Gore on Patriot Act.

[Roadtoad]

Funny, but I've yet to hear what the Democrats would have done. It does strike me as funny that this is criticism from the same crowd that silenced Juanita Broaderick (?) as brutally as they did, and who slammed Bill Clinton's other accusers, smearing them in the national media, in some cases, violating Privacy Act provisions. And there was less reason to do so, as we have since learned.

What's more galling is that Gore is correct in some respects: the Patriot Act (God, what a name!) has indeed proven to be an intrusion into our civil liberties. But considering what the Democrats have done to those same liberties, I'm unimpressed with his posturing.

WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites) accused President Bush (news - web sites) on Sunday of failing to make the country safer after the Sept. 11 attacks and using the war against terrorism as a pretext to consolidate power.

"They have taken us much farther down the road toward an intrusive, 'big brother'-style government — toward the dangers prophesied by George Orwell in his book '1984' — than anyone ever thought would be possible in the United States of America," Gore charged in a speech.

Gore, who lost the disputed 2000 presidential election to Bush, said terrorism-fighting tools granted after Sept. 11 amount to a partisan power grab that have led to the erosion of the civil liberties of all Americans.

He brought many the crowd of 3,000 to their feet when he called for a repeal of the Patriot Act, which expanded government's surveillance and detention power, allowing authorities to monitor books people read and conduct secret searches.

Gore chided the administration for what he said was its "implicit assumption" that Americans must give up traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.

"In my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) as the best way to get at Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)," Gore said.

In both cases, Gore said, the administration has "recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger."

He also said the administration still has "no serious strategy" for domestic security — charging that there aren't sufficient protections in place for ports, nuclear facilities, chemical plants and other key infrastructure.

His speech was sponsored by the liberal activist group Moveon.org, which earlier this year held an online presidential primary in which Howard Dean (news - web sites) finished first.

The second sponsor, the American Constitution Society, is a national organization of law students, professors, lawyers and others that says it seek to counter what it characterizes as the dominant, narrow conservative vision of American law today.

The Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but has been under attack by liberals and even many conservatives who say the law intrudes too much into Americans' lives in the name of fighting terror.

Democrats have been trying to build support in the Senate to rolling back portions of the law and some Republicans say it needs to be changed.

"The Patriot Act crossed the line on several key areas of civil liberties," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill, a member of the Senhate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) said last month.

Changes must be made to the law if it is to be renewed in 2005, agreed GOP Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, another member of the Judiciary Committee.


---

I especially got a gut-grab out of this paragraph:

The Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, but has been under attack by liberals and even many conservatives who say the law intrudes too much into Americans' lives in the name of fighting terror.

Shanek, where are you when we need you?

Back to you, kids.

[a_unique_person]

Certainly fits in with this article.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp?0cl=c1

Quote:

Cheney, say those who know him, has always had a Hobbesian view of life. The world is a dangerous place; war is the natural state of mankind; enemies lurk. The national-security state must be strong, vigilant and wary. Cheney believes that America’s military and intelligence establishments were weakened by defeat in Vietnam and the wave of scandals that followed in Watergate in the ’70s and Iran-contra in the ’80s. He did not regard as progress the rise of congressional investigating committees, special prosecutors and an increasingly adversarial, aggressive press. Cheney is a strong believer in the necessity of government secrecy as well as more broadly the need to preserve and protect the power of the executive branch.

[Roadtoad]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Certainly fits in with this article.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/991209.asp?0cl=c1

Cheney has forgotten that in the past, we had a much SMALLER government, that did less, but did what it did better than we do it now. That, as much as anything, is why we have such a screwy mess in D.C. these days.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Funny, but I've yet to hear what the Democrats would have done. It does strike me as funny that this is criticism from the same crowd that silenced Juanita Broaderick (?) as brutally as they did, and who slammed Bill Clinton's other accusers, smearing them in the national media, in some cases, violating Privacy Act provisions. And there was less reason to do so, as we have since learned.

Darned if I understand the above paragraph's purpose (never mind the inaccuracies contained therein) as an introduction to a thread concerning a speech by Mr. Gore.

Quote:

What's more galling is that Gore is correct in some respects: the Patriot Act (God, what a name!) has indeed proven to be an intrusion into our civil liberties. But considering what the Democrats have done to those same liberties, I'm unimpressed with his posturing.

Why should VP Gore's opinion on a matter of import be galling?

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

The Patriot Act crossed the line on several key areas of civil liberties," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill, a member of the Senhate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) said last month.

. . . Ones which we will never actually identify, apparently.

Getting a specific criticism from the major news sources is like pulling teeth. They keep giving sound bites from various sources, but either the sources give no specifics or the paper does not pass them on.

The only provision of the Act that truly bothered me as clearly over the line (IIRC - its been a while) is the search without notice. I can understand the desire for it in terrorism cases -- they want to trace phone numbers and etc before the person knows about the search -- but the level to allow this search, if it should be allowed at all, should require a much higher standard than probable cause to issue, IMO. There needs to be evidence of not only a crime, but that the "no notice" part is essential to meet a legitimate law enforcement purpose -- probably limited to terrorist cells, period.

A few of the other provisons may cross the line, but are at least arguable.

Several portions of the Act were good ideas, even if they were added into a bill with a lousy name: "rolling" wire taps on a person rather than a specific telephone number - with a warrant - for example. Other provisions, like the computer/email provisions, actually only codified previous practice or clearly set standards that had not existed.

And, I liked the sunset provision, as well. If they were hell-bent on destroying democracy as we know it, surely it would have been easier to put the law in and leave it permanently - and force opponents to sponsor legislation to repeal it?

With two or three sections either removed or substantially modified, the rest of the bill probably should stay.

[Wolverine]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
. . . Ones which we will never actually identify, apparently.

Which has driven me bonkers since the bill was signed into law.

The vast majority of public outcry over Patriot has been so incredibly vague, if not shallow anti-administration rhetoric. Wish I had a nickel for every time I've asked someone "which section of the legislation, specifically, is unconstitutional?" -- only to be answered with either "Uhhhhm..." or total silence. I'm definitely interested to see if any of it is modified or struck down prior to applicable sunset.

[subgenius]

I'm sure all us Patriots can justify this easily:

Patriot Act gets mixed review in Vegas
Its use in investigation of strip clubs questioned
By Steve Friess, Globe Correspondent, 11/8/2003

LAS VEGAS -- This scandal has everything: Top politicians indicted on multiple counts of accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from the owner of local strip clubs in exchange for looser regulations of what strippers can do.
But what has this got to do with terrorism?

Nothing at all, everybody involved agrees. Yet FBI agents in Las Vegas used a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain the financial records of several suspects in the case. It is one of more than a dozen cases in which federal investigators have relied on the Patriot Act -- passed a month after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as a response to terrorism -- for purposes unrelated to homeland security, according to The New York Times.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...view_in_vegas/

Nothing to fear from our government. They are our friends.
Why we really don't need that old Bill of Rights do we?

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Nothing to fear from our government. They are our friends.
Why we really don't need that old Bill of Rights do we?

I am more than willing to discuss paring out portions of the Patriot Act -- along with about 75% of all federal legislation.

But your statement seems to be a bit hyperbolic. From the article:

Quote:

A Justice Department spokesman, Mark Corallo, insisted the section was inserted at the request of then-Senate Banking Committee chairman Paul Sarbanes, Democrat of Maryland, who sought to give the FBI new tools to fight money laundering. The provision allows an FBI agent to demand financial records without a grand jury subpoena by certifying that the suspicion of money laundering is reasonable. If a judge at trial believes the certification is inadequate, the judge may throw out the evidence, Corallo said.

* * *

Kenny's [one of those investigated] lawyer, Frank Cremen, said the perplexing part of the use of the Patriot Act was that prosecutors could have subpoenaed the financial records using other laws, although not as quickly. "Quite truthfully, I don't know why they used it, but it's going to have no impact on my client," Cremen said.

Oh, my LORD! They have used this Act to get records that they could have gotten under several other laws. It is, indeed, the end of the Bill of Rights!

I am not a criminal attorney -- this part of the law may need to be jettisoned. They don't cite the provision and I rarely trust the news service to interpret the statutes correctly. But declaring an end to the Bill of Rights seems a tad extreme, especially as the Supreme Court has not had a chance to review and knock down any provisions that might be unconstitutional.

Personally, the Bill of Rights seemed to be in more danger from "campaign finance reform," where individuals and groups were being told what they could say about political elections - a direct contravention of the First Amendment's core concern: political speech. Far fewer news stories on it; far less outrage.

[Wolverine]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Personally, the Bill of Rights seemed to be in more danger from "campaign finance reform," where individuals and groups were being told what they could say about political elections - a direct contravention of the First Amendment's core concern: political speech. Far fewer news stories on it; far less outrage.

Well spoken.

[subgenius]

Interesting, to not care about a "bait and switch" piece of legislation.
Call it the "Patriot Act", who could be against that?
Say its anti-terrorist, but use it against strip clubs, and politicians.
No problem, they could have used other laws. So why didn't they?
Watch that first step, its a doozy.
Heartening to see folks so trusting. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. I will sleep much better tonight knowing there are folks with such unquestioning loyalty.

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Interesting, to not care about a "bait and switch" piece of legislation.
Call it the "Patriot Act", who could be against that?
Say its anti-terrorist, but use it against strip clubs, and politicians.
No problem, they could have used other laws. So why didn't they?
Watch that first step, its a doozy.
Heartening to see folks so trusting. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. I will sleep much better tonight knowing there are folks with such unquestioning loyalty.

Wow. Read just a -wee- bit more into that response than warranted?


N/A

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Interesting, to not care about a "bait and switch" piece of legislation.
Call it the "Patriot Act", who could be against that?
Say its anti-terrorist, but use it against strip clubs, and politicians.
No problem, they could have used other laws. So why didn't they?
Watch that first step, its a doozy.
Heartening to see folks so trusting. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. I will sleep much better tonight knowing there are folks with such unquestioning loyalty.

I just logged off and thought about this response for a few minutes, and the more I think about it, the more puzzled I become.

My first message listed the biggest problem I had with this legislation: the "no notice" search provision. I think that it is a bad idea and, at the very least, extraordinary protections need to be put into place in order to protect anyone subject to this. In fact, I think the whole thing should be jettisoned. I have problems with a few other items, though I feel they can probably be "fixed" with some over-hauling.

This has now been labeled as "trusting," "unquestioned loyalty." Also, I've been told that I don't care about how the legislation was enacted, though I must have missed that in the original post.

Well, its a nice way to stop the discussion - as we've established that you have already dismissed anything I might say, assuming that it was read in the first place. But its a lousy way to win a convert or make a point, IMO.

Your first (and to date in this thread, only) support for showing that this legislation is the end of the Bill of Rights was this provision allowing law enforcement to obtain records that were obtainable under other provisions. I still don't see the apocalypse coming from that, if its the most serious criticism of the Act that is being offered.

To my mind, my criticism of the Act was more substantial and the concerns raised relating to the Bill of Rights more important than your example -- where the skimpy nature of the article fails to show if and how the 4th Amendment is violated, what standard the courts are using in allowing any such demand for documents, or whether the provision would even be upheld by the courts. Certainly, if the records are obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment, we can expect any evidence obtained to be excluded from criminal prosecution.

N/A

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Interesting, to not care about a "bait and switch" piece of legislation.
Call it the "Patriot Act", who could be against that?
Say its anti-terrorist, but use it against strip clubs, and politicians.
No problem, they could have used other laws. So why didn't they?
Watch that first step, its a doozy.
Heartening to see folks so trusting. Gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. I will sleep much better tonight knowing there are folks with such unquestioning loyalty.

Hey SG,

If the PA was such a bad piece of legislation, then why did the Democratic members of Congress and Senate approve of it in such dramatic numbers?

356 representatives and 98 senators voted for the act. Needless to say, they weren't all fear-mongering, right wing republicans!


-z

[Chaos]

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla


Hey SG,

If the PA was such a bad piece of legislation, then why did the Democratic members of Congress and Senate approve of it in such dramatic numbers?

356 representatives and 98 senators voted for the act. Needless to say, they weren't all fear-mongering, right wing republicans!


-z

Why?

Just two suggestions:

- fear of being perceived as unpatriotic (they didn´t name this thing Patriot Act for nothing)
- fear of being perceived as soft on terrorism (especially while the population was so hyped up about terrorism)

Think about it.

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos


Why?

Just two suggestions:

- fear of being perceived as unpatriotic (they didn´t name this thing Patriot Act for nothing)
- fear of being perceived as soft on terrorism (especially while the population was so hyped up about terrorism)

Think about it.

There you go.

And to NoZed, my bitter sarcasm wasn't directed at you particularly.

And I didn't mean to suggest the law would be the end of the Bill of Rights.

And to rik, greater numbers of people making a mistake don't make something any less of a mistake.
You OK with its use against strip clubs and elected officials?
Why the need to sell it as something and use it for something else?

I'm OK, I'm not a terrorist, strip club owner or politician.

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius

There you go.

And to NoZed, my bitter sarcasm wasn't directed at you particularly.

Ah. Good.

I wasn't sure what I had said; I thought that I had been - as always - the voice of calm reason and the very essence of rationality.

N/A

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Ah. Good.

I wasn't sure what I had said; I thought that I had been - as always - the voice of calm reason and the very essence of rationality.

N/A

Except when you fly off the handle and babble incoherently.

[Frank Newgent]

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla
98 senators voted for the act.

Who didn't?

Quote:

"There is a large national movement that questions elements of the USA Patriot Act," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the only senator to vote against it. "I think all of that has led to the name USA Patriot Act not being what the administration hoped it would be. They shouldn't have used that name in the first place."

Vice-President Feingold. I like it.

[Malachi151]

Quote:

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Cheney has forgotten that in the past, we had a much SMALLER government, that did less, but did what it did better than we do it now. That, as much as anything, is why we have such a screwy mess in D.C. these days.

And when would that be? In 1920?

The Federal Government has gotten smaller consistantly since the 1960s.

The 1940s - 1960s were the height of big gov.

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius

Except when you fly off the handle and babble incoherently.

You say that like its a -bad- thing.

N/A

[subgenius]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


You say that like its a -bad- thing.

N/A

[Roadtoad]

It seemed to me that Gore, speaking about his disdain for the Patriot Act, came across as either sanctimonious, or hypocritical. I'm at a loss to decide.

[subgenius]

How 'bout giving us your thoughtful analysis of the Act and its application, rather than your snarky comments about Al?

[corplinx]

I think gore is playing the stooge here. I heard his speech and it was 50 percent memes and 50 percent strawmen. Zero substance.


Gore is testing the water for a flanking move. The democrat party fears that the economy will rebound enough that it won't be an issue and they know that Iraq's rebuilding has been nothing short of astronimical. What's left to attack?

The most unlikable member of the administration and his policy. You are going to hear strawmen, memes, misinformation, and outright lies most likely as the democrat party goes for broke and wedges its campaign as one against the evil John Ashcroft's police state. "Bush is bad on civil liberties" has nearly become an accepted meme by most people I know who don't read newspapers. It sticks.

[Roadtoad]

I'm still trying to figure that part out. We have this law which now permits the government to ferret out what you read at the library. (I thought if you had reasonable cause, that could already be done. Or maybe I'm wrong.) It seems to allow unlimited searches, but we're not sure. It might allow the government to check into what's on your computer, without a warrant, but again, we don't know. I've got plenty to read about it from a host of sources, (the only thing they agree on is that it dies after a time), BUT, I've no idea after all I've read, including the law itself, precisely what it was supposed to address that wasn't already in the law itself.

You're right. I don't like Gore. I sure as hell don't like Bush, either, SG. But out of the two of them, I'm guessing we're better off with Bush for the moment. (Reminds me that I borrowed a 1960 campaign slogan and stuck it on my car: Thank God only one of them can win!) The problem for me with Bush is that he's got Ashcroft as AG. (And listening to his take on what needs to be done simply leaves me reaching for the Maalox.)

If you can refer me to a site which makes it clear, (Hell, even the Cato Institute seems muddled about this), let me know. I'm still reading up on it.

[Roadtoad]

Then again, it helps to use the "search" feature.

More Surveillance Equals Less Liberty: Patriot Act reduces privacy, undercuts judicial review
by Timothy Lynch

September 10, 2003

Timothy Lynch is director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.

Now that two years have passed since the trauma of the Sept. 11 catastrophe, it is a good time to take a step back from the politics of the moment and take stock as to how our policymakers have responded to the threat posed by terrorism.

Sending American soldiers to Afghanistan was a decisive move by President Bush — because it was going right to the root of the problem, which is Osama bin Laden, his elite henchmen and his training camps.

The war on the home front also has been aggressive but in many ways misguided.

The assumption has been that there was simply too much liberty and privacy in America — and that federal law-enforcement agencies did not have enough power. To remedy that perceived problem, policymakers rushed the USA Patriot Act into law.

The Patriot Act was designed to reduce privacy and increase security. It has succeeded in at least reducing privacy.

Financial privacy is essentially gone. The feds have turned banks, brokerage houses, insurers and other financial institutions into state informers. Those firms must notify the Treasury Department about "suspicious" transactions, and the government can subpoena your checking-account records even if there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Even though the feds were notified about several of hijacker Mohammed Atta's financial transactions before Sept. 11, no action was taken.

But in the logic of the public sector, that failure means the government was hobbled by insufficient money and insufficient power. Thus, the Treasury Department is now engaging in more surveillance.

Attorney General John Ashcroft says that all of the "safeguards of our Constitution" have been honored. But the Constitution's most vital safeguard is the principle of the separation of powers, and it has been undermined repeatedly.

One of the most odious provisions of the Patriot Act is known as Section 215.

That provision empowers FBI agents to demand things from people in terrorism-related investigations.

Ashcroft and conservative analysts claim that the Patriot Act operates in a similar fashion to ordinary search warrants so there is nothing to worry about. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, for example, says, "The FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court."

In truth, the act creates a façade of judicial review. Here is the pertinent language: "Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter" the order.

(More at www.cato.org)

[peptoabysmal]

I'd really like to know if Gore objects more to the content of the act or that it has the name "Patriot" in it.

I tried to read the act. Legal jibberish to me. I only speak computer-ese.

I can only trust that they don't repeal the second amendment, so I can start shootin' if things get real bad.

[Chaos]

Mmmh...just occured to me...

I´ve heard repeatedly that "the Patriot Act does not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".

Strange, if you think about it: if this Act gives law enforcement no additional powers, as its apologists claim - why did they pass it?

I simply don´t buy this "the Patriot Act des not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".

[subgenius]

Any comments on it being used against strip clubs and elected officials?

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos
Mmmh...just occured to me...

I´ve heard repeatedly that "the Patriot Act does not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".

From whom?

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius
Any comments on it being used against strip clubs and elected officials?

Not really. Having the federal government tack on provisions having nothing to do with the original act in question is not exactly new. I would wager that it has been done on every, or virtually every, piece of legislation in the past 50 years.

Criticism of the name being taken to make it hard to vote for is valid, yet also, hardly new: "No Child Left Behind Act" "Security for Senior Americans Act" "Child Nutrition Act." Again, a huge number of laws passed in the last 50 years have taken names in order to make the law sound positive -- and to make it hard to vote against it: "You are against nutrition for our children?! You Bastard!"

I would be concerned if the portion of the law cited violated the Constitution or represented a material expansion of federal power. At the moment, I don't see the provision that you referenced as meeting that criteria -- though I am open to hearing more, as the press article supplies very little in the way of specifics. I cannot determine how much judicial oversight is given with regard to this procedure, which appears to be yet another way of obtaining records in a criminal investigation involving federal crimes - racketeering.

Now RICO, THERE is a statute that is extremely broad and over-reaching. I am far more concerned about federal law enforcement abuses under that act than the Patriot Act.

[rikzilla]

Quote:

Originally posted by subgenius


And to rik, greater numbers of people making a mistake don't make something any less of a mistake.
You OK with its use against strip clubs and elected officials?
Why the need to sell it as something and use it for something else?

I'm OK, I'm not a terrorist, strip club owner or politician.

Yeah, but the same people who voted this thing in are now suddenly against it?? I don't buy it. It seems clear to me that they either believed in the legislation, or they did not. Senators and congressmen are not normally stupid people.

If they did not believe in it, then why did they vote for it?

1. They are politicians, and as such cynically voted for it because they could tell which way the political winds were blowing. (dishonesty)

2. They were afraid of being tarred with the anti-patriotism/pro-terrorist label. (cowardice)

3. They didn't realize how awful the legislation really was, and how it could be abused. (stupidity)

4. They wanted to appease their constituents, even though they knew that their constituents were being emotional instead of rational. (pandering)

So, without wishing to create false dichotomies, I would solicit other ideas from the rest of you guys why you think the Dems failed to come out of the closet and vote against the USAPA.

Why? Because it seems to me that the USAPA was either voted for because it was believed in (Repubs),....or it was voted for because cynical, pandering, dishonest, stupid and cowardly senators and congressmen would not do their jobs and come out against it. (Dems) With the exception of the Honorable Mr. Feingold, that is.

-z

[Chaos]

Quote:

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


From whom?

Here on the board, among others. Okay, I admit it was not worded just like I said it.

But several of the defenders of the Patriot Act said about certain acts of law enforcement "they could have done the same legally without the patriot act".

You said, for example:

Quote:

Oh, my LORD! They have used this Act to get records that they could have gotten under several other laws. It is, indeed, the end of the Bill of Rights!

From the commentary Roadtoad quotes:

Quote:

Ashcroft and conservative analysts claim that the Patriot Act operates in a similar fashion to ordinary search warrants so there is nothing to worry about. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute, for example, says, "The FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court."

[NoZed Avenger]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chaos


Here on the board, among others. Okay, I admit it was not worded just like I said it.

But several of the defenders of the Patriot Act said about certain acts of law enforcement "they could have done the same legally without the patriot act".

You said, for example:

Yep. I was saying precisely what the referenced newspaper article said about that specific provision of the Act.

That is why I asked the question. I have not made an assertion that "the Act" made no changes in law enforcement power. I simply repeated that the article referenced by Sub stated that the provision used to retreive records in this case duplicated other statutes that also could have been used to obtain the records.

There is a large difference between that and the assertion that "the Patriot Act does not allow anything that is not yet allowed anyway".

I wanted to be sure that you did not misunderstand what I stated, which has nothing to do with the Act as a whole.

I cannot speak for Roadtoad, but it appears that his post dealt only with one particular section of the Act, as well.

[Roadtoad]

Well, in the name of honesty, I have to admit that most of what I've done in the past few months regarding the Patriot Act has been more skimming that reading. I could go into what's behind that, but an excuse is worse than a lie, as far as I am concerned. So, I won't insult you with one.

I ought to have been doing more reading, which is something required by the scope of this law. At first, my thought was that yes, we needed tough legislation to deal with a very serious threat. After all, I thought at the time, it really doesn't affect me, does it? It goes after terrorists.

Until you start reading about how John Poindexter wants to know what's in your computer, but he doesn't want you knowing that he wants to know. Figure that one out.

And while you're at it, tell me why, after reading the legalese of this law, (which you need a copy of the U.S. Code to understand, because much of it is predicated on what's already been passed), so much of this was necessary? Bush was right about one thing: if I see a tank truck driven by one guy, then driven off by another, I'm going to ask questions, and maybe even make a phone call if it's warranted.

But much of what's being called for in this law it seems could have been done before 9/11, by any and all. I'm unnerved by the reality that I can't really get my mitts around this law, having read and re-read the text of it, and realized that if only current laws had been enforced in the first place, we might have been shipping 19 people out of this country before they ever boarded those planes. Or, for that matter, perhaps we could have kept them out in the first place.

Again, I don't know. I'm still trying to learn. I'll tell you that as much as the law itself is scary, what's scarier still is who's enforcing it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

HAHHA I find it more then amusing when I read the responses of people. If politics make strange bedfellows the this is one is where there is an ungodly coupling of conservitives and liberals.

The funny part is that both sectors of political thought ( represented by many worthy spokesmen ) agree that this is an abuse of power. I find it supremely helarious that the self styled conservitives on the forum argue with the " liberal" view , while the intrusion of the government into private life was, is and remains a foundational ideal of freedom that discribes the conservitives worldview. I don't know but it seems like the ducklings are awaiting the next cause/issue by the momma Bush...err momma duck. Read, define your stance if you cannot object to the PA and it's more dangerous younger sibling you are NOT a conservitive............. You are a parrot.

Fer chrissakes look beyond your elbow.

[Scott]

Quote:

Funny, but I've yet to hear what the Democrats would have done.

Pretty much the same thing, and according to Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), they Patriot Act closely mirrors what Clinton/Gore wanted tried to do in 1993.

[Matabiri]

Similar things have occured in the UK, with anti-terrorism laws used to break up demonstrations:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3158958.stm

Yes, other laws could have been used to prevent them, but it was considerably easier for the police to invoke the no-paperwork-needed legislation instead. And when something is easier to do, it'll happen more often. My concern is that these laws make it too easy for the police/FBI/whoever to prevent behaviour they dislike, without having to actually justify why that behaviour should be prevented.

Rich