dick Morris
"Indeed, some of Israel's best friends and most articulate defenders can be found in the blogosphere .... Atlas Shrugs, [et al] all provide a refreshing alternative to the moral relativism and politically correct anti-Israel blather of the media. Michael Freund, Jerusalem Post
"The best there is," Beryl Wajsman, President Institute of Public Affairs
Speaking to the unnamed, unchampioned, beating heart of her new land, Ayn was to say: 'Yours is the glory.'"
A man whose ability and independence leads others to reject him, but who perseveres nevertheless to achieve his values. Man as an individual, as a creator. What's the most depraved type of human being? Not a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; "The man without a purpose." Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose.
Life has Loveliness to sell,
All beautiful and splendid things,
Blue waves whitened on a cliff,
Soaring fires that sways and swing,
And children's faces looking up,
Holding wonder like a cup
Life has Loveliness to sell,
Music like a curve of Gold,
Scent of pinetrees in the rain,
Eyes that love you,
arms that hold,
And for your spirit's still delight,
Holy stars that star the night.
Spend all you have for loveliness,
Buy it and never count the cost;
For one white singing hour of Peace
Count many a year of strife well lost
And for a breath of ecstasy
Give all you have been, or could be.
George W is a victim of his
own success. The spineless little girls that call themselves Democrats
have not renewed key provisions the Patriot Act due to expire at the end of this month.. They are aligning themselves with CAIR (the
Council of Islamic Relations). Imagine that. You couldn't write fiction like
this! President Bush has done such an extraordinary job of protecting Americans,
that the Dhemmis have the gall, the utter hubris to tempt fate. FOOLS! Just
because we haven't had an attack since 9/11, do these asshats believe "it's
safe"? Can you see the barbarians laughing their
asses off in their airless caves? The Vote 52 to 47. 
![Kurdistan](http://<a href="http://northerniraq.info" title="northern iraq"><img src="http://northerniraq.info/northlogo.gif" width="135px" height="68px" alt="northern iraq"><br>northern iraq </a>){kind=link}
I am spreading the word to as many blogs as possible.
The defeat of the Patriot Act was due to the Democratic Party in the United States of America aligning themselves with the Council of Islamic Relations. (CAIR)
Posted by: RG | Friday, December 16, 2005 at 07:46 PM
How does one laugh their ass off in an airless cave?
No air = dead = no laughing.
...and y'all pretend to the MSM throne.
Posted by: michael | Friday, December 16, 2005 at 08:01 PM
Senator Frist's "no" vote was a procedural one, so he can bring it up for a vote again.
Twice today, Democrats aligned themselves with defeat and the undercutting of our intelligence capability. Actually three times with the paper with a criminal record, the New York Times, undercutting our intelligence capabilities.
Speak out, President Bush.
Posted by: neverforget | Friday, December 16, 2005 at 08:18 PM
I got to believe that the Patriot Act will be resubmitted at least in a watered down version that even the cut and run party can agree on.
Posted by: Theway2k | Friday, December 16, 2005 at 10:04 PM
Good job that I wasn't capturing the interview; my comments could not be used...girly man Colmes makes me want to throw things at the TV..and Hannity is a hero, who cleaned Sununu's (who is just like his dear old dad) clock.
Thanks for the info on Sen. Frist. Leave it to Shrillery and Schumer to do this. Joe Lieberman was a surprise..I guess they are doing a circle jerk in the dhummicrat kindergarten.
Posted by: Lois | Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 03:48 AM
I do believe that the Patriot Act is working and that it is an effective measure to counter terrorism. But it is such a strong package of government powers that I do not think it should be made permanent. A rolling two year scheme is better. That way each Congress will have the ultimate opportunity to evaluate and renew it. This would allow our legislators to make it virtually permanent. However, it can also be revoked if the executive power falls into the hands of the wrong people.
I trust this administration with it, but imagine Hillary Clinton stretching the Patriot Act to its limits to go after her political adversaries.
Posted by: Expat Swede | Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 09:44 AM
Great post Atlas...
It’s time to vote with our wallets... remotes... and 2006 WITH our VOTES!!!!
Had enough of the Left and the MSM??????
I sure the HECK HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AubreyJ.........
Posted by: AubreyJ | Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 01:26 PM
I was posting on this today http://badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/senatorial-patriot-act-debate.html
Nearly all the legal tools on the Patriot Act had been used in crime investigations in the country well before 9/11 but had not been applied in terrorism-related investigations, since a legal wall prevented law enforcement agencies from sharing information with the intelligence community. That wall cost thousands of lives.
Posted by: Fausta | Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 02:04 PM
These self centered liberals just don't get the big picture. This isn't about finding out what escort service you use or who your dealer is just to score political points. They think that because that's how they would use it, that's how this administration want's to use it.
It's about trying to save American lives! Get with the f*cking program.
Posted by: lowandslow | Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 03:59 PM
I hope President Bush hits them right between the eyes in Sunday's speech...or kicks them right in the balls, including Pelosi, H. Clinton, and B. Boxer.
Posted by: neverforget | Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 07:01 PM
Thankfully Bush stood fast and firm on this one today. Now we need to put some leakers in jail, even (especially) if they happen also to be elected representatives.
I'm with Jeff Goldstein in hoping that bloggers push hard for full investigation and prosecution of NY Times intel leakers.
Thanks for your lead.
Posted by: Pete | Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 12:46 AM
Failure to renew the Patriot Act will delay and obstruct legitimate investigations in numerous ways. One example is loss of the terrorism investigation related administrative subpoena/National Security Letter.
Normally, investigators must obtain and serve a federal grand jury (FGJ) subpoena to acquire records from banks, cell-phone providers, credit card companies, etc. which might aid an investigation. Information obtained through a FGJ subpoena comes with numerous restrictions on its dissemination. For example, if an FBI agent investigating a possible terrorism related matter utilizes a FGJ subpoena to obtain long distance telephone records he is subject criminal penalties if he discloses that information to another party, unless a federal judge authorizes the disclosure. So, for example, if the FBI agent thinks there could be an IRS aspect to the case, he must spend a significant amount of time arranging for an IRS agent to receive authority to review the documents. So it goes for every other agency or law enforcement officer who may, perhaps, need to review the records.
One can see how this can bog down all but the most high priority investigations. The Patriot Act solves this problem by empowering the FBI to issue its own administrative subpoenas/National Security Letters and share information received with any agency with a need to know to assist in the investigation.
The ACLU and its political allies oppose this and other provisions of the Patriot Act. I haven’t seen these characters present alternate methods for law enforcement officers to efficiently conduct such investigations.
Readers may want to visit the ACLU site on the Patriot Act and read their silly objections(http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/).
I hope that President Bush doesn’t agree to a watered down, impotent version of the Patriot Act. He should demand “all or nothing at all” from Congress. Half a loaf doesn’t appeal to me.
Posted by: MarcH | Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 02:18 AM
OK, fine, so it is alleged that the Patriot Act has not been abused.
Yet.
I, for one, have a healthy distrust of agencies like the FBI who are little more than dirt-diggers for the administration-do-jour.
How many of you will sing the Act's praises when the Democrats are running the show again and find YOU are the targets? I mean, you MUST be a terrorist because you attend church, were overheard "dissing" Nancy Pellosi, or whatever.
On the flipside, we elect someone with the Buchanan/Farah/Savage mindset, and it's homosexual groups targeted, including Log Cabin.
I'm a small-"l" libertarian, so I'm perceived as a danger to either side.
Be carefuly what you wish for.
Posted by: the friendly grizzly | Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 09:21 AM
Friendly Grizzly - To follow you argument to its logical conclusion, why give police any greater powers than those of the average citizen in the conduct of investigations? The police might abuse those powers, right?
I think your argument would have the chance to be more persuasive if you would point out one or more specific PA provisions and then explain exactly how you think that provision erodes a specific constitutional protection.
Posted by: MarcH | Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 10:55 AM
Who cares, the next al Qaeda bomb will kill mostly democrats anyway. Go for it.
Posted by: wxjames | Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 11:02 AM
From the thread, "We shoot, We score..." MarcH issued the following challenge:
*****
Atheist,
I don't think this site is explicitly conservative (even if Atlas likes Rand). It's a site for freedom lovers and freedom fighters (for example the socialist/atheist Christopher Hitchens) and VP Dick Cheney are both admired.
On the other hand, all effective freedom fighters, including true conservatives, share a tragic-realist view that freedom faces dire threats in our era and we have to take prudent steps to defend it. The Patriot Act is one of those steps.
I have a request for you. Could you please review the proposed Patriot Act and identify for the readers of this site exactly which freedoms it gives up. Please post it to a more recent thread so that we can all see and be awed, impressed and enlightened by your familiarity with Constitutional and Criminal Law.
I intend to post your last question and this response by me on a recent thread above so that readers can have the benefit of your concern for their freedoms.
*****
Thanks for the unwarranted sarcastic edge to your challenge, MarcH, but I do not pretend to be a constitutional scholar, nor do I presume that anything I am going to say will blow the mind of anyone here; you can all read as well as I can, I hope. The Patriot Act, despite the fact it makes more legal amendments than new provisions, is a long document, and my problems with it are similarly long. But I'll make a short list:
1. Right to privacy and security from unreasonable search and seizure: The Patriot Act allows the government increasingly broad and increasingly unchecked access to personal, medical, and financial records (as well as the books you check out from the library), provides for phone, wire, and email taps and other forms of electronic monitoring, and allows sneak-and-peak searches without consent, knowledge, or display of a warrant.
2. Right to free speech: The Patriot Act creates the notion of "domestic terrorism" and defines it and general "terrorism" so broadly that the investigation and surveillance of individuals or organizations could be justified on the grounds that they "appear to be intended…to influence the policy of a government
by intimidation or coercion." It does not take a stretch of the imagination to see how this could be used against those of dissenting political views.
3. Right to public/jury/speedy/any trial: The Patriot Act gives the executive branch broad authority to declare people "terrorists" or "enemy combatants" at which point they can be detained for virtually any length of time without charges or trial (or guarantee of humane treatment), at which point you've generally lost all the rights you ever thought you had.
(A longer and more detailed examination can be found here http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/USA_PATRIOT_ACT.pdf)
As I said I don't expect that will blow anyone's mind; I expect some people to love the hell out of the above things that unnerve me. It's just a matter of what you will or won't allow your government to do. You might be say "well, the government is only going to use it's power on the bad guys, and I'm not a bad guy." Well, I'm your average, not-so-swarthy white male, but the government that has the power to strip other people of their liberty can do that to me as well, and I don't like that. I'd rather not trust my personal liberties to those whose jobs become easier if my liberties are compromised. I agree with Ben Franklin.
Posted by: The Atheist | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 03:17 AM
MarcH said: "Friendly Grizzly - To follow you argument to its logical conclusion, why give police any greater powers than those of the average citizen in the conduct of investigations? The police might abuse those powers, right?"
The police DO NOT have greater powers than those of average citizens in the conduct of investigations...so long as they do not have a warrant issued by a judge. It's a check on the power of the police. The Patriot Act allows the federal government (and particularly the executive branch) to exercise powers without checks, essentially undermining the Constitution itself. I provided a short list above of the ways I see the Patriot Act undermining the Constitution. And then there are these:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7830.shtml
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/12/anti-american-president.html
Posted by: The Atheist | Monday, December 19, 2005 at 03:52 AM
We "Dhimmocrats"(ooh, we're SOOOO insulted!) are the ones fighting for America by defeating a completely McCarthyist, UnAmerican piece of legislation that opens the way for fascism in the U.S. It figures you Republicunts and Yellow Elephants would whine about a totally ineffective, useless law that advocates taking away the freedoms that set America apart in order to protect them, because that is the very reverse logic that Fox Ooze regurgitates to you every night as you play with yourselves. In the immortal words of the great McCarthy slayer, Edgar R. Murrow: "How can we defend freedom abroad when we are destroying it at home?!" Oh, and I find it ironic that the above article features a cartoon fascist crying "The Patriot Act is dead. Man your battle stations!", because it's exactly what you armchair patriots and Yellow Elephant Republicunts AREN'T doing! Recruitment levels are so low, recruiters are having to lower their standards to meet quotas. So, put your money where your mouths are and sign up for the wars that you support. I did my time, it's time for the right wing "patriots" to do theirs. Oh, and by the way MX james( is that a reference to the MX missle? You're sooo tough!), your comment just sounds way too rational, advocating violence against fellow Americans. Kinda sounds like you're the terrorist there. I'll tell the FBI to investigate YOU! See ya'll later armchair patriots!
Posted by: imac | Wednesday, December 21, 2005 at 01:40 AM