House votes to repeal part of USA Patriot Act

You are so right… dangerous if you are a terrorist!


Last I checked our plan in Iraq and Afghanistan is to empower the citizens and turn the country back over to them as free people. Not exactly the plan of the conqueror that you portray.

Your words, not mine. Stick to the facts.

Might as well say the same thing in response so here goes – “Last I checked our plan in Iraq and Afghanistan is to empower the citizens and turn the country back over to them as free people. Not exactly the plan of the conqueror that you portray.”


Please be a lil more vague next time when drawing conclusions.


Whoever said that you aren’t free to do that? Wasn’t me.


You can’t seriously be sitting there saying to yourself that the WWI and WWII generations were not more willing to make sacrifices than most of our citizens today can you? Still waiting on your list of sacrifices too.


I am sure the terrorists absolutely agree with you. Besides that, I never said to give President Bush “absolute power”, just some support for goodness sake.

Please define "the terrorists" Billy. Would that be just militant Islam? Perhaps all Muslims? Maybe any non-Christians? Liberals? People who don't like Bush? Anyone against the Patriot Act?

I may have mistinterpreted your use of the term "FULLY BEHIND OUR PRESIDENT"

please clarify that - my understanding of FULLY means we no longer question him.

you are wrong if you say that an unquestioning populance is only dangerous to terrorists.

Edit - and the rest of my post was speculation of what COULD happen with an unquestioning populance - just becuase i quoted you post before making mine DOES NOT mean i think you were saying those things

would like to point out also - Just becuase you quote someone does not mean that everything you say following is condemining the quoted for having said.

It is not putting words in someone's mouth if you bring up different points in a post where someone is quoted above it.

In any post

on any forum

thank you.

Since it seems important:

I'm not willing to give up anything to support the illegal occupation of Iraq, an action with no plausible connection to terrorism.

Al-Queida I regard as a matter for international law enforcement, not a war. If international law enforcement can't handle it, maybe we need to be supporting and cooperating with the international community instead of ignoring them and trying to solve everything with high explosives. I'm willing to pay higher taxes for better enforcement of existing laws. Military action should be a last resort, undertaken only with the full support and cooperation of the United Nations (which should be the governing authority in any international dispute).

I will not surrender or compromise any of my rights under the Constitution for either cause. I will actively and forcefully resist any attempt to take those rights from me. I would rather die free than live in subjugation to any man.

Billy, if you really believe what you're writing here, and if you are not simply playing Devil's Advocate, then I'm pretty much fearful for our country's future. Sounds like Karl has done a great job of rounding up the drones...

Why do you think the founders allowed for the right to bear arms, and the right to form militias? It was because they knew, from experience, that government cannot and should not be unequivocally trusted.

*shudders*

Has our surveillance society made our lives more convenient? Has it succeeded in deterring crime and terrorism? Are the watchers just a bunch of incompetents as prone to distraction as the two bit rent-a-cop security guards at your neighborhood mall? Have the freedoms guaranteed us by the Constitution become just another load of Bullshit? More proof that Big Government is Bad! The Patriot Act should really be called the Unpatriot Act.

The references i didnt feel as Vauge -

The <sun never sets> is in refernce to the saying "The Sun never Sets on the Brittish Empire."

Never ending occupation with a puppet government is a possible outcome to an unquestioned free hand in the Middle East - its the same thing as Empire.

Chip was comparing a totalitarian leaning America with Nazi germany and Stalinist Soviets .. naturally add war and occupation to this mix and it would be exactly what wed have - Police State and Empire.

None of us has said were a police state now - however by not fighting the patriot act many feel were allowing America slip down that road.

By FULL support I took it to mean Unquestioning and Undesenting. Since Questioning and Disagreeing isnt supporting.

you did say FULL support and not some in your earlier post.

I really didnt mean for so much misunderstanding I will be more careful how I word things in the future.

Even Republican Bob Barr who voted for it the first time wants it to be changed. Bush better get with the program!

Barr Hails Passage of Bill Limiting Patriot Act
Urges President to Work with Congress to Reform Law

Friday, June 17, 2005 at 9:00 AM

Washington, D.C., (June 17, 2005) – [F]ormer Congressman Bob Barr commended the House of Representatives for its bipartisan support of an amendment that would reform the controversial “library records provision” of the USA Patriot Act. Barr also urged President Bush to work with Congress to fix provisions of the Act that violate Americans’ constitutional rights.

“I am disappointed that President Bush is threatening to veto the FY 2006 Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill simply because it contains an amendment that would limit the FBI’s powers under Section 215 of the Patriot Act to obtain library and bookstore records,” said Bob Barr, former congressman and chairman of Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act, set to expire at the end of 2005, allows government agents to collect personal data on ordinary Americans – such as the books they buy or borrow, their personal medical history, financial records or even records of goods they purchase, such as firearms – without any evidence connecting the person or their records to terrorism.

The “Freedom to Read” proposal, offered by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), denies funding for FBI access to library and bookstore records under section 215 of the Patriot Act. A bipartisan majority approved the amendment, 238-187.

“The vote was an important first step in restoring Americans’ Fourth Amendment right to privacy,” stated Barr. “In order to bring the Patriot Act in line with the Constitution by providing checks and balances on government power, I urge President Bush to work with Congress. The FBI would still be able to secure any and all evidence it might need for investigations of criminal law violations, including suspected terrorist activity; it would simply have to do so based on at least some suspicion that the person(s) on who it was seeking library records had violated US laws.”

For further information contact Taryn Jones at 770.836.1776.

The fact that you even said that with a presumably straight face chills me to the bone.

Spying on people? Turning in your family members? If you can honestly, truly believe that actions like that are somehow going to help save our way of life - instead of destroying what it is we're trying to save - then I truly feel frightened for this country.




OK, let's take WWII, since you brought it up. People sacrificed. They cut back spending. They donated goods and effort to the cause. Of course, we were involved in a war against a collection of nations and not an intangible idea like "terrorism" and "evil", and today we're being encouraged to spend spend spend instead of be thrifty, and we still haven't been given any idea of what, exactly, will happen once we've "won" this war, or how we'll know we've won it, and you somehow have the idea that taking away our freedom is the only way to preserve it....wait, can you point out the similarities to me again?



Hell, I'll bite on this one, too. What do we have to do to "win this war" Billy? Considering we're fighting a concept and not a nation, and no one has any inkling what "winning" this war actually entails, I'd love to hear exactly what we have to do. So far, all I've gotten from your posts is that we have to shut up, support our President (which means what, exactly - not criticize? Express our opinion? How is that going to help Billy?), and hand over our right to privacy.

The terrorists are doing "whatever it takes" to "win this war", Billy, and they're blowing themselves up and taking out innocent people at the same time. What moral or ethical grounds does the US have to stand on - to say "We are right and just while you are not" - if we, too, sink to the level of "whatever it takes"?



How, exactly, is Chip "enabling" the terrorists Billy? Is a terrorist going to sign onto the SL forums, read his post, tell his buddies "Hey, there's an American on here saying that they don't want their government knowing what they check out of the library!", thus breathing new and vigorous life into a nearly-dead terrorist cell? The more freedoms we take away in the name of the War On Terror, the closer we become to what we're fighting against.

Here's an idea for you to chew on, Billy. We will never, ever, ever extinguish every single person in the world that has a problem with the United States. It will never, ever happen. Especially when we insist on making up excuses to invade countries and get ourselves involved in wars we have no idea how we're going to win. Unless we take over the entire world and silence dissent from within, we will never ever win this "war". And I'm sorry, but abandoning every single democratic and freedom-loving principle that this country was based on to keep it "safe" is NOT worth it. Its just not.

ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.


Doesn't really matter what their religion or political status is Chip. I am surprised that you seem to think it should. Well... not "that" surprised.

You take away the freedom to express opposition to the government, to express ideas, to choose your religion, and you become EXACTLY what Bush and buddies are all so fired up to defeat.

Should we throw our friends, families and neighbors into prison camps to shut them up? Should we bow obideintly to all dictates, no matter how they might harm the innocent?

Should we INVADE countries that aren't invading others?

WWI and WWII both dealt with the enemy invading other countries and starting the conflict. They both dealt with countries on a war of conquest. Even so, in WWII we waited until we were attacked to declare war ourselves, though we did send some material support to allied countries before then. In Iraq's case, this time around, they weren't invading anyone. WE were the invaders. I bad habit to get into in our fragile world community.

We should ALWAYS be willing to question our government and our morality as a country. We should always look to the reasons why we act as we do, and the cause and effect of our policies.

To say otherwise makes you a militant, and when you start killing others because they don't believe as you do, it makes YOU a terrorist.

It means to give him support Colette, not do everything at all cost to bring him down... even losing this war. Never did or will I say that we shouldn't be allowed to question him or anyone else for that matter but all I see from you and many of those on the left are endless questions with NO support.


Ahem... that's not what I said. Please go back and read it again.


Maybe you should speculate on a separate post then Colette and remove the possibility that you were somehow drawing conclusions from what I said. Everything I said still stands and by quoting me then speaking I have the right to respond to your assertions.

I am certainly not in favor of that either and never said I was David.

If they are terrorists… hell yes.

Not sure why you think I am not with you here… no is my answer.


If they support terrorist activities then they ARE invading others.


As if the terrorists aren’t doing the same thing. Did you somehow miss 911?


How many fewer lives would have been lost had we not waited for so long?


Are you a Saddam supporter then? The world is better off with him in prison.


Oh, I agree but there is also a time to support your country and not simply be a descending voice. How about some support to even things out a little or is it just easier to bash President Bush all the time and sacrifice everything to bring him down?


We agree more than you seem to think. Killing us because we don’t believe as they do is exactly what the terrorists are doing and President Bush has the nads to stand up against them.

*Sighs* Billy I think you are just spoiling for a fight today.

I have not nor ever advocated bringing George Bush "down"

I happen to think im a bit more reasonble towards the President then many of the liberals on this forum.

I had hoped he lost the election. Both times. That is my right.

I will most likely not vote for whoever he endorses as a sucessor.

I will get to some of the others later but have to go now... more time to continue this fun later!

Finally -- Quick someone hide his red colored glasses.

trio
How would there be documented abuses? In many of the provisions of the Patriot Act, there are no 'checks and balances'. No judge needs to give permission and the person being 'investigated' will never know. Here's a few items that the act allows:

SEARCH YOUR HOME AND NOT EVEN TELL YOU (Sec. 213)

COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT YOU READ, WHAT YOU BUY, YOUR HOTEL VISITS AND YOUR MEDICAL HISTORY (Sec. 215)

SEIZE BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RECORDS (Sec. 505)

TRACK YOUR EMAIL ACTIVITY AND WEB USAGE (Sec. 216)

These are sold as necessary for compiling information on terror suspects, but the individual being watched does not need to be even directly involved. Some sections of the act are permanent and some have a 'sunset'. Here's what some of the 'sunset' sections allow and I've put in bold items that are particularly distressing:

Sec. 201 Expands wiretap-eligible federal criminal offenses.

Sec. 202 New wiretap authority relating to computer crime.

Sec. 203(b) Allows disclosure of information gathered in criminal investigation, including wiretaps, to intelligence, immigration and "national security" officials.

Sec. 203(d) Same as subsection 203(b) above.

Sec. 206 Creates roving wiretap authority (that is, the court order follows the target, not the phone) under FISA; did not include a requirement (which is included in other roving wiretap laws) that the eavesdropper make sure the target is actually using the device being monitored.

Sec. 207 Permits FISA wiretaps to continue for as long as a year; expands duration of physical search orders.

Sec. 212 Government can demand records and content from communications providers without consent, notice or judicial review in an emergency.

Sec. 214 Permits the government to get the telephone numbers dialed to and from a particular phone as well as Internet "routing" information that may contain some substantive content of the communications, with minimal judicial review under FISA.

Sec. 215 Allows the FBI to use FISA court orders to seize any "tangible thing," including highly sensitive medical, library, business and travel records, from a wide variety of institutions under an extremely weak standard of judicial review.

Sec. 217 Interception of "computer trespasser" communications without a judge's assent.

Sec. 218 Allows criminal investigators to use espionage powers, which require little evidence of criminal wrongdoing, even if gathering foreign intelligence is only a "significant purpose" of the investigation, instead of the more demanding "primary purpose" that was the law before this provision passed.

Sec. 220 Establishes nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence, opening the door to judge-shopping.

Here are some of the permanent sections:
Sec. 213 Authorizes and expands “sneak and peek” delayed-notice search warrants.

Sec. 216 Permits the seizure of Internet "routing" information (e.g., website links, addressing information) in criminal cases under a low standard of proof, without protections against the unwarranted seizure of possible content.

Sec. 219 Establishes nationwide service of search warrants for physical evidence.

Sec. 411 Expanded grounds for deportation and exclusion from the country for alleged support of terrorist groups or causes.

Sec. 412 Permits the attorney general to unilaterally detain non-citizen terrorist suspects for seven days without charges; requires judicial review at six month intervals for indefinite detention.

Sec. 505 Authorizes the government to seize financial, Internet, credit and telephone records without prior judicial review and without articulable suspicion that the target is a terrorist or spy.

Sec. 507 Expands access to student records without individual suspicion.

Sec. 508 Same as Sec. 507.

Sec. 802 Defines "domestic terrorism" to include any act that is "dangerous to human life," involves a violation of any state or federal law and is intended to influence government policy or coerce a civilian population.


Sec. 901 Permits the head of the the intelligence community to set "requirements and priorities" for domestic spying, which could put the CIA back in the business of monitoring Americans' lawful activities.

Yes, you got it right. DO NOT infringe upon my civil liberties so we can *possibly* protect us from another attack. Why are we not taking a look at WHY they dislike us? Where is that action?

Tell me again, Billy - how would the Patriot Act have stopped those 19 hijackers from getting on the planes, taking control using box cutters, and running them into the WTC?

Do you really think that if the Patriot Act - a name I personally find disgusting since it implies that you are UN-patriotic if you do not support the act - was around pre-9/11 things would have gone differently?

I think it eludes those that have bought into the hype line, hook, and sinker.

They want to destroy America, destroy our spirit, break us financially. That's why they chose the targets they did and the timing of the of the attacks. Watching it on TV had exactly the impact on us that they probably intended: sheer terror.

Then why is the Patriot Act, which is designed to combat terrorism, being used to prosecute things that have nothing at all to do with terrorism? That's my point Billy.

Whoa, one section at a time Juro!

Like I said before, some sections need alterations/clarification, and some should perhaps be taken away. I'm happy to discuss bits and pieces (just don't have time to look at all of those), but I think the act as a whole is needed.

Anyway, the one referred to in your post as "search your home and not even tell you" is:

SEC. 213. AUTHORITY FOR DELAYING NOTICE OF THE EXECUTION OF A WARRANT.

Like I said before, "technically", "not even tell you" could be correct, but only because there's no time limit on how long the delay can be. Add a reasonable time limit, and this valuable tool remains in place. I think that's a reasonable compromise.



Well, the Patriot Act mostly effects Federal agencies, if cops are using it to justify that kind of stuff I'm pretty certain they're screwing up. How many is a "growing number of cases"? Maybe such cases fall easily into the minority "bad cop" category-- i.e. if they aren't screwing with people for that reason maybe they'd be screwing with someone else for another. Or perhaps they're just being overly vigilant...in which case I'm not sure what to say about that. But I think it's hard to say for sure.



Butting in, but the Patriot Act makes an attempt to define domestic terrorism and the federal definition of terrorism. It's pretty long, but it's very specific too. For example, domestic terrorism does not apply to *peaceful* organizations whatsoever, there must be danger to human life, etc.

Since alot of people are talking about the name USA PATRIOT Act--here's the stupid fun fact of the day: (even though most people are gonna roll their eyes to it )

UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM ACT OF 2001

Note the first letters of the words--pretty cool eh? Ok, you may now proceed to critique it once again!

BTW, while I don't share Billy's enthusiasm for not questioning government actions at all, and such, I do feel many parts of the act are very important and thus it should not be struck down in entirety even if parts are taken away. Does everyone still feel that the ENTIRE thing should be eliminated? I really find it hard to believe that there's nothing that we can agree on that should be kept--rather than focusing on the bad parts, if we focus on good parts, is there anything worth keeping? Just curious... I find it hard to believe all opponents of the act are so extreme in their position against it that an entire 100+ page law is considered unhelpful.

Because alot of it extends FISA, which covers a more broad area, perhaps. (I believe)
I agree that it should be altered so that it focuses more on terrorism defense.

But:


Some parts of the act simply expand things that have already been deemed consitutional by courts to terrorist cases. So there's two sides to the issue...

Why is the U.S. still holding a hundreds of people in a concentration camp in another country, without charging them of any crime, without allowing them representation and without bringing them to trial? And we've been holding many of them for YEARS. Without them being able to contact their families and friends.

Why does theAmerican Red Crosss still insist that torture and deprivation and horrible treatment is still going on there?

Yes..we need to give the government even more power over people...even those that are merely suspected of maybe knowing someone who might have once been a friend of a terrorist...