Agreement Reached On Patriot Act

[Luke T.]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/patriotact.ap/

A band of Senate Republican holdouts reached agreement Thursday with the White House on changes in the Patriot Act designed to clear the way for passage of anti-terror legislation stalled in a dispute over civil liberties.

The compromise focused on three areas:


Giving recipients of subpoenas for information in terrorist investigations the right to challenge a requirement that they refrain from telling anyone.


Eliminating a requirement that an individual provide the FBI with the name of a lawyer consulted about a National Security Letter, which is a secret request for records.


Clarifying that most libraries are not subject to demands in those letters for information about suspected terrorists.


Three cheers for radical, militant librarians! (https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlinks/radicalbutton.htm)

[LibraryLady]

Thank you. I appreciate the kind words!

Now, have you returned your overdue books? (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.library08feb08,0,1267090.story)

[WildCat]

Thank you. I appreciate the kind words!

Now, have you returned your overdue books? (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.library08feb08,0,1267090.story)
I have a confession, LibraryLady... in 1983 I stole a book from my high school library, called "Science and the Paranormal". And the main reason I stole it was for the chapter written by someone called "The Amazing Randi". Please don't tell the Secret Library Police! :boxedin:

[zakur]

Why is the USA PATRIOT Act even necessary? After all, the President, as commander-in-chief, has inherent power to do whatever he deems necessary to protect the American people during a time of war. Further, the 9/18/01 AUMF gave the President the latitude to use a full complement of tools and tactics against our enemy, regardless of what the bleeding-heart, pants-wetting liberals might say. [/sarcasm]

But seriously, if the Administration feels that FISA does not apply to them, why the hell would they care about the USA PATRIOT Act?

[Cylinder]

But seriously, if the Administration feels that FISA does not apply to them, why the hell would they care about the USA PATRIOT Act?

Because, as Ms. Burton was fond of saying in my sixth-grade Civics class, the President wears many hats.

The President, drawing from his responsibilities as CINC and as authorized by Congress, conducts warfare against al Qaeda, et al. These powers have nothing whatsoever to do with any law enforcement issue or power.

The President, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, also has the power to prosecute crimes against the United States - including crimes related to terrorism. This power has nothing whatsoever to do with any war-fighting power or issue.

[zakur]

Because, as Ms. Burton was fond of saying in my sixth-grade Civics class, the President wears many hats.

The President, drawing from his responsibilities as CINC and as authorized by Congress, conducts warfare against al Qaeda, et al. These powers have nothing whatsoever to do with any law enforcement issue or power.

The President, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, also has the power to prosecute crimes against the United States - including crimes related to terrorism. This power has nothing whatsoever to do with any war-fighting power or issue.Let me see if I can parse what you are saying here:

The President, as CINC, may order warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects because wiretapping of terrorist suspects is a "war-fighting power or issue."

The President, as chief law enforcement officer, however, must obtain a warrant under the USA PATRIOT Act to wiretap terrorist suspects because wiretapping terrorist suspects is a "law enforcement issue or power."

So which is it? You can't eat your cake and have it, too. Nor can Bush.

Or perhaps what you mean to say is that his CINC hat (Texas-sized ten gallon?) overrides or supersedes his chief law enforcer hat (helicopter beanie?).

With all due respect to your Mrs. Burton, this has nothing to do with how many hats the President wears. This has to do with which laws the President will choose to follow and which ones he will choose to ignore.

Bush's primary defense in this NSA wiretapping mess is that he has the constitutional power to conduct warrantless wiretaps from his CINC powers under Article Two of the U.S. constitution.*

But at the same time, Bush is campaigning vigorously for a renewal of the Patriot Act, which requires a warrant for a wiretap (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050609.html). If he already possesses the "constitutional power" to conduct warrantless wiretaps, as he claims, why would he need Congress to give him the power to obtain wiretaps through a warrant?

It's absurd.

*Even if Article Two gave him that power, many would claim that the Fourth Amendment has taken any claim of legitimacy from that power.

[Cylinder]

The President, as chief law enforcement officer, however, must obtain a warrant under the USA PATRIOT Act to wiretap terrorist suspects because wiretapping terrorist suspects is a "law enforcement issue or power."

If one starts with the assumption that communications intercepts are the sole realm of law enforcement, then it must follow that the NSA intercept program is illegal wothout a warrant.

[WildCat]

Let me see if I can parse what you are saying here:

The President, as CINC, may order warrantless wiretapping of terrorist suspects because wiretapping of terrorist suspects is a "war-fighting power or issue."

The President, as chief law enforcement officer, however, must obtain a warrant under the USA PATRIOT Act to wiretap terrorist suspects because wiretapping terrorist suspects is a "law enforcement issue or power."

So which is it? You can't eat your cake and have it, too. Nor can Bush.
There is a declared war against al-Qaeda, so he can conduct electronic surveilance on the enemy or it's agents for intelligence gathering purposes.

If they decide to prosecute a terrorist, then they must adhere to all the protections the Constitution gives to criminal suspects.

Two different animals.

[RandFan]

Not overly impressed with the changes. I'm not sure what was there that caused some Democrats to get on board.

[WildCat]

Not overly impressed with the changes. I'm not sure what was there that caused some Democrats to get on board.
They're trying to appease both the far left that will settle for nothing less than non-renewal, and the moderates seeking a strong defense from terrorists. In the end, they will fail to satisfy both factions.

That's the trouble w/ being a populist party governing via the latest opinion poll - the public is fickle.

[Mephisto]

Because, as Ms. Burton was fond of saying in my sixth-grade Civics class, the President wears many hats.

I'll have to agree with Cylinder here. I've SEEN him wear many hats.

There's the Crawford-Brush-Clearing Cowboy hat, the famous 9/11 hardhat, the famous Navy fighter "Mission Accomplished" helmet, the mountain bike "What's an endo?" helmet and the old standby - the dunce cone.