Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

Zyphlin · Dec 17, 2008

I am not saying their source is not respectable, nor the information bad.

I am saying that telling someone they haven't read the Patriot Act because ONE source, with an obvious Agenda, disagree's with some of their assertions:

1) doesn't prove they haven't read the act
2) doesn't refute the persons original comment that the poster in question is not knowledgeable about the act.

Its not that the source is bad, its the presentation of it being some sort of all knowing, end all be all source of what the Patriot act is. Check out research done and published in actual political science journals rather than by advocacy groups, such as in Government Information Quarterly. Or various law review journals. Look at testimony by politicians involved in it like Orin Hatch or Bob Barr. Check out AEI if you want a more conservative view point on it, or the Justice Departments statements on it if you want a view from the government itself. Perhaps academic professor presentations and works, such as Maura Conway report on cyber terrorism and the steps to fight back against it presented at Oxford.

Its not that the ACLU is a bad source, its that its a single source, and to quote a single source as the end all be all of something is as fool hearty as the previous person making an out and out claim about people not knowing what was in the act as well.

There's nothing wrong with getting all your info from one source, but don't presume to be somehow so much better informed than someone else who only seeks their information from a singular source and believes it to be the end all of the issue.

Wessexman · Dec 17, 2008

Zyphlin said:
I am not saying their source is not respectable, nor the information bad.

I am saying that telling someone they haven't read the Patriot Act because ONE source, with an obvious Agenda, disagree's with some of their assertions:

1) doesn't prove they haven't read the act
2) doesn't refute the persons original comment that the poster in question is not knowledgeable about the act.

Its not that the source is bad, its the presentation of it being some sort of all knowing, end all be all source of what the Patriot act is. Check out research done and published in actual political science journals rather than by advocacy groups, such as in Government Information Quarterly. Or various law review journals. Look at testimony by politicians involved in it like Orin Hatch or Bob Barr. Check out AEI if you want a more conservative view point on it, or the Justice Departments statements on it if you want a view from the government itself. Perhaps academic professor presentations and works, such as Maura Conway report on cyber terrorism and the steps to fight back against it presented at Oxford.

Its not that the ACLU is a bad source, its that its a single source, and to quote a single source as the end all be all of something is as fool hearty as the previous person making an out and out claim about people not knowing what was in the act as well.

There's nothing wrong with getting all your info from one source, but don't presume to be somehow so much better informed than someone else who only seeks their information from a singular source and believes it to be the end all of the issue.

Okay I understand what you are saying. I think it was however pro-Patriot act people who started throwing the argument that some hadn't read the act or much knowledge of it.

One should remember this is an internet message board and using only one source is not that big a deal here, it isn't like we're writing a post-graduate level report here. But I do agree with your basic point.

Renae · Dec 17, 2008

Wessexman said:
Okay I understand what you are saying. I think it was however pro-Patriot act people who started throwing the argument that some hadn't read the act or much knowledge of it.

I did, cause most of the "You're rights are being taken away" crowd.. don't have a clue what their talking about.

You can't name a single RIGHT you've lost cause of the patriot act.

Wessexman · Dec 17, 2008

MrVicchio said:
I did, cause most of the "You're rights are being taken away" crowd.. don't have a clue what their talking about.

You can't name a single RIGHT you've lost cause of the patriot act.

Actually I linked a summary above from the ACLU but I'm not an American so I've lost no right in the Patriot act, as long as I don't go to the US or get kidnapped by the CIA. I have lost rights in Britain though to similar crap.

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

You cannot believe in individual liberty and the patriot act, they are not compatible I'm afraid.

Renae · Dec 17, 2008

Wessexman said:
Actually I linked a summary above from the ACLU but I'm not an American so I've lost no right in the Patriot act, as long as I don't go to the US or get kidnapped by the CIA. I have lost rights in Britain though to similar crap.

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

You cannot believe in individual liberty and the patriot act, they are not compatible I'm afraid.

I can and I believe in both. However your attempts to determine what I can believe in are both juvenile and bunk. The PA, is not what the ACLU claims it is. It's easy to make people fear something, it's harder to make them think about the issue.

Wessexman · Dec 17, 2008

MrVicchio said:
I can and I believe in both.

I doubt that, the Patriot act is contrary to individual liberty. Does it not?:

Allows FBI Agents to investigate American citizens for criminal
matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is for
“intelligence purposes.”

Or

Expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret
searches, gives them wide powers of phone and Internet
surveillance, and access to highly personal medical, financial,
mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight.

Or

Permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to
be denied re-admission to the US for engaging in free speech.
Suspects convicted of no crime may be detained indefinitely in six
month increments without meaningful judicial review.

Exactly where these powers are granted in the constitution is also an interesting question.

The PA, is not what the ACLU claims it is. It's easy to make people fear something, it's harder to make them think about the issue.

And yet you offer no decent explanation, argument or proof.

Orion · Dec 17, 2008

The fact that there are those who disagree with the court's decision outlines the threat to democratic process that has existed as part of the tradition of the United States since its conception. I am shocked, frankly, that it took this long for the courts to make a ruling, and I find it rather convenient that it took place towards the end of Bush's term. If the court was a functional entity, it would have made this ruling a long time ago. It is somewhat disturbing that the courts can take their sweet time in preserving individual freedoms.

If Americans are not active in preserving their own freedoms, the government will certainly not do it for them. In general, governments are always actively trying to attain more power, and it is the duty of the people to keep that power in check.

Wessexman · Dec 17, 2008

Orius said:
The fact that there are those who disagree with the court's decision outlines the threat to democratic process that has existed as part of the tradition of the United States since its conception. I am shocked, frankly, that it took this long for the courts to make a ruling, and I find it rather convenient that it took place towards the end of Bush's term. If the court was a functional entity, it would have made this ruling a long time ago. It is somewhat disturbing that the courts can take their sweet time in preserving individual freedoms.

If Americans are not active in preserving their own freedoms, the government will certainly not do it for them. In general, governments are always actively trying to attain more power, and it is the duty of the people to keep that power in check.

Which tradition do you mean? The federalists?

Zyphlin · Dec 17, 2008

MrVicchio said:
I did, cause most of the "You're rights are being taken away" crowd.. don't have a clue what their talking about.

You can't name a single RIGHT you've lost cause of the patriot act.

Actually, there are a number of fourth amendment violations of weakenings, concerning your rights in regards to search and seizure and to warrants. (The over arching ability of NSL's originally, the vague amount of time the government can just not tell you they rummaged through your things of the sneak and peak provision).

There are some areas of the fifth and sixth, and even first, that are weakened within the PATRIOT Act. This is in regard to your rights of due process, a speedy trial, right to council, and freedom of speech.

MrVicchio said:
I can and I believe in both. However your attempts to determine what I can believe in are both juvenile and bunk. The PA, is not what the ACLU claims it is. It's easy to make people fear something, it's harder to make them think about the issue.

Actually, you're just flat out wrong. Portions of the PATRIOT Act IS what the ACLU claims. Everything they claim, no. All of the PATRIOT Act, no. However the ACLU IS correct a bout a number of their issues with the Act, both that they are still currently fighting and that they've been shown in court to have been correct about. This doesn't mean they're right in everything, but they are not completely wrong either.

It is absolutely foolish to state that the PATRIOT Act does not have a number of very dangerous provisions. The fact that a President, if we had one radical enough, could essentially declare political protestors "domestic terrorists" is absolutely ludicrous (Do you know what is defined as a Domestic Terrorist Mr. V?).

The issue with many of these provisions in my mind isn't necessarily that their mere existance is harmful to people, but they are ripe for abuse and misuse should the right person use them. They are tools that are unneeded to be so unchecked and should be better regulated.

As I said previously, thinking the ACLU is the gospel when it comes to the PATRIOT Act and the end all be all is foolish. However, out and out dismissing them as a useless source that doesn't know anything about the PA and that the act is nothing like they claim is ALSO foolish.

Ikari · Dec 17, 2008

MrVicchio said:
It's easy to make people fear something, it's harder to make them think about the issue.

exactly. Look at the terrorist issue. We're being taught to fear terrorism and that fear is then used as justification for government expansion. Instead of people rationally thinking about the problem, about the size and scope of government currently, and of how this problem will actually affect their lives.

JMak · Dec 17, 2008

Some interesting reading here...

It seems that those who carp about sacrificing liberty for security simply won't accept any loss of liberty for any degree of security. They cite the now cliched Jefferson quote about liberty and security and deserving neither, but they avoid at all costs describing where they see the balance. In other words, they prefer posting cliches to actually engaging in an intelligence discussion about the scope of the Patriot Act and whcih specific provision they feel represent an overreach of government authority.

As well, those who seem most strongly opposed to Patriot Act appear strongly resistant to any action that diminishes individual liberty, yet these posters are also the same ones who strongly argue in favor of greater taxes, government health care, ever-more government regulations...each of which diminish individual liberty to strengthen the government's role in our lives. Of course, that's always done for our own good...you know, the so-called "progressives" among us.

I would just love to see one of the anti-Patriot Act posters cite even a single provision of the Act that constituted a creation of new government authority or enhanced existing government authority and how that, specifically, diminished individual liberty.

Of course, I'd also like to see even one of them argue how government agency employees stopping us at the airport to search our person and possessions without any cause and without any judicial review does not constitute an even greater infringement on our liberty that the Patriot Act. :roll:

JMak · Dec 17, 2008

Ikari said:
exactly. Look at the terrorist issue. We're being taught to fear terrorism and that fear is then used as justification for government expansion. Instead of people rationally thinking about the problem, about the size and scope of government currently, and of how this problem will actually affect their lives.

I haven't been taught to fear terrorism. It's kinda instinctual, no? Maybe you have a stronger personal constitution than me...

If you were addressing the creation of the Homeland Security Department, I'd probably agree with you that the literal expansion of government activities was not warranted. But you're not. You're carping that people didn't think rationally. Sorry, but your inability to understand why someone else did something that you disagree with is not evidence of them being irrational.

Can you present a legitimate and valid argument or are you just going to sit at your keyboard bemoaning the loss of freedoms that you never exercised anyway?

Ikari · Dec 17, 2008

Your post makes no sense. It's just bitching for the sake of bitching. Growth of government rarely is a good thing. My inability to understand why someone did something I don't like...what the hell are you even talking about? The PA, the terrorists? The "conservatives" who support bigger government, bigger taxes, and bigger war?

I don't fear terrorism nor do I buy into the government propaganda that it uses to justify expansion of power and war. There will always be pissed off people without power in the world. Some of those people will always resort to terrorism. Less we're talking 1984 style big brother, we ain't gonna be able to know about it. There will always be sporadic terrorist attacks, and because we are free (supposedly) we are at even greater risk. Deal with it. It's a consequence of freedom, something I fear too many people are unwilling to shoulder these days. Oh the terrorists are coming to get us! Beware, watch out, trust the government! What the hell are terrorists going to do anyway? Blow up something, that's it. They can't take our freedom, they can't destroy this country, they can't change our laws. Only we can do all that, the terrorists are powerless. They'll kill some people in attacks (9/11 was the most successful attack and likely we won't be seeing results of that caliber from terrorists any time soon), but they ain't gonna kill us all. They're powerless, **** them.

But to use this as an excuse for more government agencies, for secret courts, and wire tapping, and loopholes around constraints and restrictions specifically placed in the Constitution...that's stupid. That's dangerous. That's the real threat. It's time to think about this problem. Even in today's world, I stand a much much much greater chance of being hit by a car than being taken down by a terrorist. I stand a much much greater chance of getting cancer from being outside than being taken out by a terrorist. I'll take the small increase in probability that I'll die on any given day so long as it keeps the government small, constrained, and responsible. Besides, I have guns, I have CCW, I can take care of myself. **** the government, they rarely get anything right anyway.

JMak · Dec 17, 2008

jfuh said:
How does the patriot act address those technological advances and what do those advances have to do with complete suspension of a person's rights based on just one branch declaring them a terrorist suspect?

Huh?

The Patriot Act addressed advances in technology by, for example, consolidating multiple communication mediums into a single court order when a law enforcement official sought judicial approval to surveil an individual. In other words, previous laws, first, cited specific modes of communication, and second, required law enforcement officials to get separate, individual judicial orders to monitor these different modes of communication. The new law recognizes that individuals have the capability to communicate via several different types of devices. It's called roving surveillance. Prior to the Patriot Act it was easier to surveil drug dealers than terrorists (or suspected terrorists). Hence, in part, the Patriot Act removed these double standards in surveillance.

Next, what rights have been suspended simply based on one branch declares a person a terrorist? How did the Patriot Act cause this or affect this?

In fact, if it was just to update FISA, that's all that would've been needed to be done, update FISA.

It obviously was not.

However the patriot also seeked to circumvent the provisions within FISA requiring court review and issue of warrants.

You cannot even speak about this intelligently.

What you really meant to say is that Congress sought to amend previous legislation (FISA) with new legislation (Patriot Act). You present this fundamental function of Congress as some sort of nefarious plot or conspiracy. It's called legislative action. It ain't circumventing anything.

The Patriot act does not require warrants which is why a whole new bill was required - all the more reason that the patriot act has no place in our society.

Please cite the specific provisions that eliminate the need for judicial review, please.

Fine, update the technological provision to the simple telephone that was mentioned in FISA, IOW, update FISA, not circumvent it - no matter who is in power, no executive can have such unbalanced power.

My goodness, how do address this sort of ignorant nonsense. The Patriot Act is legislation, it's not executive order, hence, it's foolish to suggest that implementing the Patriot Act constitutes some unbalanced and unchecked exercise of authority by the President. You damned fool, the legislation in this instance is what authorizes the President and his designated officials to do what the Patriot Act permits. That authorization is balanced by Congress who created the legisation and can amend it any time it wants to.

My goodness...

Renae · Dec 17, 2008

The PA allows government to act against Terrorist in a timely manner, precisely what we DID NOT do prior to 9/11. Pre-911, we could not have stopped them with the laws laid out how they were, they were reactive, not pro-active.

I AGREE, that, if abused, the PA "could" at some point be perverted into screwing you out of your rights... but, there ARE safe guards in place, and you have to trust your government to some extent to do the right thing.

Ikari · Dec 17, 2008

The government was never to be able to function efficiently and in a "timely" manner. It was specifically built to be slow and reactive. And even with the PA, the events of 9/11 would have not been prevented. The government heard rumors, they gave it no weight because when the hell have terrorists ever done such a thing?

Trust in the government is one of the dumbest things to ever do. It is not meant to be trusted, never was. The founders warned us of the dangers of government, told us to watch it and constrain it because it will do exactly this. Anything that wields the soveriegnty and power of the People can not be trusted. It must be watched, it must be constrained, it must be limited. A concept once understood and championed by conservatives.

JMak · Dec 17, 2008

Ikari said:
I don't fear terrorism nor do I buy into the government propaganda that it uses to justify expansion of power and war.

Well, I don't that the government is using terrorism as a tool of fear in order to justify expanding power or war. You must live in a fantasyland where terrorism doesn't exist except as some existential threat. I'm sure the families and friends of those 9/11 victims would disagree as would the friends and families of those killed in US embassy bombings, attacks on naval vessels, etc.

There will always be pissed off people without power in the world. Some of those people will always resort to terrorism. Less we're talking 1984 style big brother, we ain't gonna be able to know about it.

Funny, it appears that you have no problem with court-ordered searches/surveillance of ordinary criminals, but when it comes to terrorists, well, no worry there, they're just people without power. :roll:

There will always be sporadic terrorist attacks, and because we are free (supposedly) we are at even greater risk. Deal with it.

You're arguing like I believe all terrorism can be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided. Don't attribute bogus crap to me simply to argue with yourself.

It's a consequence of freedom, something I fear too many people are unwilling to shoulder these days. Oh the terrorists are coming to get us! Beware, watch out, trust the government! What the hell are terrorists going to do anyway? Blow up something, that's it.

My goodness, what loony sites are you frequenting? I don't get the sense that the government has successfully altered the national psyche so that it now believes that terrorists are on the loose able and ready to strike at any moment.

Care to return to reality?

Or do you enjoy creating these false environments to justify your inane ranting?

They can't take our freedom, they can't destroy this country, they can't change our laws. Only we can do all that, the terrorists are powerless.

Except when they, you know, kill people, destroy naval warships, and drop massive skyscrapers on top on thousands of Americans.

They'll kill some people in attacks (9/11 was the most successful attack and likely we won't be seeing results of that caliber from terrorists any time soon), but they ain't gonna kill us all. They're powerless, **** them.

Again, I think most rational people would disagree with you that we should just tolerate terrorism. In factm they would probably argue that not only should American law enforcement have the same tools available to them that they use against ordinary criminals, but also some enhanced tools given the very real danger of terrorism.

But to use this as an excuse for more government agencies, for secret courts, and wire tapping, and loopholes around constraints and restrictions specifically placed in the Constitution...that's stupid.

Well, what secret courts?

What wire tapping is being approved now that wasn't already available pre-Patriot Act?

What "loopholes?"

You have nothing here.

That's dangerous. That's the real threat.

Right. Non-existent secret courts and new wire tapping present the real threat here, not terrorists that, you know, actually kill Americans.

You're dismissed.

Zyphlin · Dec 17, 2008

JMak said:
Some interesting reading here...

It seems that those who carp about sacrificing liberty for security simply won't accept any loss of liberty for any degree of security. They cite the now cliched Jefferson quote about liberty and security and deserving neither, but they avoid at all costs describing where they see the balance. In other words, they prefer posting cliches to actually engaging in an intelligence discussion about the scope of the Patriot Act and whcih specific provision they feel represent an overreach of government authority.

Interestingly enough, one can kind of look at history in regards to this. Despite the typical reactionary nature of the American Public, history is rather cyclical and things can be predicted upon pretty easily.

The fact is people on this board generally don't make up the typical majority of American's, specifically because they're more attuned into politics in general. However it is the general will and allowance of that majority that really matters in these situations concerning the balance of security vs freedom.

The founders came in at a time after massive security over freedom, and in the creation of the country the balance was firmly tipped into the "Freedom" end of things.

However, you get to the Civil War and that firmly had swung the balance to security due to the huge impact and danger of it. There you have Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus for a time. As the danger passed, the balance swung, and such suspension ended.

Fast track up to WWII, when the balance again shifts heavily into the "Security" side of things with Pearl Harbor and we end up having internment camps under FDR amongst other civil rights violations in the name of security involving the mail and other things.

Enter the cold war and Kennedy assassination that brought us the OMNIBUS bill that put restrictions on firearms and helped detail information about wire tapping so as to erase loopholes and codify it. Back to security.

Welcome the Nixon fiasco, followed by FISA which set up an additional lawyer of oversight for survelliance and restricted it a bit. This swing to freedom continued through the 90's as well as the Cold War ended, building up the Gorelick Wall and other such things.

Then we have another major thing happen, with 9/11, and the balance is again turned to security. Enter PATRIOT.

Now as we move away from 9/11 the balance swings back to freedom.

What you'll find in history is that generally the swing to security occurs infrequently, and usually with some kind of impetence. However when it does swing that way, it swings there fast and hard. Generally the things that happen during that time are regretable in the larger scope of history, however at the time are understandable actions of security.

The change over from Security to Freedom is usually a longer period, with a more steady decline of the things implimented in the name of security. It usually starts almost the moment that Security wins out as well, as in its nature America is a freedom loving country that is loathe to give such up.

This most recent court ruling doesn't surprise me, nor do the others in the past few years. I've been saying for years that this is exactly what would, and should, happen to PATRIOT. It came on extremely strong, during a time where the public needed that feeling of security and the government needed to act quickly. As we move farther from that and the desire for freedom becomes stronger, the questionable pieces will be stripped out leaving a good, sound foundation of the act in place and intact.

Those inflexable people on both sides are problematic in my mind, but are thankfully NOT the majority in this country. Those that cry out about "FREEDOM!" over security are generally doing so out of a misguided movemeent, not realizing that they already give up numerous freedoms without securities and have been for years upon years. To not adjust and respond to situations simply based on a principle of "freedom freedom freedom" is foolhearty and something a leader can not do. Likewise however, those that scream out for "SECURITY! I need to be SAFE!" are equally misguided, as to have such security for an extremely extended period of defeats the purpose OF that security as you lose for that time one of the main things the security is supposd to be assuring...your freedom.

It IS a balancing act, and I am happy to see that true to history, the government our founders gave us comes through once again to help maintain that balance as its needed.

Zyphlin · Dec 17, 2008

Ikari said:
The government was never to be able to function efficiently and in a "timely" manner. It was specifically built to be slow and reactive. And even with the PA, the events of 9/11 would have not been prevented. The government heard rumors, they gave it no weight because when the hell have terrorists ever done such a thing?

Not entirely true. There were portions of the government investigating some of the men that were part of this, and some that had information needed for it. However due to the law in regards to FISA and these kind of cases in the 90's the information could not easily be shared between these groups causing numerous groups/agencies to try and put together a giant jigsaw puzzle with only a 1/4th of the pieces.

Would the PATRIOT Act definitely have prevented 9/11 from happening? Impossible to say. Would it have given the government a much larger chance of actually finding out about the plan and stopping it, yes...yes it would've.

Zyphlin · Dec 17, 2008

Ikari said:
But to use this as an excuse for more government agencies, for secret courts, and wire tapping, and loopholes around constraints and restrictions specifically placed in the Constitution...that's stupid.

So I imagine you are equally in favor of over turning ALL of FISA and OMNIBUS as well since they create a secret court and/or authorize wire tappings since you are in favor of over turning ALL of Patriot for similar reasons?

MrVicchio said:
The PA allows government to act against Terrorist in a timely manner, precisely what we DID NOT do prior to 9/11. Pre-911, we could not have stopped them with the laws laid out how they were, they were reactive, not pro-active.

Yes, that is one part of what it does. It is not ALL of what it does.

I AGREE, that, if abused, the PA "could" at some point be perverted into screwing you out of your rights... but, there ARE safe guards in place, and you have to trust your government to some extent to do the right thing.

The issue is that in many places there weren't safe guards, or the safe guards were so badly worded that they may as well not have been there. Many of those things have been changed, thanks to the ACLU and others, without completely stripping out the core of what the sections purpose was to be.

There are two different distinct groups generally concerning PATRIOT and its liberty issues. Those that want the entire bill to just be thrown out, and those that think that you can pin point the troubled spots and fix them. I'm of the later, and surprisingly enough, whether they ultimately would like to see it all over turned or not, the ACLU has been a large part of getting many of those troubled spots fixed.

I'll ask again, do you know what the definition of a Domestic Terrorist is within PATRIOT?

JMak · Dec 17, 2008

Ikari said:
The government was never to be able to function efficiently and in a "timely" manner. It was specifically built to be slow and reactive.

You're confusing things here. The process of government was intended to be slow, incremental to avoid massive and fundamental change. Hence, checks and balances, legislation, etc.

Law enforcement has never intended to be solely reactive. How do we know this? Well, law enforcement officials are able to request court orders permitting them to monitor individuals suspected of planning to commit a crime or in the process of committing a crime if the official can prove to a judge that they have probably cause to believe such will or is occurring.

And even with the PA, the events of 9/11 would have not been prevented. The government heard rumors, they gave it no weight because when the hell have terrorists ever done such a thing?

So what? Your logic would require us to simply forego all law enforcement activities except that that occur after a crime has been committed. 'Cuz you cannot stop all crime, right?

Trust in the government is one of the dumbest things to ever do. It is not meant to be trusted, never was.

What "trust" are you even talking about? I don't need to trust the government to know that terrorists are seeking to kill Americans. I don't need to trust the government to realize that our law enforcement officials should have the same authority to address terrorism that they do when addressing ordinary crime.

Why do you believe otherwise?

A concept once understood and championed by conservatives.

And still is despite your ignorant protestations.

JMak · Dec 17, 2008

Zyphlin said:
So I imagine you are equally in favor of over turning ALL of FISA and OMNIBUS as well since they create a secret court and/or authorize wire tappings since you are in favor of over turning ALL of Patriot for similar reasons?

No. He's in favor, if his arguments are consistent, in rescinding all laws that permit law enforcement officials to submit requests to a court request judicial approval to monitor/surveil individuals. He says that not all terrorism can be prevented, consequently, if applying that logic consistently, ordinary crime cannot be prevented therefore all laws permitting preemptive action must be struck down because they involve limiting our liberty for a false sense of security. :roll:

JMak · Dec 17, 2008

Zyphlin said:
Not entirely true. There were portions of the government investigating some of the men that were part of this, and some that had information needed for it. However due to the law in regards to FISA and these kind of cases in the 90's the information could not easily be shared between these groups causing numerous groups/agencies to try and put together a giant jigsaw puzzle with only a 1/4th of the pieces.

This wasn't a defect in FISA. In fact, it was a self-inflicted wound by the Executive. The Clinton administration sought to treat terrorism as ordinary crime. Consequently, since it would "prosecute" terrorists there was the overriding need to protect the integrity of the prosecution. In other words, the Justice Department could not rely on intelligence or information obtained by the intelligence services because the collection of such may have conducted in such a way that violates due process. That's where the concept of the wall originated.

Would the PATRIOT Act definitely have prevented 9/11 from happening? Impossible to say. Would it have given the government a much larger chance of actually finding out about the plan and stopping it, yes...yes it would've.

More likely that it would have made it more difficult for the plan to be implemented and may have deterred the attack or minimized the scale of the attack.

Renae · Dec 17, 2008

Zyphlin said:
So I imagine you are equally in favor of over turning ALL of FISA and OMNIBUS as well since they create a secret court and/or authorize wire tappings since you are in favor of over turning ALL of Patriot for similar reasons?

Yes, that is one part of what it does. It is not ALL of what it does.

The issue is that in many places there weren't safe guards, or the safe guards were so badly worded that they may as well not have been there. Many of those things have been changed, thanks to the ACLU and others, without completely stripping out the core of what the sections purpose was to be.

There are two different distinct groups generally concerning PATRIOT and its liberty issues. Those that want the entire bill to just be thrown out, and those that think that you can pin point the troubled spots and fix them. I'm of the later, and surprisingly enough, whether they ultimately would like to see it all over turned or not, the ACLU has been a large part of getting many of those troubled spots fixed.

I'll ask again, do you know what the definition of a Domestic Terrorist is within PATRIOT?

I know what the PA says, and I take anything the ACLU does with a huge grain of salt.

Ikari · Dec 17, 2008

JMak said:
Well, I don't that the government is using terrorism as a tool of fear in order to justify expanding power or war. You must live in a fantasyland where terrorism doesn't exist except as some existential threat. I'm sure the families and friends of those 9/11 victims would disagree as would the friends and families of those killed in US embassy bombings, attacks on naval vessels, etc.

nonsense and insult. The families and friends of those 9/11 have to grieve for the losses. But how many have we killed in return? How many civilians, how many terrorists? Not to mention the losses to our own side from the fighting. What about their families, what about their friends? More people die per year in car accidents than were killed in 9/11. Should we declare war on the automobile? I mean, think of their friends and family. What a crappy and intellectually dishonest appeal to emotion.

JMak said:
Funny, it appears that you have no problem with court-ordered searches/surveillance of ordinary criminals, but when it comes to terrorists, well, no worry there, they're just people without power. :roll:

How do you know that Madam Cleo? Or are you just assuming? Some things are ok so long as cases are built on gathered evidence and that proper protocol is followed. We're free from unreasonable search and seizure (though the government does this a lot, especially with drugs and alcohol), so the authority must first gather evidence, and then must go through the proper channels to obtain warrants. And the process should be tedious and difficult.

JMak said:
You're arguing like I believe all terrorism can be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided. Don't attribute bogus crap to me simply to argue with yourself.

You seem to be doing it yourself, so what can't I? If it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided; what's the purpose of trying to do so? Shouldn't we have just gone about our daily business and live with it? What's the purpose of the PA, what's the purpose of the War on Terror? If none of it can be stopped, than why do it? To decrease frequency? To make it look like we're doing something?

There was plenty already in the government's power that it could have done. Consolidated agencies, increase communication between different agencies, refocus attention on certain groups, etc. It didn't need more power, it had enough.

JMak said:
My goodness, what loony sites are you frequenting? I don't get the sense that the government has successfully altered the national psyche so that it now believes that terrorists are on the loose able and ready to strike at any moment.

Care to return to reality?

Or do you enjoy creating these false environments to justify your inane ranting?

more insult...seems to be your style. Were we not told not so long ago that there will be a biological terrorist attack sometime soon? Hmm...

JMak said:
Except when they, you know, kill people, destroy naval warships, and drop massive skyscrapers on top on thousands of Americans.

We do the same, we call it war. So what, strap a bomb to yourself and it's an act of terrorism; drop it out of a plane and it's an act of defense? And what about all the people we kill, do they count? No? Here you are trying to tell me all the things terrorists do and why we should be careful when just above this quote, you're saying the opposite. They can strike at any moment, they drop massive skyscrapers on thousands of us, they kill people and destroy naval warships (it wasn't destroyed, it was crippled). What a bunch of BS this is.

JMak said:
Again, I think most rational people would disagree with you that we should just tolerate terrorism. In factm they would probably argue that not only should American law enforcement have the same tools available to them that they use against ordinary criminals, but also some enhanced tools given the very real danger of terrorism.

Did you not say it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided? If it can't be stopped, prevented, or otherwise avoided; than doesn't that mean that on some level we have to live with it?

JMak said:
Well, what secret courts?

FISA for one. Does the SCOTUS even get to review that court?

JMak said:
What wire tapping is being approved now that wasn't already available pre-Patriot Act?

making warrantless easier to obtain (all warrantless wiretaps should be done away with)

JMak said:
What "loopholes?"

Search and seizure, privacy, redress, etc.

JMak said:
You have nothing here.

Or is it you whom are trying to excuse gross increase in government size and power without fully understanding the consequences for doing so?

JMak said:
Right. Non-existent secret courts and new wire tapping present the real threat here, not terrorists that, you know, actually kill Americans.

So your hyperbole and dismissals make it so you can misrepresent and throw out an argument. Interesting way of "debate". I'd call it a temper tantrum, but que sera sera. The real threat to freedom and liberty is not posed by terrorists, but by ourselves and our own government.

JMak said:
You're dismissed.

Yes, I've gotten the point through your mix mash of "logic" and "argument" that you were merely trying to lay down insult to dismiss an argument that dare be counter to your own. I understand your ilk's way of "debate". If you're not with us, your against us.

Court sides with ACLU, strikes down Patriot Act gag provision

Zyphlin

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot

Renae

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot

Renae

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot

Orion

Wessexman

Dorset Patriot

Zyphlin

Ikari

JMak

JMak

Ikari

JMak

Renae

Ikari

JMak

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

JMak

JMak

JMak

Renae

Ikari