Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

  1. #41
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    The Patriot Act was adopted to help untie law-enforcement's hands and keep us safe. The CIA has always had all the powers in that act and probably more. There is no way we should throw out the entire Patriot Act. That's what we have a Supreme Court for -- to put checks and balances on our laws, rules and regulations. Tweak it. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
    It goes too far. Reasonable things, like the agencies talking to each other is fine. And frankly that is all that we actually need to have prevented 9/11. Over reactions aimed at keeping us safe are still overreactions, and can be misused in the future, thus not keeping all of us safe.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #42
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It goes too far. Reasonable things, like the agencies talking to each other is fine. And frankly that is all that we actually need to have prevented 9/11. Over reactions aimed at keeping us safe are still overreactions, and can be misused in the future, thus not keeping all of us safe.
    How does it, "go too far"? And please, be specific.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    How does it, "go too far"? And please, be specific.
    From surveillance to hlding with out charging the act went too far. It was not privacy that led to 9/11. Nor was it the lack of being able to hold someone that led to 9/11. So, such invasions into privacy were simply unnecessary.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #44
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    From surveillance to hlding with out charging the act went too far. It was not privacy that led to 9/11. Nor was it the lack of being able to hold someone that led to 9/11. So, such invasions into privacy were simply unnecessary.
    Those are talking points. I asked you to be specific.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Those are talking points. I asked you to be specific.
    surveillance isn't specific? Humm, I thought it was.

    Will this help:
    PATRIOT ACT

    The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained some civil liberties protections.

    Much criticism against the 2001 Act had been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argued that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.

    A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search.

    Perhaps the most controversial section of the original Act was Section 215, dealing with a very narrow, implied right of federal investigators to access library and bookstore records. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera (in secret) from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general. Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patrons' human rights and it has now come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.

    Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 (see above), which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or 4 stine intelligence activities," rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment.

    VoteMatch: The Patriot Act harms civil liberties

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #46
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,219

    Re: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    surveillance isn't specific? Humm, I thought it was.

    Will this help:
    PATRIOT ACT

    The original Act had a sunset clause to ensure that Congress would need to take active steps to reauthorize it. Like many sweeping reform laws, the people of the United States needed time to test and implement its measures before deciding what provisions to keep and which to modify. One of the challenges to the original Act had been perceived civil liberties intrusions. The reauthorization resolution passed in 2006 contained some civil liberties protections.

    Much criticism against the 2001 Act had been directed at the provisions for Sneak-and-Peek searches — a term coined by the FBI. Critics argued that Provision 213 authorizes "surreptitious search warrants and seizures upon a showing of reasonable necessity and eliminates the requirement of Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that immediate notification of seized items be provided.

    A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search.

    Perhaps the most controversial section of the original Act was Section 215, dealing with a very narrow, implied right of federal investigators to access library and bookstore records. Section 215 allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant in camera (in secret) from the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying. On its face, the section does not even refer to "libraries," but rather to business records and other tangible items in general. Civil libertarians and librarians in particular, argue that this provision violates patrons' human rights and it has now come to be called the "library provision." The Justice Department defends Section 215 by saying that because it requires an order to be issued by a FISA Court judge, it provides better protection for libraries.

    Critics claim that some portions of the Act are unnecessary and allow U.S. law enforcement to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of the press, human rights, and right to privacy. Much controversy has arisen over section 215 (see above), which allows judges to grant government investigators ex parte orders to look into personal records (including financial, medical, phone, Internet, student or library records) on the basis of being "relevant for an on going investigation concerning international terrorism or 4 stine intelligence activities," rather than probable cause as outlined in the fourth amendment.

    VoteMatch: The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
    When I say, "specific", I mean show me the text of the bill that violates American civil liberties. Just saying so isn't the specificity I'm asking for; or you could just admit that it doesn't really violate civil liberties and that the whole issue is being blown out of proportion by the Librulz, because GW signed it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #47
    I support ██ ███
    jasonxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,405

    Re: Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

    I'm surprise they needed to go to court to figure that one out.



Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •