the perpetual excuse

[Bryan]

The problem with your assertion is that we all know it isn't true.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc...05----000-.html

79355[/snapback]

What part of what I wrote do you think is contradicted by the information you linked?

Feel free to abbreviate your answer by using the subsection letters and numbers.

Lacking the specifics, of course, it looks like you're beyessing.

[Guest Guest]

Exactly which civil liberties have you people lost?  Since the inception of the Patriot Act, I have lost none.  Law enforcement since that day has not changed MY life one iota.

79470[/snapback]

That's the classic response of people who don't get it. The German people said exactly the same thing when Hitler was consolidating his power. By the time it affected them directly, they had no power to stop him.

Don't people ever learn anything from history?

[Guest Guest]

Exactly which civil liberties have you people lost?  Since the inception of the Patriot Act, I have lost none.  Law enforcement since that day has not changed MY life one iota.

79470[/snapback]

What about the nitwit in Parsippany who was shining a laser at airplanes? He was charged under the Patriot Act because the prosecutors couldn't find anything else to charge hom with. Surely he was an idiot diung what he did but his act had nothing to do with terrorism yet he was charged as such.

[Autonomous]

What part of what I wrote do you think is contradicted by the information you linked?

Feel free to abbreviate your answer by using the subsection letters and numbers.

Lacking the specifics, of course, it looks like you're beyessing.

79492[/snapback]

Blah, blah, blah.

That probably is what Strife is saying, in effect.

Obtaining a warrant to listen in on a given communication is probably impossible if terrorists do so simple a thing as change phones every two days (you'd get your warrant, perhaps, but too late for it to do any good).

79230[/snapback]

Please note the italicized part.

(f) Emergency orders

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.

The attorney general can go ahead with the surveillance and apply later. The neocons want people to think that the debate is the Democrats not wanting to give the administration the power to perform immediate surveillance. But they already have this power. What they want is to be able to wiretap without any oversight even from an ex parte judgement.

[Guest Rex]

Exactly which civil liberties have you people lost?  Since the inception of the Patriot Act, I have lost none.  Law enforcement since that day has not changed MY life one iota.

79470[/snapback]

Firstly, the government could have easily used the Act to violate your liberties without you even knowing--that's part of what's wrong with it. Secondly, try looking outside yourself:

"On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act_controversy#2007_US_Justice_Department_audit_finds_FBI_abuse_of_PATRIOT_act_powers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2030542,00.html)

And from the same wiki (you can handle reading the citations yourself on the actual page, can't you?):

"In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts."

"FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional."

[Guest Rex]

Great post.  You are a true Patriot.

79468[/snapback]

I see you have to pat yourself on the back because no one else will. How sad.

[Guest 2smart4u]

I think you have it backwards. He would rather have people like you, the ones who either don't know what he's doing or don't care to support his illegal surveillence programs.

The loony left as you refer to us are the ones who do care and we are the majority.

Fortunately, this great national nightmare will play itself out on 1/20/09 when this fool and his mery bunch of neo-cons are shown the door. So dream on if you think he's done such a wonderful job.

79481[/snapback]

The Loony Left is the majority ?? Does Gore and Kerry know this ??

[Guest 2smart4u]

Exactly which civil liberties have you people lost?  Since the inception of the Patriot Act, I have lost none.  Law enforcement since that day has not changed MY life one iota.

79470[/snapback]

You're only saying that because you're lucid and clear thinking. If you were a

Kool-aid drinking, paranoid Loony Lefty, you'd think differently.

[Guest Guest_Anonymous_*]

That probably is what Strife is saying, in effect.

Obtaining a warrant to listen in on a given communication is probably impossible if terrorists do so simple a thing as change phones every two days (you'd get your warrant, perhaps, but too late for it to do any good).

Strife either gives up his "essential liberty" to guarantee that his conversations won't be overheard even if he says things like "explosives" "washington monument" "allah akbar" or terrorists have effective leave to have secret communications with their operatives in the United States.

79230[/snapback]

Hillary will love listening in on those Halliburton calls from Dubai.

Oil and National security, you know...

Were I an advisor, those calls would go straight to 60 Minutes to let people know exactly what they voted for for the past 8 years.

If the Dems had half a brain, they could use their Cheney-given powers to relegate the current GOP to the party-that-shall-not-be-named for the next hundred years.

[Bryan]

Blah, blah, blah.

You could have stopped there and it would have summarized your post.

(f) Emergency orders

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.

The attorney general can go ahead with the surveillance and apply later.

That's doing surveillance without a warrant, the very thing that was complained about.

The neocons want people to think that the debate is the Democrats not wanting to give the administration the power to perform immediate surveillance. But they already have this power. What they want is to be able to wiretap without any oversight even from an ex parte judgement.

79559[/snapback]

That's funny, since until you introduced the notion that neocons want people to think that the Democrats don't want to give the administration power to perform immediate surveillance, I was having a conversation with a poster who objected to permitting surveillance without a warrant.

And you come to his aid by pointing out that doing surveillance without a warrant is already legal (at least in some cases).

I wonder if the other guy will be satisfied with that?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Hillary will love listening in on those Halliburton calls from Dubai.

Oil and National security, you know... 

Were I an advisor, those calls would go straight to 60 Minutes to let people know exactly what they voted for for the past 8 years.

If the Dems had half a brain, they could use their Cheney-given powers to relegate the current GOP to the party-that-shall-not-be-named for the next hundred years.

79659[/snapback]

"If the Dems had half a brain". That's hitting the nail on the head !!

[Guest Patriot]

Firstly, the government could have easily used the Act to violate your liberties without you even knowing--that's part of what's wrong with it. Secondly, try looking outside yourself:

"On March 9, 2007, a Justice Department audit found that the FBI had "improperly and, in some cases, illegally used the USA Patriot Act to secretly obtain personal information" about United States citizens." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act_controversy#2007_US_Justice_Department_audit_finds_FBI_abuse_of_PATRIOT_act_powers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2030542,00.html)

And from the same wiki (you can handle reading the citations yourself on the actual page, can't you?):

"In September 2003, the New York Times reported on a case of the USA PATRIOT Act being used to investigate alleged potential drug traffickers without probable cause. The article also mentions a study by Congress that referenced hundreds of cases where the USA PATRIOT Act was used to investigate non-terrorist alleged future crimes. The New York Times reports that these non-terrorist investigations are relevant because President Bush and several members of Congress stated that the purpose the USA PATRIOT Act was that of investigating and preempting potential terrorist acts."

"FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional."

79565[/snapback]

I think it's GREAT that the FBI is being pro-active with the Patriot Act. The U.S.

shouldn't wait for an attack to occur before it's investigated. Preventing an

attack and saving lives is far more important than listening to a phone call of

Frik talking to Frak.

[Guest 2smart4u]

QUOTE(Guest @ Dec 30 2007, 11:44 PM)

You trust him. We don't.

Amazing how we manage to keep our freedom and our security when presidents who don't do those things are in charge.

Right-wing Chicken Littles are always telling us the sky will fall if we don't do things their way, and if we don't give them absolute power to do whatever they want to do. Yet somehow we manage just fine when they're not in charge.

Righties can second-guess Clinton all they want. The fact remains that we did very well while he was president. We kept our freedom, we remained secure, and we weren't constantly being told to be afraid - very, very afraid.

Responsible government isn't about scaring the people into irrationality. It's about keeping us safe and free at the same time - you know, walk and chew gum at the same time. Gerry Ford did it, and he was a Republican.

79461[/snapback]

"We remained secure" ?? Clear case of selective memory. I guess you

forgot about; 1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 2 U.S. Embassies

in East Africa. All of these attacks on U.S. citizens and property, where many

U.S. citizens were killed and injured. I suppose "we did very well" unless you

were one of the Americans killed or injured in one of these attacks, which by

the way, Clinton did nothing about.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

"We remained secure" ??  Clear case of selective memory.  I guess you

  forgot about;  1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 2 U.S. Embassies

  in East Africa.  All of these attacks on U.S. citizens and property, where many

  U.S. citizens were killed and injured.  I suppose "we did very well" unless you

  were one of the Americans killed or injured in one of these attacks, which by

  the way, Clinton did nothing about.

79842[/snapback]

Maybe you should define what you feel is doing something about and incident. Should it be done with prudence and justification or should we just react and flail wildly at anyone within arms reach?

[Guest Guest]

You could have stopped there and it would have summarized your post.

The attorney general can go ahead with the surveillance and apply later.

That's doing surveillance without a warrant, the very thing that was complained about.

That's funny, since until you introduced the notion that neocons want people to think that the Democrats don't want to give the administration power to perform immediate surveillance, I was having a conversation with a poster who objected to permitting surveillance without a warrant.

And you come to his aid by pointing out that doing surveillance without a warrant is already legal (at least in some cases).

I wonder if the other guy will be satisfied with that?

79839[/snapback]

I'm not coming to his aid. I'm saying exactly what I said in my summary. You had made the point that by the time a warrant is issued it is too late-which is wrong. Like I said.

[Guest Guest]

"We remained secure" ??  Clear case of selective memory.  I guess you

  forgot about;  1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 2 U.S. Embassies

  in East Africa.  All of these attacks on U.S. citizens and property, where many

  U.S. citizens were killed and injured.  I suppose "we did very well" unless you

  were one of the Americans killed or injured in one of these attacks, which by

  the way, Clinton did nothing about.

79842[/snapback]

However, the vast majority of Americans did just fine all those years. As a nation, we remained secure. But why should the facts matter to someone who has his mind made up in advance?

[Guest Guest]

You could have stopped there and it would have summarized your post.

The attorney general can go ahead with the surveillance and apply later.

That's doing surveillance without a warrant, the very thing that was complained about.

That's funny, since until you introduced the notion that neocons want people to think that the Democrats don't want to give the administration power to perform immediate surveillance, I was having a conversation with a poster who objected to permitting surveillance without a warrant.

And you come to his aid by pointing out that doing surveillance without a warrant is already legal (at least in some cases).

I wonder if the other guy will be satisfied with that?

79839[/snapback]

One more thing-starting surveillance without a warrant is legal. A warrant must still be requested within 72 hours. That is where the administration has gotten in trouble-they seem to be avoiding that obligation. They have pushed to have the oversight removed-but why? There really isn't a very good reason for it.

[Guest Guest]

"We remained secure" ??  Clear case of selective memory.  I guess you

  forgot about;  1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 2 U.S. Embassies

  in East Africa.  All of these attacks on U.S. citizens and property, where many

  U.S. citizens were killed and injured.  I suppose "we did very well" unless you

  were one of the Americans killed or injured in one of these attacks, which by

  the way, Clinton did nothing about.

79842[/snapback]

An August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" certainly caused Bush to do something... Like clear more brush during his month-long vacation.

Apparently, it was the best move of his career given how he's used it to attract minions like yourself.

[Bern]

That's the classic response of people who don't get it. The German people said exactly the same thing when Hitler was consolidating his power. By the time it affected them directly, they had no power to stop him.

Don't people ever learn anything from history?

79554[/snapback]

They don't. One reason why history repeats.

[Bryan]

That's doing surveillance without a warrant, the very thing that was complained about.

That's funny, since until you introduced the notion that neocons want people to think that the Democrats don't want to give the administration power to perform immediate surveillance, I was having a conversation with a poster who objected to permitting surveillance without a warrant.

And you come to his aid by pointing out that doing surveillance without a warrant is already legal (at least in some cases). 

I wonder if the other guy will be satisfied with that?

79839[/snapback]

I'm not coming to his aid. I'm saying exactly what I said in my summary. You had made the point that by the time a warrant is issued it is too late-which is wrong. Like I said.

79848[/snapback]

That's doing surveillance without a warrant, like I said.

If the suspect changes cell phones every 48 hours then you tell me how having the warrant after 72 hours does any good. Then you can try claiming that I was wrong. 'Til then, it looks like you have no relevant point.

[Autonomous]

I'm not coming to his aid. I'm saying exactly what I said in my summary. You had made the point that by the time a warrant is issued it is too late-which is wrong. Like I said.

79848[/snapback]

One more thing-starting surveillance without a warrant is legal. A warrant must still be requested within 72 hours. That is where the administration has gotten in trouble-they seem to be avoiding that obligation. They have pushed to have the oversight removed-but why? There really isn't a very good reason for it.

Oops-wife cleared the cookies. These were me.

[Autonomous]

Maybe you should define what you feel is doing something about and incident. Should it be done with prudence and justification or should we just react and flail wildly at anyone within arms reach?

79847[/snapback]

Considering 2Dim's entire posting history could be summarized as "react and flail wildly at anyone within arms reach," what do you think?

[Guest Guest]

"We remained secure" ??  Clear case of selective memory.  I guess you

  forgot about;  1st WTC bombing, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, 2 U.S. Embassies

  in East Africa.  All of these attacks on U.S. citizens and property, where many

  U.S. citizens were killed and injured.  I suppose "we did very well" unless you

  were one of the Americans killed or injured in one of these attacks, which by

  the way, Clinton did nothing about.

79842[/snapback]

He was too busy chasing interns to retaliate against the terrorists. Because

of that, Bin Laden is quoted as saying the U.S. was a paper tiger, which led

directly to 9/11. Clinton also gave missle technology to the Chinese and gave

nuclear generation technology to the N. Koreans. Putting Clinton back in the

White House may just kill us all.

[Guest a proud american]

The Loony Left is the majority ?? Does Gore and Kerry know this ??

79587[/snapback]

They may not know it, but you're going to find out in November.

[Guest Guest]

What about the nitwit in Parsippany who was shining a laser at airplanes?  He was charged under the Patriot Act because the prosecutors couldn't find anything else to charge hom with.  Surely he was an idiot diung what he did but his act had nothing to do with terrorism yet he was charged as such.

79555[/snapback]

So, being an idiot, shining lasers at an airplane should be allowed as a right??? Interesting!!! If you choose to defend this individual, so be it; to use him as the basis for an argument against the Patriot Act is moronic.