Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Manedew on April 09, 2003, 04:24:41 PM
-
They want to make it permanent, those evil bastards.... guess they belive in safety over freedom, or privacy ..
pre-emptive strike on "lone-wolf" "terrorists" with no affilliation to a foregin group HA!
sounds like pre-crime to me .. careful what you think
they should hire Steven Spielburg, if they can handle his alien fettish. :rolleyes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/09/international/worldspecial/09TERR.html
-
Did you ever think it would be temporary??:rolleyes:
-
I haven't read all of the Patriot Act but what I have read didn't seem unreasonable. Have you read the Patriot Act? Care to post a link?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I haven't read all of the Patriot Act but what I have read didn't seem unreasonable. Have you read the Patriot Act? Care to post a link?
Knock yourself out:
Patriot Act (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)
ACLU's opinion:
ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12313&c=206)
-
Thanks for the link. Reading now. Starts off like this:
SEC. 102. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONDEMNING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ARAB AND MUSLIM AMERICANS.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia play a vital role in our Nation and are entitled to nothing less than the full rights of every American.
(2) The acts of violence that have been taken against Arab and Muslim Americans since the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States should be and are condemned by all Americans who value freedom.
(3) The concept of individual responsibility for wrongdoing is sacrosanct in American society, and applies equally to all religious, racial, and ethnic groups.
(4) When American citizens commit acts of violence against those who are, or are perceived to be, of Arab or Muslim descent, they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
(5) Muslim Americans have become so fearful of harassment that many Muslim women are changing the way they dress to avoid becoming targets.
(6) Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.
Maybe you and/or those complaining about this heinous act can save me some time by pointing out a specific section that is so objectionable?
-
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html
i read it its a freedom kill list.i dont like it even a little bit.
-
WE ARE NOT TAKING AWAY ANY OF YOUR LIBERTIES OR FREEDOMS, SO JUST SIT DOWN, WATCH TV AND STOP QUESTIONING!!!
hehe. more government is always bad.
F.
-
Shouldn't they call it the "Hoover Act" since the Patriot is just an expensive dart?
-
I've seen many claim that this document spells the end of freedom. I've read parts and scanned others. I just don't see what all the hoopla is about. Surely some of you with such strong objections can cut and paste a section or two?
-
Its a step in the right direction comrades!!! more government and more patriots for the Republic! dont worry these laws wont apply to you only to people that are not patriots comrades!
-
I won't let this thread die until someone can point out specifically what the squeakin' is about.
-
Did you even read this?
ACLU's Opinion (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12313&c=206)
How about this?
EFF's Analysis (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/patriot-act-II-analysis.php)
If you don't care, then I'm sure you won't miss em.
-
No, and I don't intend to. All I'm asking for is a small cut and paste and your opinion, not the ACLU's.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No, and I don't intend to. All I'm asking for is a small cut and paste and your opinion, not the ACLU's.
How do you expect to familiarize yourself with objections to the Patriot Act if you can't be bothered to read a criticism from the ACLU - one of the few reputable places you could go for such a thing? Do you trust posters here more than you would the ACLU for such matters, or do you have another agenda?
-
ACLU = American Communist Lawyers Union
-
Originally posted by john9001
ACLU = American Communist Lawyers Union
BFFWRRRRRT!
-
ACLU is not a good place for opinions. I would also like to know, some of the gripes, from posters......
-
it is a reduction in freedom. what more is there to say,i am against it and the continued political career of anyone supporting it.
specifically i have a problem with the reducton in freedom. so the reduction in freedom would be my problem. with the people putting this abomination out in the light of day with the aime of reducing my freedom in the name of safty.
clear enough?
-
Wow thanks for the specifics dolfy!
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe you and/or those complaining about this heinous act can save me some time by pointing out a specific section that is so objectionable?
The part that makes it illegal for them to do the stuff that leads to them doing things that are illegal.
-
it is a reduction in freedom.
As is every bill ever passed.
-
osama loves you, john90210, he really does
-
they hate the aclu because the aclu fights for everyones rights to the full extent of the law, no matter what kind of POS they are. In my mind they would be hypocrites if they didnt do such.
-
okay, just to cut-and-paste:
Third, there is no “national security” or “intelligence gathering” exception to the Constitution’s fundamental guarantees of individual liberty; as with all governmental powers, these powers are properly subject to checks and balances.
Does anybody give a damn?
As I stated at the time, I would rather the US endure a thousand WTCs, with myself and my family members as victims than see this great country sacrifice its fundamental liberties out of fear. Why is it people have no problem sending our children off to war, to sacrifice their lives ostensibly so that some foreign citizens might live free of an evil dictator set on denying them their civil liberties, yet many of the same folks turn around and surrender those same liberties in this country, and they justify both acts by reference to the same guy?
-
I meant to cut and paste from the "Patriot Act". Something that you find objectionable. I'm not saying there is nothing in there to be worried about, I'm just saying I haven't seen it and there seem to be many talking like it's the end of our freedom.
Clear enough now?
-
All these posts and not one reference from the document itself. Other than the one I posted. Have any of you doom sayers read any of it at all?
-
I reread your post Dinger. That does sound like an excerpt from the "Act". My apologies. However, I don't see what you find objectionable about that. It appears to me to be a reaffirmation that the "Act" does not supercede the Constitution. Wouldn't you agree?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
(5) Muslim Americans have become so fearful of harassment that many Muslim women are changing the way they dress to avoid becoming targets.
[/B]
maybe they'll show more skin :)
-
The USA PATRIOT Act substantially altered a number of key legal authorities governing intelligence gathering within the United States, primarily by weakening judicial review and other checks and balances on government intelligence and law enforcement powers. Some of the more significant changes include provisions that allow:
(1) Secret access to sensitive personal records that previously were protected from disclosure in the absence of a grand jury subpoena (section 215);
(2) Use of intelligence surveillance powers, instead of criminal surveillance powers, even where the “primary purpose” of the surveillance is criminal prosecution rather than the gathering of intelligence (section 218);
(3) Use of “pen register” and “trap and trace” devices that capture detailed e-mail header and Internet URL information without an electronic surveillance order based on probable cause of criminal activity (sections 214, 216);
(4) Secret searches that allow the government to delay, potentially indefinitely, notice of the execution of a search warrant in any criminal case (section 213);
(5) Domestic intelligence wiretaps and other intelligence gathering at the direction of the Director of Central Intelligence, in spite of the statutory prohibition that bars the Central Intelligence Agency from exercising “internal security functions”[10] (section 901); and
(6) Sharing of sensitive law enforcement information, such as grand jury information, with the intelligence community without the approval of a United States district judge (section 203).
they seem small, but they got to start somewhere, eh comrades!
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
they hate the aclu because the aclu fights for everyones rights to the full extent of the law, no matter what kind of POS they are. In my mind they would be hypocrites if they didnt do such.
I don't believe the above statement is necessirly true. The ACLU has limited resources and they pick their fights.
A perfect example is the 2nd Amendment. You don't see much ACLU involvement there... of course, there's no reason to waste $$$ on it when the NRA has pretty much got that amendment covered.
FWIW, I'm a card carrying member (surprise!) and I firmly believe that the Constitution is worth defending.
Have you seen Patriot II?
This is what they have to say about it at EFF:
Privacy Invasions. USAPA II dramatically widens the powers of government to invade the privacy of Americans and others living here. This includes:
-Broad new authority to compel information from ISPs, friends, relatives, businesses and others, all without informing you.
-Immunity for businesses that voluntarily turn over your information to law enforcement.
-Extra punishment for use of cryptography-- no connection to terrorism needed.
-Instant police access to your credit reports upon certification that they are sought "in connection with their duties" -- again, with no connection to terrorism needed.
-Relaxed requirement of specificity for warrants for multi-use devices like PDAs and computers with telephonic capabilities.
-DNA collected from all terrorism suspects/DNA database information open to all law enforcement.
-Less judicial oversight of surveillance.
More "End Runs" Around Limitations on Surveillance and Information Sharing. Federal, state and local officials can now freely share information, regardless of the original reason for gathering it. This includes information in your credit reports, educational records and visa records. It also includes information obtained by administrative subpoenas of any business, from your ISP to your credit card company to your grocer. It also includes DNA database information and information obtained through the secret court processes of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Much of this sharing need not have any relationship to terrorism investigation.
Gag Orders and Increased Governmental Secrecy. The "sunshine of public review" is a key check on abuses of governmental power. But USAPA II makes it even harder for the public to evaluate what the government is doing with its broad new powers. USAPA II allows gag orders for subpoenas that force third parties to turn over information about their friends, loved ones or customers while making it unlawful for them to tell anyone except their lawyers about the subpoena. In a similar vein, the law creates broad new exceptions to the Freedom of Information Act for terrorism detainee information, prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from warning the public about environmental dangers from chemical releases and reduces the ability of judges to force the government to present its evidence in open court.
Expanded Reach of Powers under the Control of Secret Courts. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted more than 20 years ago to handle the special problem of non-criminal investigation of foreign intelligence activities in the United States. For this limited purpose, Congress established an unprecedented secret court system. USAPA expanded the reach of FISA and the secret court dramatically, and USAPA II goes even further. Under USAPA II, the secret court will be able to authorize searches of individuals with no connection to foreign governments or even terrorist organizations. It will increase the length of surveillance and decrease court oversight from the already low levels set by USAPA.
Not Targeted to Terrorism. As with its predecessor, USAPA II contains many provisions that appear to be nothing more than an opportunistic attempt to increase governmental powers in areas unrelated to terrorism. In other areas, while terrorism is included, the provisions are not limited to terrorism-related investigations. These include government access to credit reports, sentence enhancements for using encryption, and sharing of some FISA-obtained information.
-
Paraniod bunch of hand wringing ladies
-
paranoid?! if you dont like it you can geeeeeet out.
-
While I love America, this expansion of the powers of surveillance is beginning to scare the crap outta even me. The Constitution was very specific when it came to this...
-
Still waiting for someone to post something from the Patriot Act, not the ACLU's interpretation. Dinger posted something but I fail to see anything fearful in it.
Here's my slant. The liberals want very badly to discredit the conservatives in this country and at almost any cost including claims that the current administration is denying liberty. These type of fear tactics can only be exposed by the truth and "it is out there."
Read the thing before you get all worked about it. Or, keep your paranoia to yourself.
-
if your a suspected terrorist they can detain you without trial indefinately.... thats sick.
-
i wonder what you people are trying to hide? "sensitive personal information"? what is that? my life is a open book, i have nothing to hide, i am not commiting any crimes, have not commited any.
-
i have nothing to hide, but that much power of a human being is not something our government should have. People make mistakes, and the people our government arrests and for what reasons should be an open book. Humans are are inherently fallible.
-
You have absolute faith in the security services not to abuse this new power?
You have absolute faith in all the security services that come in later years?
You have eternal faith that there is no corruption now and will never be any corruption?
Wow.
These new rights will never be revoked. Once the government obtains an inch, they never give it back. That's why critical scrutiny and debate has to occur before more power is given to them.
It's not a case of having 'nothing to hide'. It's a case of one day having 'nothing to give away'.
-
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) project of conducting “voluntary interviews” with law-abiding Americans has involved questions like how often they worship at a particular mosque or whether they oppose the war in Iraq.
That is from the ACLU report.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You have absolute faith in the security services not to abuse this new power?
I have faith in my ability to read and understand what I read. So far all I've read by those posting here is "the sky is falling". How about some substance?
I like to form my own opinions and base them on as many facts as I can get. Since the "Patriot Act" has been "linked" in this thread I see no reason why the objectors can't point out specifically what they find so offensive.
-
ok here it is in simple speak. some one man or any number of men will be able to lock you up if they just say you are a terrorist.you might never see a judge or mor importantly a fair public jury of your peers.
this power will be missused as it has no check to balance it. you are aware of human nature yes ? absolute power corrupts how? i am truly sorry to insult you but if you cant see the danger here you are somehow blind.
it completly undermines the whole concept of of our law. four thousand years of stupid and wise men led to the system we have now. how they have the audacity to think of changing it is beyond me. if they are incompetent to do their jobs with the rules layed down over the previously mentioned 4k years they need to admit failing and let somone else try.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
ok here it is in simple speak. some one man or any number of men will be able to lock you up if they just say you are a terrorist.you might never see a judge or mor importantly a fair public jury of your peers.
Where exactly do you find that in the Patriot Act?
-
ohh i get it you want me to argue that the first end run around our constitution dosent clearly state that you can have the above mentioned done to your person. while the patriot act 2 is public and the fruition of the plans started in patriot act 1. its good enough for me.
they and you cannot have one smidgen of a dab of a piece of my freedom in the name of safty. this is step 1 our of the fascism for dummys handbook.
to to repeat you trying the old conservative am talk radio parrot trick you are trying is rejected. thanks for playing
-
I don't view any acts or legislation based on the idea that "the Constitution makes it too difficult to catch people" as a good idea.
MiniD
-
Just as I thought LDV. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have faith in my ability to read and understand what I read. So far all I've read by those posting here is "the sky is falling". How about some substance? ....
Don't worry iron, you won't miss em anyway.
-
I retract my statement about punting this thread 'till someone posts an objectionable line or two from the Patriot Act itself instead of some liberals rantings. It's a hopeless cause and just not worth the effort.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I retract my statement about punting this thread 'till someone posts an objectionable line or two from the Patriot Act itself instead of some liberals rantings. It's a hopeless cause and just not worth the effort.
While there are several of us here who might be capable of doing a complete legislative analysis of the bill, this thing is so huge I am not going to attempt it unless I get paid for it.
The burden is on those who favor the bill to demonstrate why it is necessary, because nothing in the bill would have stopped the series of bureaucratic fck-ups that let 9/11 happen.
The testimony of the ACLU's cheif legislative analyst before Congress does not qualify as 'liberal rantings', I suggest you read it.
-
akiron is like rush, he lost his hearing a while back. grumble.... damn constitution gives those liberal hippies to much freedom, need to make it legal for police men to beat them.
-
people reject it in whole. your insistance on people debating you line by line is just a failed attempt to get people to argue on your own ground. people who say they have read the thing and dislike it in toto are liberal ranters. yea shure now i see where your comming from.
you are trying to use a bad debating trick to win a argument.
works great on am radio but hey you can't turn the callers off here.
you go read it again if you want but im done the whole thing is a wish list of freedom reductions and new arbitrary powers me no likee . a refusal to argue on your terms is your problem.
what radio show you get the idea from ? honestly
-
I don't get it. This thread is about how bad it will be to make the Patriot Act permanent.
So AKIron consistently and repeatedly asks that those of you who have a problem with the act to simply point out something in the document that you object to.
Yet you can't even do it!
Are you so stupid you have to have the ACLU speak for you?
Show us exactly what you object to already for God's sake.
I don't believe in big governement for any reason, so personally I would like to not see the act become a permanent thing, but why can't you answer his damn question?
-
Originally posted by koala
Are you so stupid you have to have the ACLU speak for you?
Yes. I freely admit I do not have the legal education and contextual knowledge to understand exactly what the Patriot Act means, line by line. Unfortuneately, the writers did not put anything in so clear as "(A) Amendments 4 and 5 are hearby repealed", so a scanning of the document does not raise any flags. Because of my lack of expertise on the subject, I am willing to defer analysis to the expects, which I consider the legal counsel for the ACLU to be.
My sense is that you and AKIron are not really that concerned with the issues regarding the Patriot Act and would rather turn this thread into one big ad hominem by trying to show that critics do not have personal knowledge and command of the details of the Act. I don't think that's a reasonable burden to shoulder.
-
I find these (and more) offensive:
Section 206 which covers "roving surveillance."
Section 209 treats voice mail as stored data rather than intercepted communication. Prior to the Patriot Act, the seizure of voice mail required a Title III wiretap order. Now, all that is required is a search warrant.
Section 216 has determined that pen register/trap and trace surveillance applies to internet traffic. Permits the use of technologies such as "Carnivore" and "Eschelon."
Here's the "Reader's Digest Abridged version": http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf
-
Thanks Sandman for actually addressing the question. The specific sections you cite are a good starting point for further discussion.
-
What gives, koala? Not going to question Sandman for being "so stupid" that he cites the opinion of FAS?
-
I didn't read the opinion of the FAS.
-
Erlkonig, lighten up on the name calling. Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Erlkonig, lighten up on the name calling. Thank you.
I'm confused.
-
Unless I misread it, he called you stupid.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Unless I misread it, he called you stupid.
I think you misread it.
-
Well,..it was pointed at you, and if you feel that way, then I apologize to Erlkonig for the misunderstanding.
Carry on.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Well,..it was pointed at you, and if you feel that way, then I apologize to Erlkonig for the misunderstanding.
Carry on.
FWIW, I believe it was pointed at Koala and referenced this quote: Are you so stupid you have to have the ACLU speak for you?
Thanks for the thought though. :)
-
I misread. I thought Sandman's link was a FAS document, but it's actually from the Congressional Research Service which is apparently affiliated with the Library of Congress.
-
Dolfy, I think you and Froggy are beginning to embarrass your fellow libs. Ya might wanna try a bit of rational thinking, just a suggestion.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
ISection 209 treats voice mail as stored data rather than intercepted communication. Prior to the Patriot Act, the seizure of voice mail required a Title III wiretap order. Now, all that is required is a search warrant.
Haven't studied the sections you mentioned yet. Everyone knows how voice mail works, however, are you aware that voice mail is in fact stored data?
I'm not suggesting that they should be treated differently than private voice communications. Both a wire tap and seizure of the voice mail require a court order so what's the big deal? The same judge can issue either, right?
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Knock yourself out:
Patriot Act (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)
ACLU's opinion:
ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12313&c=206)
ACLU????
Don't even go there....they're a joke.
As to anyone who fears losing their freedom....grow up....there's a difference between losing your freedoms and being afraid of losing your freedoms.
-
I see certain sections in the Patriot Act (most already pointed out in this thread) that make me wary of the nation I live in.
Both because I *KNOW* our government would love to strip us of our rights because it makes their job easier (I'm not saying I know from 'outside looking in' either...) and also because I can see that the majority of the american people are complacent enough to let them be taken away.
"If you say it helps...", I can see some of it in this thread. Not reading it, and taking the government's word for it is a bad idea. If it's published by the government, it's in your best interest to scan through it several times.
It starts off small, it ends up bad. I'm not comparing our Commander in Chief to Hitler or the Nazi party or Communism.... but it's not too far off in some areas concerning the government as a whole.
If you seriously believe the government is looking out for your best interests, best to double check that one.
I'm not paranoid about it, it hasn't happened yet, but when it comes I'll know and I'll be gone before you can say "Ve haft a dissenter amongzt our rankz"...
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Both because I *KNOW* our government would love to strip us of our rights because it makes their job easier
Just ain't true SW. Those Americans that write laws love their freedom just as much as you. Based on what I've read about it, the Patriot Act was written not only to give law enforcement the tools needed to deal with increasing terrorism in this country but also to update the procedures needed in dealing with modern communications technology. It may need some adjusting, or eliminating altogether. I can't say since what little I've read of it seems reasonable.
I can tell you this for an almost certainty, if terrorism were to become as rampant here as it is in say Israel, you'd definitely be losing some of the freedoms you now enjoy. Maybe even the right to breath, though it won't be your government that takes that one away.
-
They love their freedom, they don't love my freedom.
This isn't paranoia here, this is what I've come to understand from working around these politicians.
You can love your nation, but you can be extremely distrustful of the government at the same time... you don't have to be the latter, but if you aren't- you are certainly inviting some bad things to happen to you. History has proven I'm right about that much.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Haven't studied the sections you mentioned yet. Everyone knows how voice mail works, however, are you aware that voice mail is in fact stored data?
I'm not suggesting that they should be treated differently than private voice communications. Both a wire tap and seizure of the voice mail require a court order so what's the big deal? The same judge can issue either, right?
IANAL, but I believe a search warrant is much simpler to get than a wiretap order.
-
"Dolfy, I think you and Froggy are beginning to embarrass your fellow libs. Ya might wanna try a bit of rational thinking, just a suggestion."
some ak or another
there is nothing irrational about my thinking. how many times do i have to repeat. i dont want your party changing the system of law to their own selfish ends. they have mucked up enough.
-
A quote to consider:
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I find these (and more) offensive:
Section 206 which covers "roving surveillance."
Section 209 treats voice mail as stored data rather than intercepted communication. Prior to the Patriot Act, the seizure of voice mail required a Title III wiretap order. Now, all that is required is a search warrant.
Section 216 has determined that pen register/trap and trace surveillance applies to internet traffic. Permits the use of technologies such as "Carnivore" and "Eschelon."
Here's the "Reader's Digest Abridged version": http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf
I agree that voice mail is stored data, how could one argue otherwise?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
A quote to consider:
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." - James Madison
Another appropriate quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
-
Originally posted by Rude
ACLU????
Don't even go there....they're a joke.
Nearly all of the ACLU's suits are against the government. Are you one of those wierd conservatives that loves and trusts the government?
Fully understanding this bill would require knowledge of all the relevant statutes and jurisprudence. That is why there are legislative analysts, and the ACLU has some pretty good ones. There has been nothing posted here that contradicts the ACLU's claims.
Show us a different summary of the bill. Let's see if anyone can explain how these new government powers could have prevented the intelligence community failure of 9/11.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I retract my statement about punting this thread 'till someone posts an objectionable line or two from the Patriot Act itself instead of some liberals rantings. It's a hopeless cause and just not worth the effort.
Don't give up yet!!
Lets start with sec 215 (we can hit a few others that have more convoluted references that reduce the right to Due Process later if this analysis is not enough):
SEC. 215. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND OTHER ITEMS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT.
Title V of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended by striking sections 501 through 503 and inserting the following:
SEC. 501. ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS.
(a)(1) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a designee of the Director (whose rank shall be no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.
(2) An investigation conducted under this section shall--
(A) be conducted under guidelines approved by the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333 (or a successor order); and
(B) not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(b) Each application under this section--
(1) shall be made to--
(A) a judge of the court established by section 103(a); or
(B) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title 28, United States Code, who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United States to have the power to hear applications and grant orders for the production of tangible things under this section on behalf of a judge of that court; and
(2) shall specify that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation conducted in accordance with subsection
(a)(2) to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
(c)(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified, approving the release of records if the judge finds that the application meets the requirements of this section.
(2) An order under this subsection shall not disclose that it is issued for purposes of an investigation described in subsection (a).
(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section.
(e) A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for such production. Such production shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any privilege in any other proceeding or context.
SEC. 502. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.
(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--
(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and
(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.
Now what does all this legalese mean. Well, it expands the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and its power to some extent. Who is on this court? We don't know...it is a secret. They are designated by the Cheif Justice however.
This section expands the type of records that can be subpoenaed. Do you value the patient-doctor confidentiality privalige? Well, it is gone for the Feds. They can get any record, including those from your doctor. It used to be that a motion would be offered, which required notification of opposing counsel so that a hearing to open the med records could be held. But no more.
The Feds don't even have to show probable cause according to this section. They merely need to suspect that they might find something.
Formerly, to get an order, the Feds had to show that forieign intelligence had to be the "primary purpose" for the investigation...now they just need to show that it is a "significant purpose". This leaves open other criminal activities.
Moreover, this section forbids anyone to tell the suspect, or anyone else, that the records have been ordered to be given to the Feds.
So does it bother you that we have a secret court holding secret hearings issuing secret orders to collect intelligence on our citizens? This sure seems to violate the Fourth Amendment to me, but then perhaps the US Consitution is not as important to some un-American conservatives as it is to the rest of us.
So here is the "nightmare" senario: A police detective is having difficulty getting a judge to sign an order to open records that may provide some evidence. The detective does not have sufficent probable cause to substantiate the order. But the records are about Mohammad, who is a naturalized citizen from Iran. The dectective calls up his college roommate who is a Special Agent for the FBI and says, "hey, I was in this guy's apartment and saw a magazine with the word terrorism on the cover and a picture of the Ayatollah on the wall. (of course he neglects to say that the magazine is Time and the picture has a bulls-eye and darts in it) I bet these records might show you something. And, oh, by the way since we are supposed to be sharing info according the Patriot Act, how about sharing that info with me for my investigation." The Special Agent gets a FISC order and in doing so has just violated Mohammad's Constitutional rights. But there is no appeal, because Mohammad was never given the opportunity to object since he did not know the search was conducted. The evidence collected is circumstantial but damning, and with other circumstantial evidence, Mohammad is convicted. Years later new evidence surfaces that shows that Mohammad could not have commited the crime...oh, well.
-
ohhhh nooo - Big Brothers watching!!
I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonite!!! LOL
or are the losers watching Big Brother 4
those lefties are making you guys more paraniod than normal .....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
ohhhh nooo - Big Brothers watching!!
I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonite!!! LOL
Hey piss on the US Constitution that our Founding Father's wisely crafted as you please...it is your right under the Constitution. But don't expect me to think you are a supporter of America for doing so. Disparaging the Constitution is about as American as burning the US flag, IMO...maybe even worse than flag burning since the freedoms guarantied by the Constitution is only thing that differentiates the USA from dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Hey piss on the US Constitution that our Founding Father's wisely crafted as you please...it is your right under the Constitution. But don't expect me to think you are a supporter of America for doing so. Disparaging the Constitution is about as American as burning the US flag, IMO...maybe even worse than flag burning since the freedoms guarantied by the Constitution is only thing that differentiates the USA from dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
I ain't pissin on anything
I pick my battles and this ain't one of them...
times change ... change with them or die
-
CrowMAW, I appreciate the dialog. Let me address a couple of your stated concerns. I may address more later when I have time.
First, the secret court order is no big deal. I kinda doubt that any previous request for a court order was public anyhow. Most criminal investigations have always been conducted secretly or at least semi-secretly. The investigators are not obligated to reveal any evidence to the public until the case goes to trial.
Second, you should realize that any evidence obtained not in accordance with the law, and the sections you've quoted seem to be pretty protective of constituional rights, will be inadmissable in court.
The only right that I see being impinged upon here is the right to commit terrorism. And that's a right I'll gladly see trampled.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
CrowMAW, I appreciate the dialog. Let me address a couple of your stated concerns. I may address more later when I have time.
[/b]
Great...I always appreciate courteous dialog.
First, the secret court order is no big deal. I kinda doubt that any previous request for a court order was public anyhow. Most criminal investigations have always been conducted secretly or at least semi-secretly. The investigators are not obligated to reveal any evidence to the public until the case goes to trial.
You are correct, they are not required to reveal evidence to the public prior to trial. However, search warrants are open to the public unless sealed by the court (usually to protect the accused's right to a fair trial). The most recent opinion on this is from In the Matter of the Search of L.S. Starrett Co. ruled on by US District Court Judge Eliason, who agreed that the public has a presumptive right of access to search warrants, even at the pre-indictment stage.
As a general rule, covert searches for physical evidence are illegal. Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure specifically requires that the officer conducting the search "shall leave a copy and receipt at the place from which the property was taken." Title 18 of the United States Code only authorizes delayed notice for searches of oral and wire communications (18 U.S.C. 2510). Nothing in the criminal code permits secret searches for physical evidence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has traditionally held that an officer must knock and announce his presence before serving a search warrant, absent exigent circumstances. (Richardson v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385)
Now the problem with the Patriot Act is that the accused is not given the opportunity to dispute the validity of the warrant. Normally, if the suspect wishes to file an injunctive motion to show cause they may do so. If this is done prior to the warrant's perfection then the warrant could be quashed, or if the search is in progress then it could be stopped. If the search has been completed it is still possible that the search could be declared illegal and all evidence made inadmissible prior to indictment. This Act prohibits that little bit of Due Process as the suspect, by law, must not be told of the search.
Worse, the burden of obtaining a FISC warrant is much more lenient than a normal warrant.
Second, you should realize that any evidence obtained not in accordance with the law, and the sections you've quoted seem to be pretty protective of constituional rights, will be inadmissable in court.
[/b]
Fortunately, that has not yet been tested. However, a smart prosecutor could argue that since the "significant purpose" of the search order was satisfied in order to obtain the FISC search, any other evidence uncovered that may indicate commission of an unrelated crime would be admissible since the search warrant was validly issued by a judge. That means it could be used as a means to circumvent the normally more stringent requirements of probable cause needed to obtain a regular warrant.
Now, would a criminal judge buy that argument? I think it would depend on the judge quite honestly. We've got one here that I'm sure would agree with that argument.
The only right that I see being impinged upon here is the right to commit terrorism.
[/b]
That is a laudable goal. However, there is the real likelihood that the law could be perverted and used beyond that intent. I think that is what many are scared of.
-
Okay, I can see your concern regarding the required nondisclosure of the search warrant. However, this warrant may only be issued "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" and is clearly stated. I hope you can understand the need for some secrecy when dealing with ruthless and covert terrorist organizations whose sole intent is the destruction of our nation.
I think that your fear, and that of many others, that this could be abused resulting in charges unrelated to terrorism is unfounded. How much national attention would such a case receive? Enough to quickly put an end to the Act I think.
Regarding information revealing an extraneous crime that might be discovered during the execution of a secret court order. Isn't that a possibility with any court ordered search? While a citizen does have a constitutional right to privacy they don't have a constitutional right to commit a crime privately. Do they?
-
"Constitutions are chains with which men bind themselves in their sane moments that they may not die by a suicidal hand in the day of frenzy." - Senator John Stockton, 1871
-
Originally posted by AKIron
... While a citizen does have a constitutional right to privacy they don't have a constitutional right to commit a crime privately. Do they?
<CAUTION!! The following is an extreme example for discussion purposes only.>
What if we each had a miniature floating camera that went everywhere with us and continuously filmed our lives.
Would that be ok?
It should be, right, because we are all law abiding citizens. And if we aren't then our crimes should be recorded and justice served.
Dang, but all those things we do or say that are not against any laws, but are deeply private get recorded and monitored to.
Not to worry, all the nice folks that watch those tapes would have our best interests at heart. You could trust them to keep your private life private.
Just look up and smile every once in a while.
Not being a criminal doesn't mean I don't have things to hide from my government.
F.
-
What you suggest is an invasion of privacy. That is if the recordings of those cameras were viewable at anytime and without a court order. Now what if the content of those cameras could only be viewed by court order? And then, only the specific time period in which you were suspected of having committed a crime. I sure as hell wouldn't want one with me when I'm behind the wheel. But if I were accused of a crime I didn't commit I'd be glad to have it.
Anyhow, as you stated, that is extreme and will never fly in my lifetime. I'd certainly resist it anyhow.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Okay, I can see your concern regarding the required nondisclosure of the search warrant. However, this warrant may only be issued "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities" and is clearly stated.
Unfortunately, the word "only" does not appear in sec 215 which amends 50 U.S.C. 18619.501(a)(2). As written and given the FIS Court's opinion (which is the only opinion ever published from this secret court) it is no longer the case that the warrant must "solely" be "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities", but rather just "substantially" for that purpose.
I hope you can understand the need for some secrecy when dealing with ruthless and covert terrorist organizations whose sole intent is the destruction of our nation.[/b]
Absolutely! I just don't think I understand why the criteria for sustaining a search were weakened.
Secrecy could still be maintained while keeping the more stringent probable cause requirement. And secrecy would not have been jeopardized by maintaining that the sole purpose of the warrant would deal with terrorism related acts.
I also think that it would have even been possible to reduce the lack of Due Process and lack of adversarial counsel if the Act had been better written. I think that it would be possible to create a "special public defender" who would represent the accused in a show cause hearing. This special public defender would be required to maintain secrecy regarding the material aspects of the warrant. The accused's rights could still be protected by his special public defender even if the accused is not permitted to see the warrant.
I don't think there would be a conflict in implementing this. Our system currently uses state paid public defenders who take adversarial positions against state paid prosecutors. The Constitution guaranties the right to legal counsel, but it does not guaranty choice of counsel. So long as the special public defender is competent and can ably protect the accused's rights then the Constitution is satisfied.
Unfortunately, a special public defender would only be useful at the trial phase. But it is better than nothing, which is what the accused gets now. Defense attorneys are told that the warrant is secret...end of story...Due Process denied.
I think that your fear, and that of many others, that this could be abused resulting in charges unrelated to terrorism is unfounded.[/b]
Thankfully, you are right. There has not been a case, that we know of, where the Act has been abused...YET.
I have heard similar "unfounded" arguments from many proponents of legislation that would endanger our rights...everything from the right to bear arms to free speech. The problem is that I don't think we can trust politicians and bureaucrats to not abuse powers granted to them that have the potential to trample our rights. Trust me...I work for 'em and far too frequently have I seen them abuse power when it suited their needs.
Regarding information revealing an extraneous crime that might be discovered during the execution of a secret court order. Isn't that a possibility with any court ordered search? While a citizen does have a constitutional right to privacy they don't have a constitutional right to commit a crime privately. Do they? [/B]
You are correct, you do not have a right to commit a crime. However, remember that a search can only uncover evidence of a crime...the court then determines if the evidence shows that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We have rules about how evidence can be collected and how it must be disclosed to defense counsel so that they can provide an adequate defense and attempt to show how the evidence does not eliminate reasonable doubt. If counsel can show that the evidence was improperly obtained then it must be excluded. If counsel can show that the warrant was not sustained by probable cause then any evidence obtained by the warrant must be excluded (fruit of the poison tree).
The issue that the Patriot Act brings up (aside from the fact that it doesn't require the same level of probable cause that other criminal search warrants require in order to be valid) is that there is no way defense counsel can show the warrant was not sustained if they can't review its contents.
-
CrowMAW, the "special public defender" as you put it, privy to all information as I would expect, sounds like a very necessary element to ensure justice. I can see that the secrecy part may create the potential for a cloud of doubt as to whose side the defender is actually on.
Unfortunately, the terrorist threat has proven to be very real. Those intent on our destruction have freely available for their abuse a complete schematic of the structure of our free and democratic society. I'm afraid we're fooling ourselves if we think our structure to be impervious to subterfuge. That we must act to prevent the destruction of our society is not only prudent but essential. I'm no lawer, (sounds like you may be) so I must trust, to a great degree, those elected to serve my best interest. I only hope they are trustworthy.
-
i on the other hand belive they are not.
my reluctance to have bush "correct" jefferson is absolute. what ever it takes all bets are off.