There is an interesting article in the NY Times called - Coalition Forms to Oppose Parts of Antiterrorism Law. This certainly isn't the first group to oppose the Patriot Act (which expires in about 284 days by the way), but it has to be the most unlikely coalition of folks to date.


From the Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances website, you even have names like the ACLU, Grover Norquist and Paul Weyrich who have signed a letter to Bush asking him to reconsider his support.

A quote from Bill Murray in Ghostbusters sums up my response to this news:


As everyone probably knows, nearly every senator out there voted for the Patriot Act in the wake of 9/11 and I still haven't forgiven the Democrats for that. The funny thing is that most if not all of them have finally come to their senses and are now dead set against it. The only defense of it is coming from the Republicans and specifically Bush.



It seems to me that the Bush administration is planning to make this a big piece of their legislative agenda later this year (they'd have to in order to keep their promise here). Coming out of the Social Security debate licking their wounds this is going to be important (some would say Bush hasn't lost yet, but I think the fat lady is definitely in the building even though she hasn't sung yet).

So that does create some problems, Bush doesn't even have very good support for this in his own party.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that the Patriot Act should be renewed when portions of it expire later this year? Why or why not?

2. Do you believe this coalition represents a significant threat to Bush's plan to renew the legislation given the diverse participation?

3. If the Republicans can't be united on this, do you believe it'll be a black eye for them going in to the 2006 elections?

Errrr....Ummm... I believe that some portions should be renewed and others should expire!



What threat? What plan? What legislation? What diversity?



Don't blame us Republicans that you Democrats can't get United on this! Of course your eyes will be black for 2006! Put on your best face!

Well, my first hope is that our government actually reads the thing this time. But as Argonaut said, I'd prefer to see all of the unConstitutional aspects of it gone, and keep the rest.

If you can get gun's right's folks, liberal civil-rights activists, libertarians and health advocates together and agree on something, than yes. As they say, "The people, united, can never be defeated."

Yes and no. The Democrats will go after them on that, rightfully so...But the Republicans are professional politicians, they are good at what they do [except for uh, following the Constitution, but that can be said for the Dems as well], I'm sure the RNC political monster will be able to bob and weave around it again.


CP

Argonaut perhaps you should actually read the article and the answers to all of those questions would be clear. In fact you can get an idea as to the answers by simply reading the opening post

Perhaps an alternative title to this thread could be, "New York Times outs ACLU as a Liberal organization".

From the article.......



And then.....



heh, just thought I'd point that little tidbit out.


Now, on to the questions.

1. Do you believe that the Patriot Act should be renewed when portions of it expire later this year? Why or why not?

I think there should, and there will be a national debate on the Patriot Act. I would expect a full slate of congressional hearings where it will be examined in detail. There are parts of it that can modified to make it a better law to be sure and this is the sort of thing that Congress can be really good at doing- arriving at a good law through the process of vigorous debate. One hopes that both parties can leave their partisianship at the door.




2. Do you believe this coalition represents a significant threat to Bush's plan to renew the legislation given the diverse participation?

Congress writes laws, not Bob Barr or the ACLU. They can participate in the debate, but at the end of the day it will be up to Congress to arrive at a good law. If they write a good one, Bush will sign it.


3. If the Republicans can't be united on this, do you believe it'll be a black eye for them going in to the 2006 elections?


No question, the Republican Party is finished as a significant force in American politics. The only thing that's still keeping me in it is that we still have some left over doughnuts and pizza from the 2004 election. Getting a little on the stale side to be sure, but hey, it's free! Soon as that stuff is gone, I'm outta here.

The ACLU is involved in something that has to do with civil rights? I'm shocked and appalled

I'm not sure what your point is Aquilla, of course the ACLU is involved. What you are completely glossing over is the significance of the coalition. These groups simply don't ever work together.


And I'm not sure what your point is here either. There are some sections of the Patriot Act that are necessary and aren't really large changes to the way we already did things, they just updated laws to coincide with modern times.

The meat of the Patriot Act, also from the article, is the following:

These coincidentally are some also the provisions that are expiring that Bush wants to renew.


Hmmm, ok and I guess that means you think groups like this are completely ineffective right? I suppose the Swift Boat Veterans had absolutely nothing to do with Kerry losing the election then?

The members of this group may not be able to actually cast their votes in Congress but you can bet that they'll be drumming up grassroots support, advertising and spending money lobbying in Washington. If they can whip up enough public support for killing the aforementioned provisions it'll become politically dangerous for any politician to support them.

I personally think they'll have an advantage over most groups like this because they represent a very diverse group that hardly ever agrees on anything including groups that form some of the pillars of the Republican party. I'm no politician but I think that would give me pause when considering a bill if I was up for re-election soon.


I'm pleased to see that you aren't taking it seriously, that is a good thing However, here is the deal. Bush has been completely ineffective with his legislative agenda thus far. All of his supporters claimed he had this "mandate" coming in and his cornerstone legislative initiative - social security - is about to fall flat on its face. Renewal and possibly strengthening of the Patriot Act is another major thing that he intended to do with his "abundant political capital" while he was in office.

Without even having the debate on this yet, it is crystal clear that we are not in the same Congressional environment that we were in after 9/11. You aren't going to have 98 senators signing off on this thing. Every Democrat out there has since realized the stupidity of the Patriot Act and many Republicans have too. Right out of the gates that means it is going to be a tough sell to even get these provisions renewed, much less strengthened as I'm sure the administration would like. Add in the possible impact of this diverse bi-partisan group and you have a pretty hard battle on your hands that could get ugly.

So, seeing as how this probably won't be debated till the end of the year, with just a little time before the 2006 election cycle starts in earnest this becomes a valid question. There are plenty of Republicans up for re-election in 2006 and so far they have completely failed at getting anything significant done in Congress including 2 very key pieces of this administration's agenda. I mean what else are they going to pull off to sate the masses - they can't cut taxes any more, we are already to dangerously in debt. At the very least you'll have to admit that creates an opportunity. If you don't, then perhaps you ought to go run a campaign or two - its always nice to be able to blindside your opponent I know that if I was running a campaign I'd definitely exploit that as well as the ethics violations and the fact that these politicians aren't serving the interests of the people they represent.

1. Do you believe that the Patriot Act should be renewed when portions of it expire later this year? Why or why not?

Yes. The Patriot Act does NOT infringe on our civil liberties as Americans. The Patriot Act protects everyone in America. The government is given great power due to this act. Otherwise, anything that could be used by terrorists could not be searched.

WHAT? The Patriot Act most certainly does infringe on our civil liberties...What would make you think otherwise?


Those are just a few examples of the Constitutional violations that the PATRIOT ACT allows. In addition to those, the P.A. allows the Federal Government to read your e-mails without a warrant and search your house without a warrant. Surely you will consider changing you reasoning for supporting it [or not support it at all], because it is a fact that the act infringes on our rights...severely.

CP

edited: because I messed up and posted a legal provision of the law accidently. Figures, I screw up and accidently post one of the few Constitutional provisions in the whole Act.

You know, with all of the uproar over the Patriot Act, civil libertarians, rights activists, privacy advocates...none have yet to provide for the general public documented ABUSES of the Patriot Act by the Federal Government. If someone can show me case after case of useless information taken from ordinary citizens for no other purpose than that they can...i will still advocate its use. Of course there are allegations but none have yet to be substantiated or proven correct (atleast as far as my research goes). Where is this police state some were debating would occur only a few years ago on this very site? I do not see it. My life has not in the least bit affected by the Patriot Act...my liberties are still alive.

1. Do you believe that the Patriot Act should be renewed when portions of it expire later this year? Why or why not?

Absolutely. The PA has been instrumental in fighting the domestic War on Terrorism. Even the 9/11 Commission acknowledged this fact. How soon we forget how the Patriot Act made sure law enforcement had the tools to stop the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge. i can only imagine of the other attacks prevented that remain secret to the general public.

Show me the evidence and ill jump on the PA Hurts Me Bandwagon. I mean in all seriousness...as we have discussed numerous times...the powers given in the Patriot Act are not all that new. Many of the provisions are already a part of domestic law enforcement and now it is applying to a wider range. It allows federal agents to track terrorists who travel through multiple states without being hindered by the jurisdictional nonsense. It allows the federal government to obtain search warrants more quickly than usual through a special court in order to give agencies time to take down terror cells before they strike. This is nothing new...the only thing that is new is who it is applying to.

Do we remember our history? Two presidents, considered among our greatest, Lincoln and FDR, are perhaps the most "draconian" of any. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and denied the right to free speech in some of the states in order to preserve the Union. FDR put German, Italian, and Japanese Americans in concentration camps out of fear of espionage and sabotage. These powers would be monstrous in this day and age but they did in fact occur and are accepted because of the threat at the time. How is the Patriot Act any different?

Again, i have to see the evidence that the FBI took the library book records of Susie Homemaker America for no reason whatsoever. Why would the FBI or any agency waste time on people who have no terror ties or suspicion of such ties?

2. Do you believe this coalition represents a significant threat to Bush's plan to renew the legislation given the diverse participation?

No, its not a threat. All they are saying is that the PA is "bad". Well, show me how its bad and when it has been bad. I remember commericals from anti-PA groups showing Americans from all walks of life and on both sides of the political spectrum. Basically it said "We do not need the PA" or something like that. Didnt explain to anone how it is bad or what bad things it has done. You can't just point a finger with your tin-foil hat and say something is bad without proving it.

3. If the Republicans can't be united on this, do you believe it'll be a black eye for them going in to the 2006 elections?

There are so many other issues that are of importance that i do not think that this one will be the deafening factor for a success or defeat. It could help or hurt either way...but nothing to go nuts over.

Obviously you haven't been looking too hard. This was the first site to come up on google.



Of course your life hasn't been affected by it (that you know about). I'm going to assume you're a white middle class male living in the suburbs? Well guess what, it probably wont affect you (that you know about).

As an IT guy, I have a lot of problems with this Act. This act allows for invasion of your privacy and you may not even know about it. Will they be able to get into your computer and read your e-mail...no, but they can easily go straight to the ISP and read everyone who sends mail through that ISP. Databases of private information are a disaster just waiting too happen because we all know how secure those are.

You probably wont find a lot of "abuses" because now all these privacy invasions are legal under the Patriot Act.



Couldn't have said it better myself.

In addition to the excellent post by psyclist, I would add that not being against the Patriot Act because it hasn't effected your rights is quite possibly one of the worst tragedies here Leder.

The constitutional problems with the Patriot Act have been documented in numerous threads here at AD in great detail, many of them you have participated in Leder. The criticisms have not changed, you just prefer not to listen to them.


Above is the 4th amendment, you should note that throughout the amendment it is careful to use the word "people" not "citizens". One of the things that Patriot Act does is allow us to treat non-citizens differently. It could be argued that is ok, but it is absolutely not ok to violate the rights of citizens.

The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Request in 2002. I'm not sure what the status is, but I'm betting it was denied or it would be out there. But I wanted to quote this section because it summarizes it nicely - they were seeking to find the number of times the government had:


There is absolutely no good reason why law enforcement officials should be able to skirt our constitution and established legal processes in order to fish for terrorists, especially when by doing this they can and do violate our civil rights. If their suspicions are valid, there probably aren't too many judges that would deny them a valid search warrant, wire tap order, etc. But as it stands they can skirt this process simply on the basis on suspecting someone.

Furthermore there is a "domestic terrorism" clause in there which could easily be applied to people protesting at a rally, etc to violate their civil rights.


They don't have to deal with "jurisdictional nonsense" because they are federal agents.

All of that aside, there is room to streamline our processes, update language, account for new situations and allow agencies to work closer together. However, all of that can be done without violating our civil rights.

A court order from a grand jury or judge can subpeona this information and does so every day to convict or acquit defendants. In order for the FBI or any other intelligence agency to obtain this information...they must pass through the FISA Court. Law enforcement cannot unilaterally compel educational institutions to turn over any information. So just like how a grand jury subpeoned library records in the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case and the Zodiac gunman case...now the power is expanded to investigations of national security.



You might want to be more specific here because people have surveillance on them all the time.



Dalia v. US (1979)





The warrants that you speak of are already a well established and legal crime fighting tool in our country. Now it does not only apply to narcotics dealers and mobsters but terrorists.



Roving wiretaps, (which have been upheld by the Second, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit Courts) have been used numerous times to take down drug offenses and racketeering. Of course the increased power comes from the fact that people are now using cell phones and e-mails more and more along with the ordinary house phone. With new technologies...we need new legislation. And the second part of your statement makes no sense because if the person is not suspected of a crime...why would the FBI waste time and resources using surveillance on these non-criminal people?



Since when is this a new thing? If someone is preaching "Death to America"...it is their constitutional right to do so...but it would make local law enforcement and the FBI somewhat suspicious of them depending on what they say. If for instance a person is using their 1st Amendment rights to talk about anarchy and taking up force against innocents and the government...and the person has a militant attitude or background...this is obvious probable cause for further investigation.

Again...there IS a court that oversees all operations. That same court which is responsible to the Congress and can be reviewed by the US Supreme Court.

Leder you clearly don't understand my point. I'm not suggesting these are new things here. The government can obtain some of this information if they follow the proper procedures and observe your RIGHTS to due process.

But that is the point, the Patriot Act basically says that in certain cases due process does not have to be observed and that is a clear violation of our constitutional rights. I have long since accepted that you don't really care about that, but at least get it correct if you are going to argue about it.

CJ, you got to relax here. Show me cases that the PA basically said that due process does not have to observed. I ask for proof and you give me talking points. I have already established that if someone can show me how the government is somehow abusing its power widespread or how it HAS taken away my liberty or your liberty or someone else's...ill jump on the bandwagon. But nobody has provided me evidence. "34 credible cases" in like four years? Even if these credible cases turn out to be completely true...it is still only 34. Nobody can really make the case for a conspiracy towards the New World Order on 34 incidents.

It's a "John Doe" Roving wiretap

.


As for legislation for new technology...Tapping a phone is different than this type of tapping. If you a tap a phone, only the bad guy is getting tapped. Under the Patriot Act, they can tap an ISP because a suspected terrorist is sending e-mail through it. But packet sniffers (think of a e-mail and web browser tap) picks up all the traffic, so my e-mail and the websites I visit are being watched too. The FBI isn't wasting time and resources looking at my stuff because it's going to come to them no matter what.

IMO the government should understand the technology before they start passing laws on it.

Leder: In addition to what Cube Jockey's said...There doesn't need to be documented abuses in order for the law to be outrageous. The whole problem that we have with it is that it allows for abuses, and that it's unConstitutional. Is not necessary for us to prove how it has been abused, but that it can be abused within the context of the law.

CP

I really don't like the Patriot Act. Reminds me of some of the measures taken during the Civil War era. However, I also don't really know of how to effectively handle situations where "the enemy is among us" without either losing some individual freedoms or making ourselves unnecessarily vulnerable to attack. My best effort would be to repeal the Patriot Act and deputize everyone who owns a weapon into a militia empowered to kill terrorists on sight. Everybody be glad I'm not in charge.


Yes. The Patriot Act is not feel-good legislation-- nobody really likes having their freedoms eroded. Congresspeople facing re-election are far more sensitive to discontent voters than lame-duck Presidents, who are usually more concerned with their historical legacy. For good or ill, I doubt the Senate will continue renewing the Patriot Act much longer.


Depends on the length of the American collective memory. The longer the US goes without a terrorist attack on our soil, the less tolerant we are for limitations on individual liberties. I'm not sure how long the so-called "Security Mom" phenomenon will last in the absense of a direct attack on the homeland.

The Patriot Act isn't a vote-winner-- people aren't going to vote Republican because they are eager to keep the Patriot Act in place, and Democrats aren't going to lose many votes for vigorously opposing it. Regardless of whether it is necessary or not, the Patriot Act is one of those issues that could easily win Congress for the Democrats in 2006, all other things being equal.

Well first of all, CP is right, I don't have to demonstrate a single case here for this to be outrageous. It allows for our constitutional freedoms to be violated within the context of this law.

Secondly, psyclist did provide some examples of where it has been abused in the post before mine so I didn't think I needed to re-invent the wheel there. Perhaps you should take a look at his post.

Finally, given the kind of law this is and the violations it allows - for every time we hear about something, how many occurences do you think there are that we don't hear about?

If fighting terrorists forces us to live in the fictional world of 1984 then why bother - they have already won. There is absolutely no reason that we need to compromise our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to fight an enemy. Go look at any quote from the founding fathers and you'll see this sentiment - psyclist even quoted one of them for you.

But i have already shown that none of the practices that many object to are some sort of new broad-reaching power that we have never seen before. Many of these practices are used every day by local law enforcement and the courts in order to obtain information. Now federal agents in conjunction with a the FISA court can do the same.



But you see this is your opinion on the matter. I don't think we are living in the fictional world of 1984, i just don't see it.



Ok, so we have established that these practices are already done by law enforcement agents and such to catch criminals. If i understand you correctly, you object to the fact that the government goes through the FISA Court and not a regular court in order to obtain the power to use those tactics. Unless i am completely off here. You have to let me know exactly what you object to if you acknowledge that none of these practices are new.

Leder that is exactly the point here. You see in the United States, you are guarnateed due process of law and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It is a limit on government power to prevent exactly the kind of thing this law allows, witch hunts. Once again, the 4th amendment, please read it closely.


A "sneak and peek" search completely violates this amendment, whether it is approved by some special court or not. Law enforcement officials have always been required to bring their evidence before a judge to get a proper search warrant approved and there is a reason for that. They also have to tell you when they are searching.

You seem to be claiming that the only way we can fight terrorists is to live in a police state where the police can do anything they want in the name of expediency to protect us. You are also completely wrong and though you may call yourself a patriot for thinking this way, the founding fathers would consider your thinking very unpatriotic.

Perhaps you missed my posting earlier where i showed that it is in fact not unconstitutional and the Supreme Court agrees.

The Supreme Court has held the Fourth Amendment does not require law enforcement to give immediate notice of the execution of a search warrant. The Supreme Court emphasized "that covert entries are constitutional in some circumstances, at least if they are made pursuant to a warrant." In fact, the Court stated that an argument to the contrary was "frivolous." Dalia v. U.S. (1979). In yet another case, the Court said, "officers need not announce their purpose before conducting an otherwise [duly] authorized search if such an announcement would provoke the escape of the suspect or the destruction of critical evidence." Katz v. U.S. (1967).

This authority can be used only upon the issuance of a court order, in extremely narrow circumstances. Courts can delay notice only when immediate notification may result in death or physical harm to an individual, flight from prosecution, evidence tampering, or witness intimidation.

Under the contested section 213, courts can delay notice if there is "reasonable cause" to believe that immediate notification may have a specified adverse result. The "reasonable cause" standard is consistent with pre-PATRIOT Act caselaw for delayed notice of warrants. An example would be United States v. Villegas.

So the very objection you have with the Patriot Act has been proven constitutional in numerous cases. So if you have a problem...take it up with the Supreme Court. The "police state" you so adamently contend is occurring and the attacks on my views on this issue won't change the fact that all of these practices were already widely in use and the hysteria caused by privacy groups and the ACLU is completely unfounded.

You also happened to pick my smallest complaint with the Patriot Act Leder. You are completely ignoring the huge looming issues here and based on this debate and other debates on this subject I really don't know how to articulate that to you.

Look i am just going off what you yourself are complaining about. Unfortunately my psychic powers do not travel through cyberspace. If you have a certain objection...bring it up so we can debate it. I have addressed everything in which you have posted on this thread and instead of debating me back you just say that i lack the mental capacity to comprehend your point.

Tell me about the "huge looming issues" and we shall have a civilized discussion about them. In every post thus far in response to me, i have been either unable to understand anything or the Founding Fathers would find me unpatriotic. So how about we cut through all the nonsense and you let everyone know what it is you find abhorrent. And lets see if you can do it without condescension or an aggressive tone...shall we?

Just because other public protection agencies do it doesn't make it legal. I'm aware that this isn't new and illegal, it's old and illegal...the fact of the matter is...it's illegal!

CP

Well first of all Leder, America's Debate has this nifty search feature that might be helpful. But that aside, you need go no further than this thread. This is not by any means a comprehensive list but you have not in any way addressed the things posted in this post.

What you have done is say that obtaining that information is nothing new. In some cases you are wrong, in others you are right. The thing you do not seem to understand is that we all have a right to due process and our current system requires that law enforcement officials present some modicum of proof before taking certain actions like searching your home, setting up wiretaps on your conversations or obtaining certain kinds of records. This is the way it should be, it limits law enforcement officials to going after people they actually suspect of a crime, rather than just collecting information on everyone whether they are guilty or not, but simply because they might be guilty of something.

If you do not understand and appreciate what due process is and why it is important then I'm afraid we aren't going to have a very productive debate. What I'm describing to you is the very definition of a Police State.

This act not only takes away some of our very important civil rights it puts others in danger such as the right to protest and the right to free speech. If someone was running an anti-Bush website, the government under this law could collect information on the people running the site if they so desired, and they wouldn't even have to tell anyone. They don't have to suspect these people of a crime or prove they are potentially guilty of something. They can just get a hold of records. That is completely against the principles this country was founded upon.

Edited to add:
You should also read this essay by Russ Feingold - here:

I showed 2 Supreme Court Case and one court case that reached i believe the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that shows that delayed notice of a search warrant is perfectly constitutional. That is what the often objected Section 213 allows for. I understand your arguments that the 4th Amendment is supposed to prevent this...but the Supreme Court has interpreted it differently. So the PA is legal on both practical and constitutional grounds.

If you care to bring up another section or "draconian" power...than i will be happy to debate it.

EDITED TO ADD:

.

Of course we have the right to due process. But you have not shown any evidence on how this is violated. We already know that law enforcement must get permission from the FISA Court before any wiretaps or search of home is allowed. This is just like how it is done with local law enforcement except they use the FISA Court due to the sensitive nature of the case to national security. And your last line makes little sense because evryone in this country is innocent until proven guilty. So the only way one could find out if a person is guilty or not is to present the evidence before a court and have a judge or jury or military tribunal find that person guilty.



How does it take away our right to free speech and protest? There are people protesting in front of Schiavo's house right now. A few days ago people were marching to protest the iraq war...obviously their rights were in no way taken away by the PA. You example makes no sense in the practical sense. You are contending that the FBI or other federal agency would collect information on someone for no other reason than that they can. These powers are used so the government can fight terrorism...not some anti-Bush website. If the FBI has probable cause to believe that this same anti-bush website funds terrorist groups abroad...then obviously they would investigate.

Of course they did...The courts allow the government to get away with this kind of stuff. You can't tell me that these judges are infallible. The Patriot Act DOES violate the Constitution...this from the Cato Institute [an independent libertarian group]


Emphasis mine...That's a 4th Amendment violation.


Emphases mine...Yet again, a 4th Amendment violation.

Nice to know that they change things up...this is a 1st Amendment violation...

Constitutionally Correct...I think not.

CP

From CP's post......



This is most disappointing and relevant to this thread. Normally, the CATO Institute is pretty straight when it comes to things like the facts, but this frankly reads more like propaganda from the ACLU or MoveOn.Org. Talk about partial citations, completely out of context.....

What The Patriot Act actually says in Section 215 regarding judicial review is the following and I'll underline the part that CATO uncharacteristically "forgot"......



To imply that the FISA review is some sort of a rubber stamp as long as a "boilerplate form" is filled out correctly is factually incorrect and well beneath CATO standards.

I most certainly have shown evidence and so has CP and so has psyclist for that matter. The problem is that you do not understand what due process is. You are also choosing to ignore the evidence.

I edited my previous post, but FISA court is not due process Leder, it is a rubber stamp. I'll repost it here:



Yet more proof of your lack of understanding of the process. Law enforcement officials must go before a judge in order to obtain a search warrant, wire tap order etc. In order to obtain these things they must demonstrate Probable Cause to a judge. This protects citizens by preventing searches based on little or no evidence of wrong doing. The Patriot Act allows the government to skirt this requirement by using FISA which does not require any proof, only your word and request.


Well first of all it allows the government to collect information on you simply because you attended a protest or a rally that they don't agree with. Also if you take a look at CP's post you'll see information about the gag order provisions in the Act.


Wrong, the Patriot Act does not require them to be used to fight terrorism. First of all the government no longer has to prove you are acting "under a foreign power" to use FISA. Secondly it creates a new class called "domestic terrorism" which could easily be argued to include people who attend protest rallys for some groups like Greenpeace. You really ought to check out this write up over at the ACLU on this. I fully expect it'll have zero impact on you but there is the information in a straightforward fashion.

Ok so lets go through this debate so far.







Ok...the FISA Court is a "rubber stamp" instead of credible judicial oversight (which can be reviewed by the Supreme Court), the Supreme Court is a "rubber stamp" to whatever the government wants, the government is illegally using powers it already has, and we are living in a police state. I guess the next question is what time the alien invasion is starting?

CJ, you huff and you puff and you yell out due process. Then i tell you about the FISA Court which is just the same as any federal court and for some odd reason that court is of no matter to you. The reason the court is different is for obvious secrecy concerns. The matters in which the court deals with are of national security importance. I perfectly understand due process. The federal agencies go to this specific court in order to acquire wiretaps or search warrants. And as Aquilla pointed out from the actual text of the law, probable cause must be shown before the judge hands out the order.

Furthermore, lets go over some logic. You are contending that a federal agent will go to a judge and ask for a search warrant for a person who they do not think committed any crime. How much sense does this make? Obviously if they are asking for wiretaps or a search, they have probable cause to think the person will commit a terrorist act or is helping someone else do so. The FBI is not going to pick randomn people out of a hat and do a search on them.



Yes...i can get information on anyone also with the use of the internet or any other source material. Investigating a person who is suspected of something is not unconstitutional...the police do it all the time.

The bottom line is that you think the government is investigating the personal lives of ordinary people who are not suspected of crimes...only to find that they have no terrorist ties. You think that by just speaking out against the government, you are automatically going to be investigated. But that makes no sense. If that same person is suspected of committing specific crimes or aiding someone in doing so...then that person would be investigated.



CJ, your condescension and belittling insults are really starting to get on my nerves. How about you cut the stuff out or is it too hard for you to debate in a civil manner without attacking someone personally?

EDITED TO ADD:

I just found this: Questions and Answers about the USA PATRIOT Act



Ok so probable cause IS still used in order to obtain search warrants and wiretaps contrary to what many of you contend.



Ok...and there are a number of other questions answered. Its what i have been saying all along which is that none of these practices are new and that the Patriot Act only clarified and applied it to FISA investigations.

From Leder's link:
Not only is this incredibly false, but it is also besides the point.

Link

In addition, Section 505 was found unConstitutional...



Looks like Stephen J. Murphy needs to get his facts straight.

As I said, it is also irrelevant. Courts found Affirmative Action Constitutionally Correct, does that mean it is? Of course not. The courts have allowed the government to jail people without allowing them to see a lawyer or be formally charged, does that make it any less unConstitutional? Of course not.

My point is two-fold [I love saying that and have tried to work it in to some of my posts, but never found the right place for it...]:

1. It's been proven that the PATRIOT ACT is unConstitutional. It is no longer a matter of whether it is or not, but whether it being unConstitutional makes you rethink your support for it. And...

2. The Courts decisions must be taken with a grain of sand.

And if that isn't sufficient:

Link: Thanks to DaffyGrl

From the link:






That's some scary stuff.

CP

And again, "previously used" doesn't mean legal. These acts are illegal and it actually upsets me more that you are right in saying that they aren't "new"...Meaning such unConstitional practices are becoming or have become commonplace.

On edit: Oops, sorry, I forgot that I could still edit my last post...My fault administrators, don't hurt me.

CP

ConservPat, than your disagreement has nothing to do with the PA and everything to do with the judicial system. It is your opinion as you have said previously that the courts would "of course" rule with the government on these issues. I mean i do not know how to respond to that. The courts have been given the power to interpret the constitution. You and i and others definately disagree with how they interpret it most of the time...but we still accept it because it is the basis for our entire legal system.

Ay, whoa hold on. My problem is with both the Patriot Act and the judicial system. To say, oh, you have a problem with the system, so I can't really respond ignores my entire previous post [not the last one, the one before]. I showed concrete, undisputable evidence that the PA is unConstitutional...I brought up the courts to supplement my original view, that is to say that I showed A: The act is illegal and B: The courts aren't doing their job.

CP

ConservPat, none of the instances that you showed look blatantly unconstitutional. None of the people were held against their will for an unreasonable amount of time, none were illegally searched, exc..

Law enforcement asking questions is not unconstitutional. The "No Fly List" case could just be another mistake with people of similar names...like with what happened with Sen. Kennedy. If the police come to your door and ask where you were on the night of March 20th...that is not unconstitutional.

The point you are trying to make is that these people are somehow being investigated thoroughly just for the beliefs. But the question i will ask is would you rather the government NOT follow up on such information? Do you think we have the luxury in this day and age to ignore supposed threats or information leading to an attack? Ignorance and failure of imagination is what led to 9/11 in the first place. And if some people are offended because they are asked a few questions...then so be it. As long as nothing illegal is going on...reasonable questions are quite acceptable.

Emphases mine.

Barry Reingold...The guy at the gym, was investigated by the FBI because of what he said at a gym...That violates the First Amendment.

The 40 year-old was ARRESTED and DETAINED because of what he said on an internet chat room...If that isn't a violation of the Constitution, then what the Hell is?!


No, I don't have to make that point...In fact, it isn't a point, it's a fact.

I'll answer that question in two ways. First of all do you think it is unreasonable for the people of America to ask the government to FOLLOW the law in order to catch LAW breakers? Second, supposed threats? A 60 year old ranting at a gym is a threat, oy vey! Jesus, I must be on the FBI's most wanted list if that's the case. I can hear the black helicopters coming for me. None of these people were threats, and even if they were, the government is bound by the law to catch them in a matter that is Constitutionally Correct.

CP

What about the terrorist who makes similar or more hostile allegations and statements in that same gym? Is it unconstitutional to INVESTIGATE? You are making the mistake in believing that the FBI knows who these people are before they go and investigate. But no...all they know beforehand is probably a name or address. The only way they can find out more about the subject is by going and talking to them to find out.

Furthermore, i do not know the facts of the case and neither do you...so any comment on them is pure speculation unless i can hear accounts from both parties.

Asking questions about what someone said is not against the 1st Amendment. The press asks Pres. Bush questions after what he said in a speech...its the same difference. If a person is accused of a crime...they are arrested and detained until it is decided that that person has done no wrong-doing...this also is not unconstitutional but a common mistake among law enforcement. The fact is that the only way that they can find out if someone is guilty or innocent...is by going to them and asking them questions.



Again, you are going under the assumption that law enforcement know that he is just ranting 60 yr old man before they investigate. How would they know this unless they went and found it out for themselves. I mean, why does airport security pat down an elderly grandmother looking for weapons?

The only way they can be sure they are not a threat is investigating it. Asking questions is not unconstitutional. Detaining someone for an unreasonable amount of time or inflicting physical harm is. What exactly would be "Constitutionally Correct" way of catching criminals or terrorists for that matter? Especially when going up and asking them questions is a no-no.

I'm sorry but I find this simply ludicrous. Let's step away from our debate on the Constitutionality of this for a moment and think about "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." You're going to tell me that it's ok for someone to be questioned by the FBI because they spoke out against Bush? I don't know about some 60 year old man but if 3 FBI agents showed up to my house and wanted to "talk to me" I'd probably drop a load in my pants right there; which is definitely not in the pursuit of my happiness. Besides, one would hope the FBI have other more effective means of catching potential terrorists than simply going up to them and asking. You're forgetting that evidence on a terrorist attack was available before the 9-11 attack, before Patriot Act was around, and before they could invade our privacy.

How do you think police do their job? How does the FBI? Asking questions is ludicrous? I never said that the FBI questioning a Bush critic is "right". What i am syaing is what exactly would you expect law enforcement to do? They could either knock on your front door, ask you a few questions, and leave knowing you are not a threat...or they can ignore the situation entirely and allow for a major attack that could have been easily prevented if they JUST ASKED A QUESTION. How exactly would the FBI know that this 60 yr old man was ...a 60 yr old man...unless they investigated it to make sure. I mean lets not take this "pursuit of happiness" so literally. If we did then no one would ever have to work and i would have a ferrari in my driveway because it would make me happy.

I would really like someone to tell me the point in time that asking questions became unconstitutional.

Oy...Leder, either way, you're arresting someone for what they SAID! You are justifying a gross overstep of gov't authority and consequently a huge violation of our rights. Arresting people for what they say is wrong under any circumstance.

A name, an address and that he/she is badmouthing the President, oh my God, what a national security threat. Again, targeting someone for what they said is illegal period.

Okay, here's what the newspaper said...

Emphasis mine. Questioning him is boarderline, but that's not what happened Leder...he was DETAINED! They arrested him for saying something the gov't didn't like.

Point taken. But with that said why are they talking to him to begin with? Because he argued about the President's policy. I hate to make a 1984 reference but the comparison is not inaccurate. We can't speak freely without the threat of being intimidated by the gov't? What is this? Stalin's Russia? My point is that they're investigating a man for what he said, which is horrible.

Well geez, I've got an idea. Why don't we just have a wide scale gov't investigation. Treat everyone as suspects and clear everyone one by one...Right, because in America people are innocent until proven guilty. Since the gov't has nothing to charge this man with, or no reason to question him they then have no reason to treat him as a threat.

I never said questioning was a no-no. I said that A: Detaining someone for what they said is [and the Founding Fathers have my back on that one] and B: Investigating someone for what they said is a no-no [and the Founding Fathers have my back on that too]. You make it seem like I'm unreasonable for holding the government to the same laws I am held too. My question wasn't answered so I'll repost it.



CP

Look i agree that arresting someone for what they said is wrong. I completely agree. But i also said i do not know the facts of the case and am not going to comment on something when it is possible that there is a lot more involved. Not all 1st Amendment speech is protected and you know that. Threatening the president with death and being serious about armed revolution or treason is also punishable. Arresting someone and unreasonable detainment is wrong..however IMO asking questions is not.



I don't know why we are talking to him in the first place. Obviously law enforcement saw something was wrong and investigated it. I do not think that they would waste their time if they honestly thought there was no threat.



No that doesn't make sense. However, if there is reasonable suspicion to investigate...you and i know they wouldnt be doing their job if they failed to do so.



I didnt answer your question because i felt my post answered it already. I do not see any laws being broken by questioning a person. I also do not see any reason why detaining a per