Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 58

Thread: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

  1. #11
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    The whole of it needs to be struck down.
    Yes, because we need terrorist strikes in America!

    Most of you have no clue what the Patriot Act does, only read what you are told to angry about.. and since you get to sling mud at both America and Bush... you guys cheer it on.

    I hope it DOES get struck down, all of it. I hope the PA and everything Bush did is stopped by Obama and the Dems in the house and senate.

    And when terrorist start hitting us again..

    Maybe America will wake up and quit listening to the kooks that screamed, whined and cried about the PA and caused it's demise.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  2. #12
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Yes, because we need terrorist strikes in America!

    Most of you have no clue what the Patriot Act does, only read what you are told to angry about.. and since you get to sling mud at both America and Bush... you guys cheer it on.

    I hope it DOES get struck down, all of it. I hope the PA and everything Bush did is stopped by Obama and the Dems in the house and senate.

    And when terrorist start hitting us again..

    Maybe America will wake up and quit listening to the kooks that screamed, whined and cried about the PA and caused it's demise.
    I thought you said you believed in individual freedom and liberty, it is clear the patriot act is not good for that. Anyone who really believed in liberty would never support it.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  3. #13
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I thought you said you believed in individual freedom and liberty, it is clear the patriot act is not good for that. Anyone who really believed in liberty would never support it.
    I do believe in personal freedom and liberty. The PA doesn't hinder such. Of course, IF I were a terrorist, plotting to kill people, I would lose rights...

    Sorry if that doesn't get me excited.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  4. #14
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I thought you said you believed in individual freedom and liberty, it is clear the patriot act is not good for that. Anyone who really believed in liberty would never support it.
    The truth is....the United States is full of "patriots" that are willing to sacrifice everything that our forefathers fought and died for.....for a little sense of false security.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  5. #15
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I do believe in personal freedom and liberty. The PA doesn't hinder such.

    .
    Sure it does, gravely. To support it is to endanger liberty.

    http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf

    James Madison said long ago that gov't will use any contingency to gain more power, do not allow yourself to be tricked into surrendering it willingly. Such is the creed of slaves.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #16
    Bank killer. Jessica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The (soon-to-be) Divided States of Amerika.
    Last Seen
    05-22-11 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    878

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    More and more Bush policies will fade...
    I suspect "No Child Left Behind" will be one of the first. Probably January 21st!

  7. #17
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 09:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Most of you have no clue what the Patriot Act does
    It doesn't sound like you ever read it either.

    From: American Civil Liberties Union : H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

    The ACLU's argument against the passage of the unconstitutional Patriot Act:

    H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)

    The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:

    • H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

    • H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

    • H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

    • H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

    • H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

    • H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

    • Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

    More: Patriot Act infringes on civil liberties, allows for privacy invasion - The Other

    Does anyone really believe the administration came up with this law in only 45 days after 9/11? Hell no! They had been working on this for a long time, probably since before dumbo took office.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  8. #18
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Yes, because we need terrorist strikes in America!

    Most of you have no clue what the Patriot Act does, only read what you are told to angry about.. and since you get to sling mud at both America and Bush... you guys cheer it on.

    I hope it DOES get struck down, all of it. I hope the PA and everything Bush did is stopped by Obama and the Dems in the house and senate.

    And when terrorist start hitting us again..

    Maybe America will wake up and quit listening to the kooks that screamed, whined and cried about the PA and caused it's demise.
    I hope it gets struck down too. Glad we agree. We didn't need more laws and more government agencies, we merely needed to streamline the crap we already had. We don't get much in the way of terrorist attacks on our soil and even with the PA, the 9/11 events probably would have still unfolded. The last thing government really needs is bigger and more intrusive power. I'd expect any real conservative to understand that. Instead we get fear mongering. Oh noes...the terrorists are coming for you! They're gonna make you Muslim or dead! Quick, let the government do whatever the hell it feels like doing at any time it wishes to! Bigger government, bigger deficit, bigger war!

    Seriously, you have to quit treating 1984 like a playbook and more as a warning. Terrorism...it's never going to end. There's always going to be pissed off people in the world with no power and part of that group will always resort to terrorism. It's important to understand that free is not safe. It never was, never will be; free is inherently dangerous since it demands constraint in the government and authority. There will always be people to take advantage. Always will be crime, always be some risk to life. But I'll take all the responsibilities and consequences of freedom as the alternative is not so much fun. Patriot Act, Real ID Act, etc., we don't need them. We don't need more government, more government is not the answer. It rarely is ever the answer, and considering the size and scope of our current government; it's definitely not the answer.

    There were plenty of rational ways to have handled the situation which would tighten up communication between agencies and refocus on actual problems and concerns without secret courts and wiretapping and other affronts to the rights and liberties of the People. Scared chicken little's running around telling us the sky is falling. Screw it, I've never wanted safety; I only want freedom. Want safety through government, move to a commie country. Government will keep you nice and safe...so long as you don't do anything naughty they don't like.

    Patriot Act..bah! The name alone screams unconstitutional. Propaganda and nothing more, meant to sell us on "safety from mean ol' terrorists". Reprehensible behavior on the part of government excused by the scared masses. I've more threat from getting hit by a car than I am of terrorists. Too bad we threw out logic and rational thought when we succumbed to government sponsored fear.
    Last edited by Ikari; 12-17-08 at 12:09 AM.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #19
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    ADK, its laughable that you tell someone they apparently haven't read it, and then go to one of the most biased sources of it as your lone source.

    I suggest if you REALLY want to learn about PATRIOT do some actual research. Check some factual scholarly sources, read up on some experts, review the Bill itself and yes, think tanks too. Read stuff from protagonists for it, antagonists against it, and then most importantly those that seek to give an honest unbiased neutral review of it.

    The ACLU IS a good source on it, but it is like looking at the NRA alone for information about Gun Control. You'd laugh someone out of the thread if all they ever quoted was pro-gun nuts statements about it. It is a spec on the greater scope of things.

    Jfuh, I have not said all of PATRIOT is good and that ALL of it is just meant to update FISA and the OMNIBUS bill. Please, if I'm wrong, go pick it out of my original post. If you want, dig through the archives to find my thesis about it. I can assure you that you'll find there that I also do not make the accusation that everything in PATRIOT is good and that EVERYTHING is predicated on JUST updating FISA.

    Indeed, I have said then, said in other threads, and said now that there are numerous provisions that need to go in PATRIOT. Be it by the Court, The Senate, or the sunsets already in place. The court case this thread is about is a great thing and is exactly what needs to be happening.

    PATRIOT is a gigantic piece of legislation. It is huge, and it is broad sweeping. It is the type of thing that likely would have a hard time getting in simply due to the size of it in a normal climate, ESPECIALLY the currently climate. And I'm not even talking about all the amazingly questionable parts of it...I'm saying even the more benign things. Why? Because a piece of legislation this big is going to be glommed on in normal times by everyone to shove everything they can into it and dilute the bill, or cause it to likely fail as it can't get the support.

    Lets say you've done major renovations on your house, add a whole extra wing. State of the art. You did it during a time when construction costs were extremely cheap, where as now they're amazingly high. However, out of this wing you have a few parts of the roof that are leaky and one room that is in need of full repair. Some of the wiring is bad. It'll take some time and money to fix it up, but in general the vast majority of the wing is sound.

    So, do you destroy the entire wing of renovations you did and start completely anew because of some bad patches in the roof, faulty wiring, and a bad room....or do you fix those troubled spots and leave the core in tact, saving time and money to get the same results?

    That's the same thing with PATRIOT. Hell, Russ Fiengold has even stated that 90% of the USA PATRIOT ACT was not just a sound, but needed legislation as of 2003. And that was prior to many of the questionable things sunsetting or being overturned/tweaked. You asked for a specific, check out section 204 which primary function was to change part of OMNIBUS TITLE III from "wire and oral" communications being able to be tapped to "Wire, oral, and electronic". Previously there were issues with emails and voice mails being able to be procured with a warrant as simply as phone records (previously you had to hope the phone you tapped was the one they used to get their voice mail messages). Another example of this is Section 216, which updates FISA information about pen registers and "trap and trace" devices. For those that don't know what these things are, they are devices that can be attached to a phone and records all the numbers dialed and incoming calls. 216 expands this, to allow for devices that record routing information and IP addresses, so that it can be used with new communications like email, chats, forums, and text messaging.

    Other provisions are needed in the modern technological world we live in, but are however flawed all the same. They would be better to be edited rather than outright destroyed. Take section 206, dealing with the "roving wiretaps" everyone is afraid of. What these generally are is the ability to GET A WARRANT (it must have a warrant) to essentially wire tap the PERSON, instead of each particular thing they use. It must be shown that the things being tapped are routinely used by the person the tap is authorized on. This provision was put into place due to the prevalence and ease of access to cell phones now, and the vast away of new public means of accessing communication.

    What's not commonly brought up about Section 206 when people like the ACLU mention it is the fact that it is not something new; it was authorized by congress in 1986 to be used for criminal investigations. The issue is when it was extended to be allowed with the FISA courts it was done at a less strict requirements than it is criminally.

    Section 206 is not, in its nature, a BAD section. It is a needed one with the new technological era we are in. It should however be updated to the same level as in criminal procedures, which requires a much higher standard of ascertaining that the person in question is using the particular things being tapped.

    Section 206 is an example of FISA law being updated to more modern times, and with a good foundation, but needing of some tweaks. Full removal of it would be foolish.

    Let us continue.

    Section 213, the infamous sneak and peak provision, is an example both of one that needs to be tweaked still (The "adverse result" which is the requirement for a judge to grant the warrant for such a search is too vague) and has been tweaked (The time that the government could wait before informing the person being searched was previously "reasonable time" but was changed to "30 days").

    Section 505, about national security letters, is another that shows that its been continually tweaked to improve it rather than just scrap it. (removing libraries as targets and no longer requiring recipients to alert the FBI if they show the letter to an attorney). You can continue to see this provision has continued to be tweaked, such as the current court ruling we are discussing.

    The biggest issue for me honestly is the definition of domestic terrorists in section 802, which I think needs a severe review and likely a near scrapping and rewrite.

    I go with Feingold (I don't say that a lot), the vast majority of PATRIOT is good, sound, needed legislation needing very little if any real alterations. Another 5 to 8 percent is likely to need some major alterations, with a smaller percentage needing full out removal. However destroying the whole thing is chopping off your arm to solve a hangnail.

  10. #20
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    ADK, its laughable that you tell someone they apparently haven't read it, and then go to one of the most biased sources of it as your lone source.

    I suggest if you REALLY want to learn about PATRIOT do some actual research. Check some factual scholarly sources, read up on some experts, review the Bill itself and yes, think tanks too. Read stuff from protagonists for it, antagonists against it, and then most importantly those that seek to give an honest unbiased neutral review of it.

    The ACLU IS a good source on it, but it is like looking at the NRA alone for information about Gun Control. You'd laugh someone out of the thread if all they ever quoted was pro-gun nuts statements about it. It is a spec on the greater scope of things.

    Jfuh, I have not said all of PATRIOT is good and that ALL of it is just meant to update FISA and the OMNIBUS bill. Please, if I'm wrong, go pick it out of my original post. If you want, dig through the archives to find my thesis about it. I can assure you that you'll find there that I also do not make the accusation that everything in PATRIOT is good and that EVERYTHING is predicated on JUST updating FISA.

    Indeed, I have said then, said in other threads, and said now that there are numerous provisions that need to go in PATRIOT. Be it by the Court, The Senate, or the sunsets already in place. The court case this thread is about is a great thing and is exactly what needs to be happening.

    PATRIOT is a gigantic piece of legislation. It is huge, and it is broad sweeping. It is the type of thing that likely would have a hard time getting in simply due to the size of it in a normal climate, ESPECIALLY the currently climate. And I'm not even talking about all the amazingly questionable parts of it...I'm saying even the more benign things. Why? Because a piece of legislation this big is going to be glommed on in normal times by everyone to shove everything they can into it and dilute the bill, or cause it to likely fail as it can't get the support.

    Lets say you've done major renovations on your house, add a whole extra wing. State of the art. You did it during a time when construction costs were extremely cheap, where as now they're amazingly high. However, out of this wing you have a few parts of the roof that are leaky and one room that is in need of full repair. Some of the wiring is bad. It'll take some time and money to fix it up, but in general the vast majority of the wing is sound.

    So, do you destroy the entire wing of renovations you did and start completely anew because of some bad patches in the roof, faulty wiring, and a bad room....or do you fix those troubled spots and leave the core in tact, saving time and money to get the same results?

    That's the same thing with PATRIOT. Hell, Russ Fiengold has even stated that 90% of the USA PATRIOT ACT was not just a sound, but needed legislation as of 2003. And that was prior to many of the questionable things sunsetting or being overturned/tweaked. You asked for a specific, check out section 204 which primary function was to change part of OMNIBUS TITLE III from "wire and oral" communications being able to be tapped to "Wire, oral, and electronic". Previously there were issues with emails and voice mails being able to be procured with a warrant as simply as phone records (previously you had to hope the phone you tapped was the one they used to get their voice mail messages). Another example of this is Section 216, which updates FISA information about pen registers and "trap and trace" devices. For those that don't know what these things are, they are devices that can be attached to a phone and records all the numbers dialed and incoming calls. 216 expands this, to allow for devices that record routing information and IP addresses, so that it can be used with new communications like email, chats, forums, and text messaging.

    Other provisions are needed in the modern technological world we live in, but are however flawed all the same. They would be better to be edited rather than outright destroyed. Take section 206, dealing with the "roving wiretaps" everyone is afraid of. What these generally are is the ability to GET A WARRANT (it must have a warrant) to essentially wire tap the PERSON, instead of each particular thing they use. It must be shown that the things being tapped are routinely used by the person the tap is authorized on. This provision was put into place due to the prevalence and ease of access to cell phones now, and the vast away of new public means of accessing communication.

    What's not commonly brought up about Section 206 when people like the ACLU mention it is the fact that it is not something new; it was authorized by congress in 1986 to be used for criminal investigations. The issue is when it was extended to be allowed with the FISA courts it was done at a less strict requirements than it is criminally.

    Section 206 is not, in its nature, a BAD section. It is a needed one with the new technological era we are in. It should however be updated to the same level as in criminal procedures, which requires a much higher standard of ascertaining that the person in question is using the particular things being tapped.

    Section 206 is an example of FISA law being updated to more modern times, and with a good foundation, but needing of some tweaks. Full removal of it would be foolish.

    Let us continue.

    Section 213, the infamous sneak and peak provision, is an example both of one that needs to be tweaked still (The "adverse result" which is the requirement for a judge to grant the warrant for such a search is too vague) and has been tweaked (The time that the government could wait before informing the person being searched was previously "reasonable time" but was changed to "30 days").

    Section 505, about national security letters, is another that shows that its been continually tweaked to improve it rather than just scrap it. (removing libraries as targets and no longer requiring recipients to alert the FBI if they show the letter to an attorney). You can continue to see this provision has continued to be tweaked, such as the current court ruling we are discussing.

    The biggest issue for me honestly is the definition of domestic terrorists in section 802, which I think needs a severe review and likely a near scrapping and rewrite.

    I go with Feingold (I don't say that a lot), the vast majority of PATRIOT is good, sound, needed legislation needing very little if any real alterations. Another 5 to 8 percent is likely to need some major alterations, with a smaller percentage needing full out removal. However destroying the whole thing is chopping off your arm to solve a hangnail.
    Do you think the ACLU, which is full of lawyers, duh, has a lesser understanding of what the Patriot Act does? And if it manages to strike down parts of it do you think it's because they don't understand what it does and you do?...just asking. I mean you seem so sure of yourself but at the end of the day the ACLU doesn't go to court and take on Joe Schmoe. It takes on other lawyers who know the law just as well as the lawyers from the ACLU. Guys who know their ****. As opposed to most of us who are just here making small talk.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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