DudeMan

agreed you seem to just envelop the story told, this guys website has lots of conspiracies on it, embeleshments of the truth benefit him, i therefore cant trust him as a reliable source and you should not either, if a major coroporation like kodac said yes 100 % these are the cameras ofcourse then there is credit... but you cant just play witch hunt and go swinging for peoples heads on hearsay.

CingularDuality

Where'd you hear that a federal judge can't refuse to approve an application for a warrant?
The judge still decides whether the application meets the legal requirements for this "search".

Look, the only thing that this really does is force people to remain silent about the fact that they're participating in a national security investigation. Without this statute, federal agents could get the same information, but there was nothing to keep people from tipping off the subject of the investigation. Keeping things "ex parte" is vital when investigating people that are connected to deeply undercover terrorist cells/networks.

Does it have more potential for abuse? Yes. Does it violate our Constitution? No. There's absolutely nothing unreasonable about this statute.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Zebra

It's right in the section you quoted.

Right, and the legal requirements are basically that the application is filled out correctly. Read what it actually says. As long as the DOJ specifies that the records concerned are sought for an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism, the judge shall authorize it.

This isn't just my uninformed legal opinion. Every lawyer who's looked at this says no application will ever be turned down. The FISA court had the same legal standards, and in 20 years they approved over 10,000 applications and rejected none. I really doubt the federal government gets it right that often.

No, that's not the only thing this really does. But that's great that when the government pulls this on you for no reason, you can't even complain about it. Nice way to run a free country.

I think you need to re-read the 4th amendment. This application that judges are rubber stamping doesn't require the government to show probable cause or name specific persons and places to be searched. If that's not a plain violation of the constitution, then wtf is?

Fait_Maker

Freedom of Speech? You're telling me that I can be ORDERED not to say anything. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What part of "no" didn't they get?

__________________

CingularDuality

Reading it again, you're right. I know the way it's being used right now is the way I've described, but you're right, it's written in such a way that a judge could be forced (right, like that would ever happen... Maybe if the FBI Director called a junior Magistrate.) to approve an application despite having reservations about its necessity. Right now it's not a problem, because agents are unused to these new tools and so are being careful not to abuse them. But familiarity breeds contempt, right? Once everyone gets used to this, who's to say it won't be taken a step further?

Bud, it's been like this for quite a while... Certain things are simply not appropriate or legal to say publicly and you can be arrested and imprisoned for doing so... This isn't the part of the law that is problematic. It's the lack of a requirement of PC that is at issue.

The reasoning behind the Patriot Act is a good one, but the law was written a bit too loosely for my comfort. Thanks for showing me the light, Zebra. I simply wasn't looking at the worst case scenario. My optimism and <cough> good heart kept me from seeing it...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Zebra

How could anybody know that when the people it's used against aren't allowed to talk about it?

No offense, but that's horse****. The reasoning behind the Patriot Act is the same reasoning behind any proposed gun law to be piled onto the thousands of gun laws we already have. Just give us some more laws that take more of your freedoms and we'll protect you. I've heard it before.

The fact is, the government had all the authority it needed to prevent 9/11 before 9/11, and it failed. I see no reason to give it more authority until it starts enforcing the laws it has and taking advantage of the intelligence it receives. They don't even have enough people to check out a fraction of the communications that are being intercepted, and they want to do more snooping?

How about they just stop giving visas to Muslims with terrorist connections, stop the millions of people from flooding across our borders every year and check more than half a percent of the cargo coming into this country first? None of those things violate my rights, and all of them are basic functions of government.

Unfortunately, nothing more than a token effort has been made on any of them. So we have hundreds of thousands of troops deployed in hundreds of countries around the world at a cost of hundreds of a billions of dollars a year, while our borders are wide open, and our skies are apparently completely unprotected unless we're given a few hours notice to get our fighters in the air. The government needs some basic friggin common sense, not another law.

leejo

ONE senator voted against the Patriot Act, and I'm sure the 9th circuit is chomping at the bit to (try to) throw parts of it out. The Patriot Act had broad support in Congress and Congress cannot toss out judicial review.

jex

When was the patriot act introduced?

__________________
Jex

_Ender_

oct 24th, 2001


Thats the one thing that pisses me off about people in this country. They take their freedoms for granted.

jex

So recently after the attacks on the wtc's, this bill was put through - is it hardly surprising it went through with so little votes against? Considering its size as well, I wonder how many actually read it?

__________________
Jex

leejo

Waiting until things "cooled off" before taking these steps would have been foolish. Immediate action was, and remains, necessary.

Congress funds large personal staffs and these legislators are responsible for reading the laws they pass. Whether actually read it or not, I doubt that we'll see many claiming that excuse.

Lincoln, considered by most the greatest US President, imprisoned many reporters et al during the civil war and suspended habeas corpus in 1861 (http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/did_lincoln.htm). Lincoln and his military authorities ignored a Supreme Court order to bring John Merryman, an imprisoned Maryland seccessionist, before them, and ignored Chief Justice Tanney's ruling that suspension of habeas corpus required an act of Congress.

Habeas Corpus was restored in 1866. Lincoln IGNORED the Supreme Court and somehow our society survived and flourished!

I happen to believe that our society is strong enough to bend but not break in matters like this.

Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

Fait_Maker

It's draft date is Oct 1st and it passed on the 24th. 346 <?> pages written in less than 3 weeks.

__________________

jex

That was awfully quick.

__________________
Jex

Fait_Maker

Just because it's been that way since the beginning of time and happens all the time, does not mean it's right or legal.

Most civil rights abuses are that way.

__________________

leejo

We have people trying to murder us by the millions with the capability to do so. Let's keep our eye on the ball. If we don't take care of terrorism, all these other issues won't matter.